Attachment 4. Case study files

Attachment 4. Case study files ATTACHMENT 4. CASE STUDY FILES .................................................................................................................................46 AIESEC........................................................................................................................................................................................46 C-2103..........................................................................................................................................................................................50 CEJA ............................................................................................................................................................................................54 DEMYC .......................................................................................................................................................................................59 EFIL .............................................................................................................................................................................................63 ESN ..............................................................................................................................................................................................68 EXPERIMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................72 EYFA ...........................................................................................................................................................................................75 FICE .............................................................................................................................................................................................81 IACES ..........................................................................................................................................................................................84 IBO...............................................................................................................................................................................................89 IFM-SEI .......................................................................................................................................................................................93 JEF................................................................................................................................................................................................97 MILSET .................................................................................................................................................................................... 104 MUSICALES............................................................................................................................................................................ 108 SCI............................................................................................................................................................................................. 112 SYNDESMOS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 117 UNITED.................................................................................................................................................................................... 121 WAGGGS................................................................................................................................................................................. 126

AIESEC Observer: Bart van Melik 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2.

Organisation's name

3. 4.

Membership European Youth Forum Membership data (number of countries whit member organisations, number of EU-youngsters represented)

5. 6.

Organisation type as coded from the application form(s) Aims of the organisation as coded from the application form(s)

7.

Professional personnel

8.

Number of volunteers

9.

How high is the involvement of young people among your professional staff and your volunteers? Publications and publicity as coded from the application form(s)

10.

11. 12. 13.

1999 1999-75 2000 2000-85 AIESEC Stichting Association Int. des Etudiants en Sciences Economiques et Commerciales N 1999 2000 Total 37 36 EU-countries 14 14 Third countries 23 22 EU-Youth 8090 8450 STUDENTS Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 1 2000

Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity

In how far could your organisation realise its publications and publicity plans for 1999? In how far could your organisation realise its publications and publicity plans for 2000? Planned activities as coded from the application form(s)

16.

In how far could your organisation realise its plan of activities for 1999? In how far could your organisation realise its plan of activities for 2000? Applications for other European funds

17.

Allocation of other European funds

18. 19.

A-3029 grants for your organisation since Past EU grants for international youth NGOs

15.

20.

A-3029 allocation

1999 2000 1999 2000

1999 YES

YES

N

1992 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€3.000,00 €5.000,00 €7.000,00 €12.000,00 €20.000,00 €20.000,00 €19.000,00 €20.000,00 €20.000,00 €25.000,00

YES YES YES YES YES

YES 13

16

YES YES YES YES YES YES

Conference(s), board meeting(s) Seminar(s), workshop(s) Exhibition(s), festival(s), camp(s) Youth exchange(s) Other activities 14.

YES

3% 3%

2000

YES YES

1. Reaction of stakeholders to the questionnaire

Table 3 Website

Yes, I visit it regularly Yes, but I visit it occasionally Total

AIESEC

All

If ...... has a web-site: did you visit it since 1999? I don't know their web-site

16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

1 7,7 11 84,6 1 7,7 13

Rather important Not (so) important Total

AIESEC

All 196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

9 69,2 4 30,7 0 0,0 12

Rather familiar Not (so) familiar Total

AIESEC

Very familiar

All

Are you familiar with the activities and meetings of ......

206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

13 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 12

Youth exchange Other activities, such as 'a project', a demonstration Total

All

6.

AIESEC

Table 6 Participation in activities and meetings Since 1999 which activities and meetings have you participated in? Conferences, official meetings Seminars, workshops, training Coming together: festivals, camps, expositions

All

AIESEC

AIESEC

All

9.

187 70,8 123 46,6

11 84,6 1 8,3

45 17,0

1 7,7

5 1,9

1 8,3

31 11,7

2 15,4

264

13

All

AIESEC

3,9

4,2

4,3

3,8

2,2

Are you directly or indirectly involved in the making of EU youth policies?

Indirectly Not Total

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

AIESEC

4,2

13.

14.

Which country are you from?

EU-country Candidate country Other European countries (West and East)

0 0,0 5 38,5 8 61,5 13

204 77,5 29 11,0

7 53,8 1 7,7

18 6,8

1 7,7

12 4,6 263

4 30,7 13

Are you directly or indirectly involved in the making of national youth policies?

Directly Indirectly Not Total

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

1 7,7 2 15,4 10 76,9 13

Table 15 Involvement in local or regional youth policies

Table 10 Sector

10.

Which sector do you work or participate in?

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

Academic, student NGO, volunteer Information services, ICT

Table 5 Activities 5.

3,7

All

Very important

3,8

Table 14 Involvement in national youth policies

Total Do you feel that the publications are

Table 13 Involvement in European youth policies

Directly

Non-European country

Table 4 Importance of the publications

4.

3,8

Table 9 Country

3.

27,6 13

4,4

What is your age? Average Total

AIESEC

8 61,5 2 15,4 7 53,8 0 0,0 10 76.9 2 15,4 13

32,0 256

12.

All

AIESEC

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

Rating for the following European or EU objectives of Creating European awareness among young people Value for money, efficiency, efficacy Reaching large numbers of young people in Europe Reaching special target groups among young people in Europe Political dialogue, debate and opinion making

Education, training Youth work Culture Health, welfare Agriculture and food Government, public sector Political function International relations, affairs Professional, staff, consultant Commercial, financial sector Environment Technician, industry Total

47

15.

2 5 2

Are you directly or indirectly involved in the making of local or regional youth policies?


72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

AIESEC

Book, reports, publications Leaflets, posters, other media Total

Table 12 Age

2 15,4 1 7,7 10 76,9 13

Table 16 Involvement in youth work or practice

16.

Are you directly or indirectly involved in youth work or practice?

Directly Indirectly 2

Not Total

11

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

AIESEC

Internal media

Total

11 84,6 2 15,4 13

All

Magazines

Female

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

All

Newsletters and bulletins

Are you

Male

All

Electronic media

Total

8.

All

Which information media or publications have you seen since 1999

Not (so) important

11.

Table 8 Average ratings

Table 2 Media 2.

Rather important

12 92,3 1 7,7 0 0,0 12

AIESEC

Total

235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251

Very important

Table 11 Gender

AIESEC

Not (so) familiar

13 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 12

Do you feel that these activities and meetings were

AIESEC

Rather familiar

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258

7.

All

Very familiar

Table 7 Importance of the activities and meetings

All

Are you familiar with the information services and publications of ......

All

1.

AIESEC

Table 1 Information services and publications

8 66,7 4 33,3 0 0,0 12

3. Open answers of stakeholders Please visit www.aiesec.org/aeit. Has a great value for our global society. The EU co-operates with AIESEC a strong synergy will be created. The awareness creation of a united Europe will get a new dimension. AIESEC int. brings together members from 85 countries include Eastern Europe through conf. Pers. Development training, its website. The most valuable interactions are through cross-border traineeships, which we carefully planned. And through interactive seminars, conference, where our mission, values we explore in an interactive and inspiring way. EU sub. Is necessary support for infrastructure. Quality of students is high, long-term benefit cont. network good will across nations. AIESEC within EU region is moving people within the region pretty nicely but AIESEC should promote more global co-operation among young people. AIESEC is focusing its own core activity (internships) which could be done with higher volume. The mission, vision and values of AIESEC are still very relevant for the society. They should be given more to org. like ours, who have vision, values and mission that is very much in line with the EU and progressive, positive thinking societies. Future young leaders are coming from this org. by being part of many activities and opportunities to young people to be involved and build skills and attitudes. We should be considered as the voice of action and consensus in Europe and most of the world. Partnerships though need to be more long term. Through EU support we are able to fulfil our mission instead on concentration on funding. We are the world’s largest student org. with a great potential to produce an impact Youth org. act. As catalysts to many global dialogues (within their capacity) they also operate on a lean budget with restricted manpower, as most is voluntary EU procedures should be less bureaucratic and have quicker cycles to ensure faster delivery. Think @ should work more with EU institutions Suggest that EU sub. Should have clear focus, be large-scale projects oriented and funds should be allocated to those areas that otherwise hard or impossible to find money. For instance development of IT systems for large NGO’s, server support, branding projects etc. But definitely EU subs. Helps AIESEC and other Europe. NGO’s tremendously and development of this org. during lasts 4 yrs. Shows this clearly. One of the most challenging parts of running a European wide (and worldwide) NGO is ensuring that all members (countries and individuals) have access to the same info opportunities. Practically these mean IT/s platform services. I would like the EU to consider how the nature of building NGO capacity/impact has changed since the arrival of the Internet in 1995. EU should support more IT/’s ventures, working on things like free software licenses etc. Present in all EU countries, in the main Economical/Business Universities. Structures often its activities around meetings EU related issues, e.g. seminars run in EU countries for trainees about the nature and future of EU. AIESEC benefits & promotes the Leonardo program of the EU. In some universities it holds common offices & activities with the Erasmus/Socrates Program. I believe EU is facing lack of credibility next to the General Audience so one has to fight this is to encourage student exchange among EU countries, or even between current EU countries & candidate countries, so that internal networks are encouraged from an early stage. EU to complement the exchanges should support specific educational and highly interactive activities. Euro awareness, as well as awareness of other world regions is integral to AIESEC. Debate, dialogue focuses on our activities, but political reality in world regions is considered. Is addressing topics on future relevant topics as well as providing young people a huge learning experience, through their global exchange programs. Especially in the EU and the eastern part of Europe we have a big influence in developing leaders by facing young students with different realities in different countries. To improve the work there could be more collaboration between the EU and us- together they culd reach more young people, addressing the actual and future challenges of the EU.

48

4. Report of our observer 1) Who is AIESEC? AIESEC is an international, non-political, non-profit, student-run, independent, educational foundation. AIESEC 's core activity is organising international internships for students of institutions of higher education. The pursued goals of AIESEC are not only centred on development of students in working abroad, but also focus on the development of 'good practices' in local communities where the internships take place. The latter goal is fulfilled by organising activities on a local level, whereby the local student community is involved. AIESEC is founded in 1948 and is the biggest international student organisation. AIESEC is active in 83 countries and is present in 9 Dutch cities. 2) Meaning of the A-3029 for AIESEC AIESEC is a enormous organisation with its European headquarters located in Rotterdam. Unlike most NGO's AIESEC receives corporate funding. AIESEC receives an approximate total of 1 million euro in grants per year. The last allocated A-3029 grant compromised of 20000 euro. Although the A-3029 seems a small amount considering the total amount of subsidies, Mr. Vorobey underlines the importance of the A-3029: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

The general nature of the A-3029; not focused on funding specific activities. A-3029 provides financial security and financial independence. A-3029 is used for co-ordination and organisation of European activities. Without A-3029 one full-time staffmember has to go. A shift from an administration based grant to an activity based grant is highly undesirable. It would mean lots of extra paperwork, time and headache. This shift would also mean that local AIESEC organisations have to compete for overhead. The possibility to decide on the kind of activity to be organised vanishes.

3) Eligibility of AIESEC for the A-3029 ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Through organising many conferences -mainly on a local scale- AIESEC emphasises the importance of European awareness among young people. Most conferences are not only attended by AIESEC trainees, but also students from local educational institutions are well represented. AIESEC embodies the concept of 'students work with students and for students'. This way the special target group of students is involved in all activities. After a strict selection by the obligatory review board students are allowed to participate in a certain internship. Most interns pay only for travel costs. Students working for AIESEC receive minimum wages. AIESEC avoids political statements and discussions. However, AIESEC holds a strong opinion on issues like sustainable development of communities and 'good practices'. AIESEC carries out its opinion through conferences, meetings and chatrooms on www.aiesec.net. Compared with ESN (another student exchange organisation), AIESEC underlines the idea of cultural, personal and professional development, whereas ESN focuses mainly on theoretical learning. AIESEC incorporates new European developments in their program, e.g. after the war in former Yugoslavia AIESEC resumed its activities with local schools, companies and organisations. Five out of twelve stakeholders have rated moderate on 'reaching large numbers of young people in EU'. According to Mr. Vorobey this rather low rating comes from a confusing difference between active members of AIESEC and users of AIESEC. Users of AIESEC are the interns and their number is huge. Active members are young people who work for AIESEC and their number is much smaller. Those are the ones the stakeholders refer to in the questionnaire according to Mr. Vorobey.

4) Evaluation of application procedure for the A-3029. AIESEC personnel usually receive a contract for one year. Mr. Vorobey could only reflect on his experience during this relative short working period. Fortunately Mr. Vorobeys term is almost ending, so that he had some experience in dealing with the European Commission. ¾ ¾ ¾

Communication with EC is unilateral. The EC never takes the initiative to respond on applications and other sent documents, e.g. EC hasn't contacted AIESEC after they received the application forms from AIESEC 3 months ago. The EC doesn't take into account the difference of calendar year. AIESEC has a calendar year from summer to summer. The A-3029 grant has to be spent in the same year as it is allocated. EC is not flexible in their deadlines. Last year AIESEC did not receive the A-3029 grant because of submitting the application two days late.

5) Suggested ideas for improvement. ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Activities can only be subsidised once. AIESEC is always looking for new information systems and applications, but AIESEC cannot get a second funding from the EC. For that reason Mr. Vorobey proposes a grant system whereby activities benefiting the whole organisation are granted every year. A one-year grant is too short. A four-year grant would save a lot of time and paperwork. New guidelines concerning the A3029 should be reported to AIESEC earlier. The EC should be more flexible and take into consideration that every organisation is different. The EC should communicate more often about the state of affairs of the application.

49

C-2103 2. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.

Organisation's name Membership European Youth Forum Membership data (number of countries whit member organisations, number of EU-youngsters represented)

5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

14.


16.


17.


18. 19.


15.

20.

A-3029 allocation

1999 1999-109 2000 2000-112 C2103 Contact-2103 N 1999 2000 Total 12 12 EU-countries 9 9 Third countries 3 3 EU-Youth YOUTHEXCHANGE Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 110 2000 210 Half of them are young people Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity Fully or almost fully


1

1

YES

Fully or almost fully

Conference(s), board meeting(s) Seminar(s), workshop(s) Exhibition(s), festival(s), camp(s) Youth exchange(s) Other activities More than planned More than planned 1999 2000 1999 2000

YES YES YES n

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€10.000,00 €10.000,00 €10.000,00 €14.000,00

1998

50

16% 32%

1999 YES YES

2000 YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

2. Open answers of the key organiser La subvention A3029 allouée n’a pas une attribution spécifique, elle entre dans un budget global. Cette subvention, que nous espérions supérieure a été indispensable à l’existence de l’organisation Contact 2103, et ce à différents niveaux. Financièrement, l‘OINGJ C2103 a démarré l’année 1999 sans aucun fonds propres, sans aucune reconnaissance autre que celle de la ligne budgétaire A3029. Financièrement, la seule source « à peu près » garantie était cette ligne budgétaire, sans laquelle, nous n’aurions pas pu envisager de faire exister C2103- Cette subvention a permis de renforcer le soutien des organisations membres au développement de « C2103 » . Une reconnaissance, même minime par le département jeunesse de la Commission Européenne est un argument important au niveau interne et local pour les organisations membres ou pour celles qui sont intéressées à coopérer avec notre réseau. Cette subvention est aussi un gage de crédibilité vers des partenaires extérieurs (dans des projets locaux, communication, contact avec l’administration ou avec des élus nationaux, européens ou locaux, etc.) Nous en faisons état dans toute négociation (nous bénéficions en outre d’une petite subvention au niveau belge qui a été notamment facilitée par la reconnaissance A-3029 de la DG22). Nous souhaitons développer ci-après quelques éléments qui nous sembleraient intéressants d’améliorer dans le système d’attribution d’une subvention de type A3029 : 1. Quant à la reconnaissance de l’ensemble des activités développées par une OING et de leurs effets en cascade sur la bonne utilisation du programme jeunesse entre autres. 2. Quant à la périodicité du système, d’annuel, pourvoir passer à pluriannuel (3 ans par exemple), 3. Quant à la communication avec la Commission Européenne. Quant à la reconnaissance de l’ensemble des activités développées par une OING et de leur effet en cascade sur la bonne utilisation du programme jeunesse entre autres. La ligne budgétaire A-3029 se base aujourd’hui sur une série de critères quantifiables objectivement (nombre de partenaires, nombre d’activités, nombre et type de participants, etc.) Pour notre organisation, l’ensemble des activités (critères objectifs quantifiables) sont le résultat et non le but de notre projet associatif Au-delà des critères quantifiables, il existe une foule d’autres activités qui sont indispensables pour atteindre les objectifs de notre association. Ces actions nécessitent un temps de travail important, une vigilance au quot idien qui n’est absolument pas considérée par la ligne budgétaire A-3029. Quelques exemples : Représenter le réseau, communiquer, expliquer les difficultés rencontrées à différents niveaux: (faire comprendre les objectifs, les enjeux, faire partager des expériences, mettre en avant des difficultés, aider nos partenaires à mieux fonctionner avec une dimension européenne etc.) oAu niveau européen : dialogue à entretenir (participation à des séminaires, entretiens, etc.) avec des membres du Parlement européen, du Conseil de l’Europe, du Comité Economique et Social, des élus nationaux, d’autres réseaux internationaux, de nouveaux partenaires potentiels pour C2103 etc. oAu niveau national : dialogue avec différents acteurs en coopération avec nos organisations membres (agences nationales du programme jeunesse entretiens, participation à des séminaires, intervention dans des modules de formation ), avec des élus ou décideurs nationaux ou locaux, avec des acteurs de terrains o Intervention dans des journées de formation information sur des thèmes liées au travail jeunesse en Europe : ces interventions se font aussi en coopération des représentants d’Agence Nationales. Faciliter des réunions, des visites d’études à Bruxelles (ciblée comme lieu des Institutions Européennes) pour nos membres et un certain nombre d’autres acteurs jeunesse : information, sensibilisation aux questions européennes, coordination de visites avec entretien avec des intervenants sélectionnés selon des enjeux spécifiques (Parlement européen, forum européen de la jeunesse, autres réseaux associatifs européens basés à Bruxelles. Illustration par des activités précises que nous menons régulièrement : Nous avons accueilli à Bruxelles une délégation mixte (jeunes, bénévoles, professionnels) d’une petite structure de quartier à Narbonne : mise en débat avec des acteurs associatifs bruxellois, accueil au BIJ (agence nationale cfb.), organisation d’un rendez-vous avec un Député Européen - L’étape suivante a pour nous été d’aller à Narbonne, et de les aider à exploiter les acquis de la visite par la mise en place d’actions concrètes (échange de jeunes, sve) Ce type d’activité représente un temps de travail important, les conséquences pratiques ne seront jamais quantifiées au bénéfice de C2103. Pourtant cette petite Maison des Potes reconnaît que ce développement n’aurait pas eu lieu sans notre intervention. Nous avons aidé l’OINGJ ICYE à organiser une réunion évaluation en réunissant 8 jeunes volontaires revenant d’un SVE ne Amérique Latine ( ils ont été hébergés dans nos locaux etc.) Nous coordonnons chaque année un accueil personnalisé à Bruxelles pour une formation d’animateur de jeunesse allemand, étudiants d’un cycle « spécial Europe » La liste d’exemples de ce type pourrait être prolongée. La mise en relation de partenaires ciblés de la manière la plus efficace et précise possible, en fonction de critères précis. L’effet en cascade des activités menées, initiée par ou avec C2103 n’est lui non plus pas considéré par les questions de la demande subvention A3029. Les organisations membres de C2103 ont de par leur activité en réseau modifier leurs fonctionnements au niveau national depuis quelques années : Emergence d’une structuration interne par rapport aux questions européennes : commissions internationales, désignation de chargé de projets spécifique, implication ou plus grande implication au niveau des agences nationales (participation aux comités de sélections nationaux ) etc. Les activités initiées par C2103 ont amené plus d’un participant à être un nouvel acteur ou utilisateur du programme jeunesse . Illustration pour exemple de quelques effets en cascade d’un projet nommé« Média-Contact », service volontaire européen centralisé : Le partenaire grec du projet est aujourd’hui une structure d’envoi et d’accueil permanente pour 5 volontaires, il a développé plusieurs échanges JPE, aidé des jeunes à monter une initiative jeunes et est un interlocuteur privilégié de son agence nationale : avant de participer au projet «Média-Contact » que nous avons initié, il n’avait eu aucune activité internationale Même situation au départ pour la Fédération de l’Aube (F), à l’issue du projet « Média-Contact », ils sont devenus structure d’accueil et d’envoi, une permanente est devenue relais de l’Agence Nationale etc. Un jeune bénévole d’Orléans, volontaire au sein du projet « Média-Contact », développe aujourd’hui un capital-avenir entre la Finlande et l’Estonie. pour ces différents acteurs et dans leurs différentes démarches pratiques touchant aux matières européennes de jeunesse, nous restons une structure de conseil, nous entretenons un dialogue visant à les orienter, les rassurer dans certains cas, et nous participons activement avec eux à l’élaboration de stratégie interne visant à améliorer l’effet de réseau. Quant à la périodicité du système (annuel), et aux montants attribués Le choix de nos organisations membres d’investir dans une structure de coordination européenne basée à Bruxelles s’inscrit dans une perspective à long terme. Les objectifs posés s’expriment à la fois sur des valeurs et sur des étapes d’évolution des actions collectives et locales et de renforcement du réseau européen. Nous souhaiterions pouvoir inscrire le soutien de notre réseau (A-3029 ou autre aide structurelle) dans le long terme : une convention de 3 ou 4 ans, avec des bilans étapes nous semblerait plus judicieuse. Il s’agirait d’inscrire dans cette convention les grands axes de maintien, de renforcement voire de développement du réseau, liés aux objectifs et aux valeurs communes des partenaires. Il s’agirait d’indiquer autant les retombées que les stratégies mise en place pour le travail en coopération transnationale que les indispensables négociations et développement locaux, Régionaux ou nationaux, inévitablement complémentaires des ces stratégies. Nous pensons que ce système de soutien structurel devrait ouvrir la porte à des conventions aux montants plus élevés que maintenant, incluant outre des frais structurels et de mobilités, une reconnaissance du travail indispensable d’un cadre de plusieurs permanents. Un réseau comme le nôtre a toute sa pertinence en sensibilisant et aidant de plus en plus d’usagers du programme jeunesse, en les conseillant ou les faisant réfléchir à comment mieux cibler des objectifs peu atteints du programme jeunesse (publics désavantagés entre autre), sans nécessairement initier de manière centralisée des actions de jeunes (sve, échange de jeunes). Quant à la communication avec la Commission Européenne. La communication avec la Commission Européenne (= demande de subvention, contrat, rapport final) se situe aujourd’hui essentiellement dans une approche quantitative et financière. Nous souhaiterions une approche qualitative : un système de conventionnement sur plusieurs année nous permettrait probablement d’avoir un nouveau dialogue avec des représentants de la Commission, leur permettant de venir nous rencontrer, de comprendre les situations auxquelles nous faisons face et comment nous essayons d’y répondre. Ce dialogue permettrait aussi d’harmoniser les objectifs de notre réseau avec ceux du Dpt Jeunesse de la DGEAC, en inscrivant ensuite des actions à plus long terme pour les atteindre.

51



C-2103 11 57,9 4 21,0 6 31,6 2 10,5 6 31,6 4 21,0 19

Table 19 Web-site

4,4

4,7

3,8

2,9

4,2

4,2

3,8

4,2

Indirectly Not

Yes, but I visit it occasionally Total


Total


EU-country Candidate country Other European countries (West and East) Non-European country

Very important Rather important Not (so) important Total

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

5 29,4 9 52,9 3 17,6 17

Very familiar Rather familiar Not (so) familiar Total

206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

C2103


14 73,7 5 26,3 0 0,0 19

Table 22 Participation in activities and meetings


C2103

Since 1999 which activities and meetings have you participated in? Conferences, official meetings Seminars, workshops, training Coming together: festivals, camps, expositions

All

6.

187 70,8 123 46,6

15 80,0 9 47,4

45 17,0

1 5,3

5 1,9

1 5,3

31 11,7

6 31,6

264

19

18 6,8

0 0,0

12 4,6 263

0 0,0 19

10.


35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

Academic, student NGO, volunteer

Youth work Culture Health, welfare Agriculture and food Government, public sector Political function International relations, affairs Professional, staff, consultant Commercial, financial sector Environment Technician, industry Total

52

Are you directly or indirectly involved in national youth policies-


34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

C2103 C2103 5 26,3 8 41,1 6 31,6 19

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

6 31,6 6 31,6 6 31,5 19

Table 31 Involvement in local or regional youth policies 15.

Education, training All

5.

17 89,5 2 10,5

Table 26 Sector

Information services, ICT

Table 21 Activities

204 77,5 29 11,0

All

Do you feel that the publications are

C2103

4.

All

Total

C2103

9.

All

All

C2103 0 0,0 6 33,3 12 66,7 18

C2103

Yes, I visit it regularly

16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

46,4 19


Table 25 Country

3.


Directly 3,8

32,0 256

Table 29 Involvement in European youth policies 13.

4,2

All


14. If ...... has a web-site: did you visit it since 1999? I don't know their web-site

All

C2103

All


C2103

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

8.

C2103

Internal media

Table 28 Age


Directly Indirectly

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

C-2103

Magazines

Total

13 68,4 6 31,6 19

12 63,2 4 21,0 3 15,8 19

1

Not

1

Total

7


8

16.

1



18

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

C2103


Total

Female

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

All

Electronic media

Not (so) important

Are you

Male

12.

All


Rather important

11.


Table 18 Media 2.

Very important

15 79,0 4 21,0 0 0,0 19

All

Total

235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251

All

Not (so) familiar


Table 27 Gender

All

Rather familiar

12 63,2 7 36,8 0 0,0 19

7.

C2103

Very familiar

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


C-2103

1.

All


16 84,1 2 10,5 1 5,3 19

4. Open answers of stakeholders Contact 2103 nous a apporte une aide précieuse au démarrage de nos activités « jeunesse pour l’Europe” par la mise en contact et en réseau avec d’autres org. de jeunesse. Dans son développement contact 2103 ne devra pas oublier de petites org. comme la notre. Soutien de l’EU indispensable pour org. de jeunesse les collectives locales étant peu ou pas investies dans ce secteur des échanges interculturels. C 2103 est un réseau. Pour pouvoir tenir et promouvoir l’idée européenne delors: (l’Europe doit avoir une aide) Il prendrait que ces moyens de base (A3029) fonctionnement soient plus importante. Pour couvrir le solaire d’un permanent et tous ces frais de la gestion, des déplacements et la stimulations des différents pays, cela nécessite un effort financier et un engagement personnel que ces partenaires seuls ne peuvent pas assurer surtout s’ils s’apparaissent aussi aux pays de l’Est (Hongrie, Roumanie, Bulgarie Pour nous 2103 a une grande importance pour notre travail européenne. Nous avons la possibilité de rencontre des collègues internationaux, faire voyages nos élèves et élèves l’idée de l’Europe. Il est indispensable d’avoir une coordination Européenne pour multiples raisons. connaître des partenaires fiables avec lesquels on est sur d’avoir des échanges fructus et continus; vouloir être ouvert a de nouvelles adhésions, donc étendre le partenariat; partager les mêmes valeurs (tolérance, ouverture aux autres..);informations sur les dispositifs nouveaux, aide au montage des dossiers, suivi et offre des dossiers, des profits; échanges des pratiques pédagogiques, échanges des expériences entre animateurs, formateurs travaillant sur le secteur de la jeunesse; échanges entre les administrateurs bénévoles des associations, et bien sur échanger entre jeunes.Il est primordial d’avoir confiance dans les partenaires lorsqu’on envoie des groupes de jeunes et encore plus lorsqu’il s’agit d’un service Volontaire Européen- Pour cela, notre coordination C 2103 est indispensable et incontournable, car elle remplit ces rôles pleinement. Il est dommage que la subvention de l’u ne puisse pas arriver a financer une équipe minimum( 3 pers) et un fonctionnement normal(locaux et déplacements),même si les partenaires doivent assurer un certain financement. Je suis d’accord que l’EU ne finance pas immédiatement tante coordination, avant qu’elle ait fait ses preuves. Mais maintenant, 2103 devrait être considère comme un réel partenaire de l’EU et reconnue -donc financée - comme telle-. “Youth work in Contact” a specific project web-site set up in 2000 to support a network of youth workers in selected EU Member States and Candidate countries. The aim was to share information and good practices across all the network members with the objective to launch new projects specially targeted at young people on a local level and regional level. Several projects took place as a result of this co-operation. The project was managed through a joint co-operation of Contact 2103 and Eurodesk. I also received the newsletter of Contact 2103 in hard copy See above: Youth work in Contact”. The project was managed through a joint co-operation of Contact 2103 and Eurodesk. This project was a one-year project launched in December 1999 and finalised in November 2000. This was a very important project with several aims: •

To create awareness about the network Contact 2103

•

To add a European dimension to local youth workers daily activities

•

To disseminate information on European funding activities for young people

•

To create and establish networks between the local youth workers across the EU.

Nous sommes interpelles régulièrement pour des partenariats avec l’Europe, les dispositifs nous intéressent pédagogiquement par développer nos activités. La rôle de 2103 est essentiel au niveau de l’information, de la formation et de soutien. Une subvention plus importante. Tres certainement un soutien individuel et donc développement de nos projets européens. Nous travaillons essentiellement sur le SVE. Sans ressaut, cette mesure serait sans effet. La plupart des projets d’envoi ou d’accueil ont pu se réaliser grâce aux contacts de qualité établis dans les séminaires de contact. Pour nous a une grande importance pour notre travail européenne. Nous avons la possibilité de rencontre des colle ques internationaux, faire voyages nos élèves et l’idée de l’Europe Very import to support build up the network and co-operation at first La subvention annuelle par l’UE a eu un effet fondamental en de crédibilité vis à vis de l’ensemble des partenaires et a beaucoup facilite la org. de l’ONGE. Mais sa périodicité (annuelle) n’est pas adaptée au fusionnement de l’association qui mêmes de projets sur plusieurs ânes, de même que ses cri tees d’évaluation qui sont trop systématiquement des évaluations chiffres et pas assez qualitatives. Un financement plus annuel serait plus adapte. La ligne budgétaire est vital pour notre org., car elle est une des rares rentrées structurelles permettant son fonctionnement. Elle set cependant trop limitée. tres difficile de poser des objectifs a long terme avec l’aide européennes. Tout le monde répète que la dimension euro. Et les réseaux sont tres importants mais la commission les soutient tres peu. Des risques et engagements financiers importants doivent être peu pour les org. membres. Ils est tres difficile de mettre en place des activités et de maintenir la confiance avec les partenaires ou participants car les délais d’annonce des financements sont trop tard après l’événement. Exemple: Séminaire sur emploi des jeunes que nous avons organise a Prades en Novembre 2000, nous n’avons reçu l’accord de subvention qu’en janvier 2001. To carry out all the work we are doing it is essential to have funds from EU, to achieve transitional partnership and the European spirit. notre org. a place l’éducation a citoyenneté et plus achèvement a la citoyenneté européenne au cour de ses objectifs et de ses pratiques. cela par l’existence d’une structure de coordination qui permette d’opérationnelle facilement les actions, rôle essentiel pour nous, que remplit Contact 2103: accès a l’information sur les dispositifs, contacts concrets, aide au montage de dossiers,.. tout cela dans notre champ spécifique. Les subv. UE sont tres importante par notre org. I have been impressed with what I have seen and am confident that I could use the existing structure. La plus part ddes projets que C-2103 déroule (projets dont l’objectifs sont ceux de l’UE …. de la subvention de l’UE; Nous prenons en charge presque la totalité des frais des projets ( en ce qui concerne la participation des représentants de mon pays, C 2103 a toujours rembourse les frais).

53

CEJA Observer: Eva Garcia Balaguer 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.


15. 16.


1999-108

2000

2000-111

CEJA Conseil Europeen des Jeunes Agriculteurs YES 1999 2000 Total 16 19 EU-countries 15 15 Third countries 1 4 EU-Youth 1365000 1365000 INTEREST GROUP Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services

YES YES YES YES

International standardisation, norms and values

YES

Youth exchange

YES

Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 2000


In how far could your organisation realise its publications and publicity plans for 1999?2 In how far could your organisation realise its plan of activities for 2000? Applications for other European funds

14.

1999

1999

YES YES YES YES

YES

2000

YES

1999

YES

2000

17.

A-3029 allocation

1997 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

€4.000,00 €8.000,00 €9.000,00

1999

€9.000,00

4%

2000

€18.500,00

6%

54

YES YES 4 1 3 1



152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

CEJA 18 64,3 5 17,9 0 0,0 5 17,9 11 39,3 10 35,7 27


4,4

4,2

3,8

3,6

4,2

4,2

3,8

4,5




9.



28 100,0 0 0,0

18 6,8

0 0,0

12 4,6 263

0 0,0 15

Table 42 Sector


Not (so) important Total

15 57,7 11 42,3 0 0,0 28

15.


CEJA

All 206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

20 76,9 6 23,1 0 0,0 26

Other activities, such as 'a project', a demonstration Total

CEJA

All

6.

Youth exchange

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248


Education, training

Table 38 Participation in activities and meetings Since 1999 which activities and meetings have you participated in? Conferences, official meetings Seminars, workshops, training Coming together: festivals, camps, expositions



Table 37 Activities


10.

187 70,8 123 46,6

20 71,4 16 57,1

45 17,0

1 3,6

5 1,9

0 0,0

31 11,7

3 10,7

264

27

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

CEJA CEJA 6 22,2 15 55,7 6 22,2 27


55


Directly 1

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

11 45,8 8 33,3 5 20,8 24


CEJA

Rather important

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254


Directly

-

Very important

5.

204 77,5 29 11,0

All

4.

CEJA

All

Total

CEJA

CEJA

All

0 0,0 11 40,7 16 59,3 27

All

14.

16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

31,6 27


Table 41 Country

3.


Directly 4,3

32,0 256

Table 45 Involvement in European youth policies 13.

4,2

All


CEJA

CEJA

All

12.

Table 35 Web-site

If ...... has a web-site: did you visit it since 1999? I don't know their web-site

All

Table 44 Age

CEJA

Internal media

Total

23 82,1 5 17,7 28


72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

CEJA

Magazines

Female

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

11 50,0 8 36,4 3 13,6 22

Table 48 Involvement in youth work or practice 2

21

16.


Directly Indirectly

1

Not Total

1 1

27

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

CEJA


Total

Are you

Male

All

Electronic media

Not (so) important

8.

All


Rather important

11.


Table 34 Media 2.

Very important

23 88,5 3 11,5 0 0,0 26

All

Total

235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251

All

Not (so) familiar


Table 43 Gender

All

Rather familiar

21 77,8 6 22,2 0 0,0 27

7.

CEJA

Very familiar

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


CEJA

1.

All


15 71,4 3 14,3 3 14,3 21

3. Open answers of stakeholders Main problem is that there is not enough money for making seminars and for the exchange of experiences among the internat. Youth org. It’s important to permit people of different countries to meet. EU subsidies are very important for all Youth. Org Il faudrait les procédures administrations moins longues pour obtenir des finances. Les délais pour obtenir l’avis de la comm. devait être ?Le CEJA est une org. qui devoir être soutenue par l’UE. Il joue une rôle important dans la représentation des jeunes au niveau eu. With out co-financing from the EU it would be impossible to attend CEJA meetings, or my young farmer’s org. to participate in EUR. Act. This includes the development of new ideas at EU level, which can help new entrants to enter the agricultural sector. EU. sub. must be forthcoming to enable CEJA to provide the best service possible to help develop e good youth policies in member state countries We as youth org. are very dependent on the aid. Without we will not be able to meet and discuss our opinions on agricultural policy for young farmers. CEJA seminars are an important way of exchange ideas and thoughts between countries. Without sub.it would not be possible for me and the org. I represent to go on any of CEJA seminars. Less bureaucracy more flexible financing Seminars are very important in the activity schedule of CEJA and EU sub. Another element of importance is the construction and the survival of the CEJA website, as well as the survival and renew( in a few years) of the educational project. A political org. like CEJA enables to respond to the adequate technological standard, should be subsided in its administrative functions, the acquisition of new computer programs. El mantenimiento de la actiuidad del CEJA es imprescinndible para que los agricoltoress y ganaderoi jovenes tenan su propio espacio de debate y encuentro. Gracias a el, puenen analizar diferentes aspectos de su problematica particolar, de las politicas agricolas que imperan en cada momento, e intercambia pontos de vista y opinones que ayoden a resolver su futuro. Needs more co -financed measures organise different activities and seminars It could be important to have specific measures related to young farmers. The PEJA Programme does not work anymore and it was a proper tool to develop an exchange of ideas and experiences in EU countries. Young farmers should have more opportunities to visit Brussels in order to get in contact with European reality Administrative procedures very hard, but we need this support. It is essential if they want to continue to inform us about what is going on on EU-level, and if they want to give us the opportunity to meet with other colleagues to discuss Eur. youth issues.

56

4. Report of our observer Le Ceja est un groupe européen de représentants nationaux de jeunes agriculteurs. Il a été crée à Rome en 1958 et aujourd’hui compte avec 22 organisations des 15 Etats membres de l’UE et 6 membres associés : Chypre, Pologne, Hongrie, Tcèquie, Bulgarie et Slovénie. Chaque organisation nationale a ses propes ressources et aides nationales pour fonctionner et à son tour elles font partie dans ses propres pays des organismes généraux pour les Jeunes. Les principaux objectifs de l’organisation sont : informer les membres ; échanger les points de vue concernant la politique ; faciliter les contacts et créer des réseaux entre les jeunes agriculteurs dans les différents États membres de l’Union Européenne. Le CEJA veut devenir une organisation représentative des jeunes agriculteurs européens. Actuellement un million de jeunes agriculteurs environ y sont représentés et les organisations membres dans leurs pays sont des organisations majoritaires. Ils veulent, en créant une participation active de ses membres au cours de ces activités (séminaires fondamentalement), diriger, en tant que porte-parole unique des jeunes agriculteurs en Europe, les débats face aux institutions politiques européennes. Une organisation d’envergure européenne est nécessaire dans la mesure où la politique agricole européenne se décide au niveau de la Communauté. La participation de jeunes dans ce secteur se montre très importante, étant donné le caractère stratégique de ce secteur pour l’UE, la constatation d’une diminution progressive des actifs en Europe, un important niveaux de vieillissement de l’agriculture européenne, et les problèmes constatés pour l’incorporation des jeunes dans le secteur. 2. IMPRESSION SUR L’ATMOSPHÈRE DE LA REUNION, ÉTAYÉE PAR DES ÉLÉMENTS (citations lors d’entretiens, remarques importantes, etc). Les responsables de l’organisation du séminaire sont les techiciens du CEJA (2, plus la secrétaire génerale) et une répresentante de la COAG-JJ, organisation espagnole anphitrione du séminaire. La disposition physique des participants est adéquate pour favoriser le débat: la tribune au milieu, les representations nationales en face, à droite les pays PECOS, et à gauche les participants espagnols, comme on a déjà dit, les plus nombreux. Normalement les délégations des différents pays sont constituées par 2 membres. À remarquer la participation de la délégation française avec 4 personnes et la délégation italienne formée par 5 personnes de 3 organisations différentes. Le premier jour c’est déroulé dans la normalité. Tout a été comme prévu, sauf que l’intervention prévue de Mr. Fiori, membre du Parlement européen sur le futur du quota, ne s’est pas produite. Il a du annuler son assitance au dernier moment puisqu’il a été convoque par le Président de son pays. À sa place Mr. Miguel García, responsable du bureau de la COAG à Bruxelles, a presenté la situation des mécanismes de réglage des différents secteurs dans la PAC et ses délais pour prochaines modifications. Ce premier jour a été identifié comme un jour institutionnel, surtout dans sa première partie, et c’est à partir de midi qu’on a commencé à entrer en matière avec la présentation du Président du CEJA. Le Président, après les présentations, a insisté sur le besoin de participation des toutes les délégations pour présenter et discuter sur les possibles propositions. Le Sécretariat du CEJA avait préparé un questionnaire préparatoire avec l’idée que l’organisation de chaque pays aurait déjà preparé sa position de base. La participation était un peu difficile à cause des problèmes techniques de traduction. Il y avait 11 traducteurs, ce qui donne une idée de la complexité de ce type de reunion pour faire effective la participation et le débat. L’atmosphère était d’intêret mais un peu distante, et finalement on est arrivé au moment du repas sans avoir un idée claire des aportations même si on avait eu l’impréssion que les posistions des différents représentants des états membres était assez divergente et trop centrée dans des aspects sectoriels que le Président avait essayé de reconduire. La dernière présentation de l’après midi concernant la position du Parlement Européen sur le deuxième pilier (développement rural) a susticé un grand intérêt. Le débat sur le futur de la modulation et sa r´percussion sur le développement rural, l’inclusion obligatoire pour tous les états membres d’une mesure d’aide aux jeunes agriculteurs, les effets de l’application de la multifonctionnalité dans l’agriculture sans faire une séparation des deux modèles (une agriculture productive et une autre multifonctionnelle), et le besoin de faire une reflexion sur les effets de l’application de la PAC (premier pilier et deuxième) sur les jeunes agriculteurs sont des elements qui on suscité l’intervention et le débat entre les différentes délégations. La deuxième journée, le nombre de participants s’est réduit considérablement, particulièrement de la part des espagnols de la même région où c’est déroulé le séminaire (27% des participants espagnols, 14% du total). Il restaient seulement les représentants officiels de quelques Communautés Autonomes. La journée a commencé avec l’exposé de Mr. Eduardo Ramos, professeur expert en développement rural à l’Université de Córdoba. Il a fait un exposé très suggestif et dynamique de la situacion des jeunes dans le monde rural et des mesures appliquées, son contenu et ses objectifs, le rôle de l’agriculture et de la politique agricole dans l’Europe d’aujourd’hui. Cet exposé a resulté très stimulant et il y eu pas mal de questions des différentes délégations. Tout suite, toutes les délégations ont présenté à leur tour leurs positions et leurs préocupations sur «quel-est-il le modèle idéal d’agriculture pour les jeunes agriculteurs», et les gens ont commencé à participer de façon importante, positions qui, avec l’aide de l’expert, ont permis des précisions et des débats intéressants entre les délégations. Les repas se sont faits tous ensemble, ce qui a donné la possibilité de continuer les discussions et de faire des échanges d’expériences qui dans le débat se sont montrées d’intérêt. Après le repas de midi a commencé le travail intensif des délégations avec des proportions et des conclusions communes qui ont permis une position globale face aux différentes institutions européennes responsables. Il était prévu de faire ce travail à partir du travail en petit groupe mais le bon déroulement de la session du matin et les besoins de traduction ont fait changer d’avis aux responsables, qui ont préféré un débat en grand groupe pour garantir le consensus sur les propositions finales. 3. EXEMPLES LES PLUS SINGNIFICATIFS DE BONNES PRATIQUES La principale activité de cette organisation est l’organisation de ce type de séminaires de travail. Ce sont des plate-formes d’interrelation entre les représentants des jeunes de tous les pays qui font partie de l’UE. Cela est une des bonnes pratiques le plus remarquées pour tous les assistants au séminaire. Dans la dynamique de ce type d’activité, le CEJA a fait circuler dans le séminaire un livre de registre de tous les séminaires depuis octobre 1997. Dans ce livre on y trouve les dates des séminaires, les lieux et tous les participants et ses coordonnées. Dans ce registre on peut apprécier comme effectivement le nombre de séminaires depuis 1999 a diminué (1999=7, 2000=5, et 2001=3. Pour 2002 sont prévus 3), comme a été remarqué par les organisateurs et ses membres, à cause des changement dans les aides de l’UE pour son cofinancement. Le CEJA a aussi développé des activités avec l’objectif d’améliorer et approcher les jeunes de ce secteur à l’UE et ses institutions. Il y a des visites pour expliquer leur foncionnement et les objectif des différents organismes de l’UE. Dans cette idée de créer un fort réseau de coopération entre les jeunes agriculteurs il faut mentionner que le CEJA a incorporé à son organisation, en tant que membres qui peuvent assister et participer dans ses activités, les représentants des pays PECOs. C’est-à-dire, cette incorporation montre le haut niveau d’implication dans le processus d’élargissement de l’UE de cette organisation avec un esprit plus dynamique, en créant des liens plus stables avec les jeunes des PECOs et en établissant une façon de travail qui est encore le futur proche pour le reste d’organisations qui conforment l’UE. Cette collaboration permet aux jeunes agriculteurs d’avancer de façon plus rapide dans la nouvelle conformation de l’UE des 25 pays, au même temps que c’est aussi une activité d’apprentissage pour ces nouveaux pays d’entrer en contact avec des organisations similaires dans les pays européens et avec la dynamique des institutions européennes. La conséquence globale de ces activités est qu’ils se sentent plus proches de l’idée parfois difficile des apportations de l’UE, que les jeunes agriculteurs continuent à manifester leur intérêt pour un accroissement de leurs connaissances en agriculture et pour les discussions créatives sur le développement des politiques. Le CEJA est aussi la plate-forme pour lancer les organisations membres faire des contacts avec d’autres jeunes agriculteurs du monde, et mettre en commun les problèmes (Orlando, « déclaration qui reconnaît le rôle multifonctionnel de l’agriculture » et pays mediterranéens). L’objectif est créer des réseaux bilatéraux et multilatéraux entre les jeunes agriculteurs des pays de l’UE, limitrophes, et du monde. Ils font aussi certaines activités de difusion de l’activité (agriculture). Le Ceja fait une constatation: « les jeunes agriculteurs doivent apprendre à communiquer afin d’informer l’opinion publique du rôle important de l’agriculture pour la vie européenne sociale et culturelle. Ce n’est pas facile d’être agriculteur, mais il est aussi nécessaire de changer l’approche vers l’extérieur en apprenant à communiquer et informer de ce qu’ils font, et ainsi ils seront capables de créer un nouveau rôle pour l’agriculture dans la société de demain ». Pour cela le CEJA s’est engagé dans un projet très innovateur avec le développement du programme pédagogique « TELLUS ». C’est un programme qui va se développer pendant 5 ans et qui se base essentiellement sur la réalisation d’une mallette pédagogique destinée à sensibiliser les enfants des écoles primaires de l’UE sur l’agriculture. Le CEJA et les jeunes agriculteurs souhaitent ainsi contribuer à l’amélioration de l’image de l’agriculture. Les différents outils pédagogiques présentent aux élèves l’origine des produits qu’ils consomment, les différentes fonctions de l’agriculture, la diversité de l’agriculture européenne, les différentes méthodes de production. Plus que jamais, dans le context actuel, il est indipensable d’informer les consommateurs, citoyens européens, des réalités du monde agricole, en contribuant à une meilleure connaissance de l’agriculture. Les différents supports pédagogiques, brochures et site Internet, communs aux 15 Etats membres, seront disponibles dans les 11 langues officielles de l’UE. L’objectif du CEJA est d’atteindre 30% des écoles primaries européennes au cours de la première année de diffusion. Le développement de ce projet s’est fait avec différents partenaires publiques et privés : au niveau européen (Commission Européenne : DG agriculture et DG éducation et culture, CIBE, EFMA, ECPA, FEDESA, FEFAC, Europabio, EUFIC, ESA) et au niveau d’état membre (Ministères de l’agriculture de l’Allemagne, l’Autriche, la Wallonia, la Finlande, le Luxembourg, et les Ministères d’éducation de la Finlande et le Luxembourg). Finalement il faut noter comme bonne pratique le développement d’un programme d’échanges des jeunes agriculteurs (PEJA) qui éxistait depuis 1990 mais n’a pas pu être développé qui dans cette dernière année. L’objectif de ce programme est d’informer et de former des jeunes pour qu’ils se construisent une carrière dans l’agriculture. Il convie des jeunes à faire l’expérience de l’agriculture dans un autre pays européen en vivant au sein d’une famille et en travaillant dans une exploitation agricole (six moins maximum) et en visites d’études (dix jours maximum). À partir de 1999 dans ce cadre se développent aussi des rapports spécialisés avec des détails spécifiques à un secteur agricole, un échange sectoriel qui a son support dans le site Web du CEJA. L’interruption de la ligne budgétaire a eu pour résultat le bloccage du programme depuis l’année 2000, et la modification des règles a eu des conséquences sévères sur le programme, surtout sur les possibilités de stages individuels, étant donné que les alternatives pour continuer ces expériences sont des programmes nationaux limitant les possibilités du CEJA de présenter des demandes collectives. Il faut remarquer la tendance dans les aides UE à être gérées directement par les États membres, ce qui difficulte les possibilités de cofinancement et d’aide pour les organisations au niveau européen. 4. SUGGESTIONS LES PLUS SIGNIFICATIVES RÉLATIVES AUX POLITIQUES ÉFFICACES VERS LA JEUNESSE ET LES ORGANISMES DE JEUNESSE. Dans tous les discours se fait évidente la nécessité de prendre conscience du problème du vieillissement de l’agriculture européenne. Il faut aussi consciencier les institutions européennes de cette réalité et du besoin de faire des efforts vers les jeunes et les nouvelles incorporations, puisque le futur de l’agriculture européenne est en danger. Les derniers scandales en matière d’alimentation ont agravé la situation des jeunes agriculteurs. Ils sont les prermiers à quitter le secteur. Il s’avère même encore plus difficile d’encourager des nouveaux venus s’établir pendant et après la crise, et c’est ainsi que le nombre de nouvelles installations devrait décroire au cours des prochaines années. La démarche de ce type d’organisation permet de mieux approcher la dynamique et la connaissance des institutions de l’UE aux jeunes mais aussi à l’envers, de donner l’opportunité de mieux connaître les problèmes réels des jeunes aux institutions de l’UE. Le CEJA, d’après les experts qui ont intervenu dans le séminaire, est une organisation qui a su prendre un protagonisme important dans la vie politique de l’UE. C’est une organisation sérieuse qui travaille bien, encore plus si on prend en compte ses ressources. 1 C’est une organisation qui devient de plus en plus reconnue en tant qu’interlocuteur important pour les institutions politiques de l’UE . Ainsi l’année 2001 est finie avec un succès important pour le CEJA avec la présentation de la « Déclaration commune sur le futur des jeunes agriculteurs » devant le Parlement , le Comité des régions, le Comité économique et social, et le Conseil européen et la Commission européenne. Ainsi on peut conclure que le CEJA a participé de manière très active à la politque européenne et que les instutions plus hautes ont besoin aussi de son appui. Celui-ci est l’un des facteurs plus remarqués pour tous les membres du CEJA interwieués lors du séminaire à Valladolid. 5. SUGGESTIONS LES PLUS SIGNIFICATIVES RÉLATIVES À L’AMÉLIORATION DES SUBVENTIONS POUR LES ORGANISMES EUROPÉENS DE LA JEUNESSE. Le CEJA vient de passer deux années particulièrement difficiles au niveau budgetaire dû au bloccaque ou modification des lignes de la Commission sous lesquelles sont cofinancées la majeur partie de ses activités. Ces modifications ont impliqué d’un côté la suspension des séminaires programmés de février à novembre 2000, et de l’autre la réduction du niveau de co-financement. Ils ont nécessité aussi d’une diminution de la structure des coûts via une compression du personnel (réduction de deux postes) et d’autres frais de bureau. Un groupe de travail composé de représentants issus de six organisations membres s’est rencontré en décembre à fin de débattre sur la meilleure voie à suivre pour le CEJA pour essayer surtout de maintenir le rythme d’activités. Pendant cette période le CEJA a fait preuve de sa flexibilité et de sa détermination de continuer avec les organisations membres qui se sont engagées dans un effort organisationnel et financier qui a contribué à resserrer les liens entre ses membres. Les entretiens avec les responsables des organisations nationales signalent l’important accroissement des aportations financières de chaque membre, qui est arrivé un peu à la limite, et le besoin de 2 chercher de nouvelles lignes de financement. Cela a conduit à chercher un «sponsor» , même si ce n’est pas la situation idéale pour une organisation de ce type que d’avoir une 3 dépendance d’organismes externes privés . Ces changements au niveau des apportations ont déjà fait un effet de sélection sur quelques organisations membre, pas encore très

1

2 3

Maria Rodríguez membre du Parlement européen et présidente de la Comission d’agriculture du Parlement, Eduardo Ramos, expert en développement rural.

Pour l’édition de la memoire d’activités. Ils cherchent des sponsor pour couvrir des frais concrets. Henritte Christensen, Sécrétaire Générale CEJA

57

important mais à remarquer (il y restent les plus interessés et plus dynamiques) et pose de grosse difficultés aux nouveaux pays (PECOs). Pendant ces dernières années il y a eu aussi un accroissement des procédures bureaucratiques pour la demande de co-financement. Le caractère propre à ce type d’organisation des jeunes où ses techniciens et responsables sont aussi jeunes et avec une rélève naturelle (peu de stabilité du personnel puisque que l’âge est un facteur excluant), fait que la connaissance des procédures soit plus baisse. Les principales critiques au système d’aides sont la non admission de la correction de petites erreurs, et le manque de flexibilité de l’administration vers ces organisations non professionelles (ONG). Ces organisations ont une dépendance très forte des aides publiques (dépendance extérieure) étant donné que les jeunes n’ont pas le 4 pouvoir économique suffisant pour soutenir une organisation de ces caracteristiques parce que les frais des interrelations entre pays sont très grands (traductions , déplacements). Il faut noter que cette organisation est formée par d’autres organisations nationales qui à leur tour ont des aides de leur état et des régions. Alors, il paraît indispensable que les organisations au niveau européen soient co-financées para l’UE pour garantir une activité minimale et une certaine stabilité, avec une procédure plus simple même si les contrôles financier doivent être après plus importants. La valoration des interviews sur le niveau des activités fait évident le besoin de l’ampliation de l’équipe technique, très réduit pour le niveau de démarches à faire et l’ important nombre d’organisations membres. Une des remarques importantes liées aux aspects économiques est le besoin d’un plus grand volume de traductions des documents d’information que développe le CEJA, puisque cela constitue un frein pour une diffusion plus grande entre les membres des organisations nationales, surtout dans les pays méridionnels. Un autre facteur limitant pour accéder à d’autres aides publiques (à part de la DG Agriculture) est la particularité du groupe cible de jeunes agriculteurs, étant donné qu’il sont considérés jeunes jusqu’à l’âge de 40 ans même si pour presque toutes les organisations membres la limite d’âge est de 35 ans. La limite d’âge pour les autres secteurs est de 25 ans. Dans cette nouvelle période le CEJA et ses membres plus actifs travaillent pour que les ressources du CEJA s’utilisent le plus efficacement et avantageuse possible, et que le service offert soit d’une qualité supérieure (maintenir la valeur ajoutée), mais pour ça il est très important de trouver une certaine stabilité financière. 6. TOUTE OBSERVATION COMPLÉMENTAIRE JUGÉE UTILE Le manque de co-financement a provoqué que seuls quelques séminaires ont pu être organisés, laissant aux membres peu de possibilités de se rencontrer et de développer les opinions. Suite aux séminaires et aux réunions du présidium, l’équipe technique du CEJA a préparé des bulletins d’information sur 7 points d’intérêt : l’Europe a-t-elle besoin d’un secteur agricole ? ; Sécurité, durabilité, qualité et information ; Nouvelles relations en matière de production animale (bien-être, maladies et transport) ; Comment encourager la production de biomasse en Europe ?, OGM : opportunité ou ménace ? ; Quel accord commercial pourrait assurer la survie du secteur agricole ? Mais aussi l’année 2001 le CEJA a ressenti le besoin d’améliorer d’avantage l’efficacité de la communication avec les organisations membre et d’autres acteurs du secteur agricole, et ça s’est fait à partir de l’élargissement et l’amélioration du site web du CEJA. Dans ce site il y a une page exclusivement réservée aux membres, comprenant des informations sur le travail interne: minutes des réunions de présidium, assemblées. En plus ils envoient par e-mail ou télécopies un bulletin hebdomadaire qui est valoré très positivement pour les membres contactés, même s’il demandent plus de traductions. L’information arrive aux bureaux centraux de l’organisation membre chaque semaine par e-mail. C’est chaque organisation nationale qui fait après la distribution à ses responsables de la façon plus convenable (fax, e-mail, contact telephonique,....). Les différentes organisations membre consultées font la remarque que cette information est spécialement importante pour créer leur propre opinion. Le niveau des connaissances des services et activités est aussi haut (81%, et 72% respectivement valorent comme très bon), même si 63% visite occasionnellement (parfois) le site Web et seulement 36% regulièrement. L’intérêt des publications et des activités du CEJA est très bien valoré avec 72 et 90% respectivement. De toutes ces réponses ont peut conclure que le système de travail du CEJA permet de suivre facilement le travail à distance mais que son principal valeur ajoutée est l’organisation de séminaires pour la rencontre et le débat où le niveau de participation des différentes organisations est très important. Les agriculteurs et spécialement les jeunes sont un des groupes cibles avec une majeure conscienciation européenne, étant donné que la PAC est pratiquement l’unique politique qui se fait véritablement au niveau européen. Elle est très courante entre ses membres l’idée du besoin de collaboration : « les agriculteurs dans son propre pays peuvent faire peu. L’agriculteur de demain doit connaître vraiment l’UE et ce qui signifie ». La valoration faite par les personnes contactées dans le séminaire sur le niveau des objectifs communautaires par cette organisation est très élevé, avec des moyennes supérieures à 4 sur 5 (assez bien). Il faut remarquer spécialement la considération que les jeunes agriculteurs sont un groupe qui mérite une attention spéciale (groupe cible, 4,67 en moyenne), sa grande représentation (4,5 en moyenne), et sa contribution au dialogue politique et le débat d’opinion (4,55 en moyenne). Même au cours de deux années difficiles telles que 2000 et 2001, le CEJA a eu des succès considérables en défendant la cause des jeunes agriculteurs dans l’agriculture. Il est très intégré dans le secteur agricole, avec une organisation dynamique, une bonne capacité de convocation, et une présence reconnue dans les institutions européennes. Elle est la plate-forme d’apprentissage pour les nouveaux liders européens et nationaux. C’est aussi une plate-forme de dialogue, d’écoute de différentes opinions, de mise en commun des besoins. Le CEJA est plus qu’une organisation sectorielle, elle incorpore aussi le côté social et donne une image de la réalité sociale du futur de l’agriculture en Europe.

4

Por un séminaire il faut d’11 à 13 traducteurs qui coûtent 540 euros/dia chaqu’un.

58

DEMYC Observer: Manon Beurskens 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

1999 1999-12 2000 2000-13 DEMYC Democrat Youth Community of Europe YES 1999 2000 Total 43 28 EU-countries 12 8 Third countries 31 20 EU-Youth 619800 480000 POLITICAL Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 3 2000 3


16. 17.


18. 19.


15.

1999

20.

A-3029 allocation

1999 2000 1999 2000

YES YES YES YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€16.000,00 €21.000,00 €25.000,00 €25.000,00 €20.000,00 €20.000,00 €17.000,00 €17.000,00 €17.000,00 €14.000,00

YES

4 1 4 1

2000 YES YES

YES

1992

59

YES YES

YES YES



YES

YES YES YES


YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

13% 13%




235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


17 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 17

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

DEMYC

7.

All

14 82,4 3 76,6 0 0,0 17

Table 59 Gender

DEMYC

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


DEMYC

1.

All


17 100,0 0 0,0 17

Table 60 Age


Directly

3,8

4,8

Indirectly Not

DEMYC 0 0,0 15 88,2 2 11,8 17

9.

Total


EU-country Candidate country Other European countries (West and East) Non-European country Total


204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

8 44,4 5 27,8 1 5,6 4 22,2 18


196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

12 70,6 5 29,4 0 0,0 17

Table 53 Activities

10.


Academic, student NGO, volunteer Information services, ICT Education, training



206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

DEMYC

5.

All

Youth work

16 94,1 1 5,9 0 0,0 17

Since 1999 which activities and meetings have you participated in? Conferences, official meetings Seminars, workshops, training Coming together: festivals, camps, expositions Youth exchange Other activities, such as 'a project', a demonstration Total

All

6.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

DEMYC


11 61,1 18 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 5,6 18

Culture Health, welfare Agriculture and food Government, public sector Political function International relations, affairs Professional, staff, consultant Commercial, financial sector Environment Technician, industry Total

60

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

DEMYC

Very important

All

DEMYC 6 40,0 6 40,0 3 20,0 15

Table 62 Involvement in national youth policies 14.



48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

12 70,6 4 23,5 1 5,9 17


All


DEMYC

4.

All

Table 58 Sector

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

DEMYC

16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

All

4,1


15.

4


2

Directly

1

Indirectly Not

4

Total

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

DEMYC


4,2

13.

10 62,5 5 31,2 1 6,2 16


16.

1 2 1

15



200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

DEMYC

I don't know their web-site

All

If ...... has a website: did you visit it since 1999?

4,4

Table 57 Country

Table 51 Web-site

3.

4,3

4,2

24,9 16


All

Leaflets, posters, other media Total

3,8

32,0 256

All

Book, reports, publications

4,7

12. What is your age? Average Total

All

Internal media

DEMYC

Magazines

4,4

DEMYC


7 38,9 4 22,2 11 61,1 0 0,0 14 77,8 9 50,0 18


All

Electronic media

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

8.

All


DEMYC

2.

All


DEMYC

Table 50 Media

14 87,5 2 12,5 0 0,0 16

3. Open answers of stakeholders Gathering people for exchanging the experience, in similar field, working on general discussions about the topic, drawing important conclusions, feedback to bring to the org. at home. I consider building some kind of formal roof over national org. very important. We cannot base a co –operation on the int. level on un formal relation because it could mean threat to continuity of co-op. Other reason is network, my reservations do not mean such an org. has no sense, but it means that it is here to educate the future elite what is a very limited group of people and it is not its aim to provide some training everybody in Europe also young people are just a small part of population and because they are not experienced they can hardly create some discourse in the society. DEMYC should be here to teach us how to do it later. The broader discussion is important, meeting with people not strictly agreeing, on an European level, it is strongly enriching. Stands in the centre-right in politics and works with people from such parties this meeting is very important as educating people. I believe that the EU subsidy greatly supports DEMYC, and I would even strengthen that bond between the two I guess that DEMYC should be more service organisation for teaching young politicians with right-centre political orientation from all over the big Europe (with involving young people from East, Southern-Eastern countries) All political questions we would direct towards YEPP and try to from consolidate point of view. As good international network, DEMYC should establish the system for seeking new talent young politicians from all over Europe. More practical politic educational seminars (not only in Strasbourg and Budapest) Exchange project between deferent countries. Special sessions about youth policy in the parliaments of EU and non-EU countries. DEMYC did not receive any EU subsidies in 2001 due to an application error. This was a serious blow to the work in DEMYC since there had to be cut back on some of our activities. DEMYC also had to use the rest of its reserves last year to keep up a well-functioning head office. DEMYC minimises its administrative cost to by having the head office hosted by one of its national members at no costs. Despite this and the fact that the information technology has made it much cheaper to communicate over a large distance is still costs a significantly amount to cover the costs of running the head office (wages, postage, publication etc). I therefore find it very important that EU gives an administrative grant to eligible European youth organisation because there money spent there is very well spent – especially if you look at what you get for the money: Increasing European awareness, a lot of European voluntary work, interesting European seminars etc. – all this for a very low administrative Costs. As Head of office in DEMYC since 1/2. This year, I have experienced how little money there is to live with. Trough my work I meet a lot of good and interesting ideas, but it is hard to realise them with our little budget. With the fast working development in Europe it is important for the young people to work together in a democratic forum like ours. Especially the Eastern Europe needs a lot of help the coming years, and I feel we are the organisation to help them. EU subsidies are very important to DEMYC in striving to reach a broad group of youth in the pursuit of the European agenda. During the last years Demyc is very close to south eastern organisations, it must go on to that policy and bring them closer to democratic processes. It must strengthen also its training role. DEMYC has been actively working for the European youth for more than 35 years. In the last few years as I have personally been witnessing the work of DEMYC, the organisation has held many courses, seminars and study visits which would not have been possible without the support DEMYC received from European structures and notably the subsidies from the European Commission. I would especially like to point out the study sessions DEMYC organises every year in co-operation with the Council of Europe at the European Youth Centre in Strasbourg on various topics which have included in the last years new means of communication, information technology, conflicts between generations and youth unemployment. These meetings are very important, especially for younger people from DEMYC member organisations for which this often represents one of their first contacts with youth structures on the European level. Those study sessions put a special emphasis on the active participation of the people involved. DEMYC has decided at its last Congress in 2001 to restructure itself in order to put a greater focus on training activities and political involvement in practice rather than just maintain the existing form of a platform for political discussion. It also has the intention to organise more study sessions similar to the ones mentioned above; DEMYC is also planning to stage regional training courses for young people in certain areas of Europe which demand special attention (e.g. south-eastern Europe, Belarus, Caucasus). In order to be able to work more successfully for young Europeans and fulfil the objectives it has set itself for the following years, DEMYC will be needing quite an extensive budget. I therefore strongly endorse further EU subsidies for DEMYC, possibly even to a greater extent as in the past years. DEMYC did not receive any EU subsidies in 2001 due to an application error. This was a serious blow to the work in DEMYC since there had to be cut back on some of our activities. DEMYC also had to use the rest of its reserves last year to keep up a well-functioning head office. DEMYC minimises its administrative cost to by having the head office hosted by one of its national members at no costs. Despite this and the fact that the information technology has made it much cheaper to communicate over a large distance is still costs a significantly amount to cover the costs of running the head office (wages, postage, publication etc). I therefore find it very important that EU gives an administrative grant to eligible European youth organisation because there money spent there is very well spent û especially if you look at what you get for the money: Increasing European awareness, a lot of European voluntary work, interesting European seminars etc. û all this for a very low administrative Costs. I would like to thank DEMYC for its activities, meeting and publications Also I would like to mention that it is very important that DEMYC gets funding for it activities, meetings and seminars. Especially so that they can support/reimburse some of the travel costs for participants from the Caucasus region. From a general point of view : It is really a pity that EU tried to cut off some budgets for Youth and namely for youth European political organisation. Indeed, if I remember well, in the proposal for the EU budget 2001, most of A-30 lines, and also A-3029 line, were reduced by 10%, in order to part-finance substantial increases in other section of Heading 5 (Administrative Expenditure). The EU cannot in one hand speak about a better involvement of Youth in the European building and in the other hand suppress the financial support to this movement that are heavily dependant on the European structures in order to fundraise their activities and seminars. In my opinion DEMYC uses its funds very effectively. The seminars I've been to in 1998 and 2001 addressed topical issues. The outcome of the seminars was productive. I feel I've gained valuable experience. I liked the possibility to debate with young people from the whole Europe very much. The results from DEMYC activities reach even my regional branch of my organisation. Overall I'm satisfied with what DEMYC gives me and I have no doubt that it uses the given subsidy effectively. I participated in several training’s, organised by Demyc, and was satisfied with the results, that were reached during the training’s – for me personally and for the group of participants, as I could see from the reactions of my friends. We have gained important knowledge, exchanged ideas and had opportunity to share different views on relevant topics. This gives my strong believe that Demyc makes great positive impact on young people in the Europe and other countries and Demyc contributes to creating democratic society in many countries and European awareness among youth. I took part in organising team of seminar “Young Europeans in the Conflict of Generations” and I got an impression that Demyc office knows how to organise activities effectively and efficiently. I do think that EU subsidy to Demyc will make positive impact on the youth of Europe. I do believe that DEMYC uses the subsidy given by EU very efficiently. Being a network of more than a million young people all over Europe, DEMYC serves very well the principle of creating European awareness among young people. I am also very much satisfied with the way DEMYC office works – it is very efficient, responsive and service oriented. Political dialogue and debates are “everyday life” in DEMYC, and I feel I have gained a lot of experience from the DEMYC seminars – this is ideal place for sharing experience for young people. Summarising, I am strongly convinced, that DEMYC uses the given subsidy very efficiently and purposefully. The EU-subsidy and subsidies in general are very important for youth work. The organisation could hold more meetings and seminars if there was more money. Unfortunately youth funds available have been generally reduced and do not reflect the often quoted priority for Youth in Europe. Very important to keep the work help going Czech rep. will become very soon an EU member and as such must be prepared to play active role in the field of Europe. Youth politics as well. I welcome the possibility to get sponsorship for training seminars, courses for young people to exchange views recommend to direct an amount of financial support for org. meetings with politicians in both EU and national levels, for youth. Greatly supports Demyc and I would even strengthen that bond between the two

61

4. Report of our observer RAPPORT VAN OBSERVATIE - BEZOEK CONFERENTIE DEMYC Algemene impressie van het seminar. Het seminar vond plaats in The Council of Europe / Directorate of Youth and Sport. Een apart gebouw voor jongeren, in de buurt van The council voorzien van een congreszaal, keuken, restaurant, logies, internetkamer, ontspanningsruimten en sportveld. Bij aankomst (23.30 uur) trof ik in de ontspanningsruimte een zeer uitgelaten groep jongeren, die onder het genot van stevige wodka’s en andere volwassen destillaten, discussieerden over de kwaliteit van de chocolade, afkomstig uit verschillende OostEuropese landen. Ik voegde me bij het gezelschap en werd aan een uitgebreid kruisverhoor onderworpen. Toen duidelijk was dat ik ‘als een vriend was gekomen’ stelden zij zich aan mij voor. Wat me opviel was dat iedereen begon met het benoemen van zijn/haar nationaliteit en vervolgens enkele zinnen aan zijn/haar geboorteland weidde alvorens zijn/haar naam te noemen. Er was ook grote interesse in Nederland en vooral in de liberale politiek (- ik bevond me onder centrum rechts georiënteerde jonge politici uit Oost Europa – wel te verstaan) en ik proefde een duidelijke afkeer t.a.v. autoriteit, regering, U.S. en macht. In de internetkamer trof ik een groep jongeren die geconcentreerd het web afzochten naar nieuws over Pim Fortuyn. Na enkele gesprekken met behoorlijk aangeschoten participanten ging ik naar mijn (overigens keurige) kamer. Het feest in de ontspanningsruimte ging door. De volgende ochtend trof ik hooguit 20 (van de 34 deelnemers) aan het ontbijt. Een half uur later in de congreszaal was echter iedereen present en dat ging sommigen zichtbaar niet makkelijk af. Er werd veel gegaapt, gestaard, en zelfs geslapen en de interactie was ver te zoeken. Het programma: een workshop over multicultuur en integratie – een simulatiespel – bezoek van een afgevaardigde van de gemeente Strasbourg (die de onderwerpen van die dag koppelde aan de realiteit in de stad Strasbourg) – een aantal opdrachten en een evaluatie van de dag. Tussen de middag werd er twee uur gepauzeerd voor een uitgebreide lunch en voor wie wilde een korte fietstocht door de stad. ‘ Avonds, na het avondeten, trok het prepteam zich terug voor een evaluatie en daarna was er gelegenheid om film te kijken in de ontspanningsruimte. Meest opvallende positieve (P) / negatieve (N) elementen. Locatie: P. De locatie was uitstekend (maar is dan ook speciaal gebouwd voor dit soort activiteiten). Grote congreszaal voorzien van overheadprojectors, whiteboard, computer, gekoelde watertank etc. U-vormige tafel met op iedere zitplaats een microfoon. De logies zijn prima, er is goede keuken, veel ruimte voor ontspanning, het gebouw is niet te ver van het centrum en is goed bereikbaar met openbaar vervoer. Sfeer: P. De sfeer was goed. ’s Avonds erg uitgelaten. Veel alcohol. Ik had wel de indruk dat iedereen het goed met elkaar kon vinden en de trainers en organisatie mengden zich regelmatig in de groep. De gemiddelde leeftijd was 20 jaar en het seminar was voor velen echt een uitstapje. Buiten het seminar om had het gebeuren dan ook een vrij hoog ‘zomerkamp-gehalte’. Er heerste overigens een constante rivaliteit tussen de verschillende nationaliteiten en men was zich erg bewust van zijn of haar afkomst. N. Omdat er ’s avonds flink gefeest werd, was de concentratie tijdens het seminar bij sommigen ver te zoeken. Informatie en publiciteit. N. Het viel me op dat er weinig papierwerk was. De documentatie voor de deelnemers was uitermate summier (een programma en een deelnemerslijst). Sprekers en trainers deelden geen naslagwerk uit. Er was nergens informatie te vinden over DEMYC of één van de vele memberorganisaties. De deelnemers waren nauwelijks bekend met de website van DEMYC en er werd ook niets over DEMYC verteld tijdens het seminar. Het seminar en de trainers / sprekers: P. De verschillende onderdelen van het seminar (sprekers, spellen, opdrachten, workshop) sloten allen goed op elkaar aan en stonden goed in relatie tot het onderwerp van het seminar. Het seminar was afwisselend. De sprekers en trainers kwamen professioneel over. De onderwerpen waren relevant. Het niveau was goed aangepast op de doelgroep. De trainers evalueerden iedere dag met de deelnemers en vervolgens met elkaar. N. De sprekers gaven weinig ruimte voor interactie, waardoor het een groot college-gehalte kreeg en de deelnemers zich ook als studenten gingen gedragen (fluisteren, briefjes schrijven, gapen, staren, slappe lach krijgen, seinen etc.) De sprekers grepen niet in bij deze incidenten en deden mijns inziens te weinig moeite om de groep gemotiveerd te houden. Ik miste de spontaniteit een beetje. Het was nogal een stijve bedoeling. De organisatie: P. De organisatie had de zaak goed onder controle. Alles verliep op rolletjes, er werd strak vastgehouden aan het programma, de trainers en sprekers werden goed ingelicht over de groep, alvorens zij hun presentatie hielden en de organisatie mengde zich voortdurend onder de deelnemers, op een sympathieke manier.

62

EFIL Observer: Manon Beurskens 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.

How high is the involvement of young people among your professional staff and your volunteers?

10.

11. 12. 13.

14.


16.


17.


18. 19.


15.

20.

A-3029 allocation

1999 1999-28 2000 2000-32 EFIL European Federation for Intercultural Learning YES 1999 2000 Total 19 22 EU-countries 10 13 Third countries 9 9 EU-Youth 15783 13581 YOUTHEXCHANGE Influencing specific policies YES Networking and co-operation between European YES Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in YES EU-policies Education YES Information, information services YES International standardisation, norms and values YES Youth exchange YES Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries YES Targeting specific other third countries YES 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 33 2000 40

Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity More than planned

2 2 2 2

YES YES YES

More than planned


YES YES YES YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€5.000,00

1990

€8.000,00 €9.000,00 €12.000,00 €12.000,00 €20.000,00 €20.000,00 €19.000,00 €18.000,00 €18.000,00 €18.500,00

63

7% 7%

1999 YES YES

2000 YES YES

YES

YES YES

2. Open answers of the key organiser The grant from the EU is our single largest grant. As such, the A3029 grants from the EU are the only contribution towards the running costs of our organisation, aside from the much smaller contribution made by the Belgian Government and the European Youth Foundation (Council of Europe). The contribution of this grant offsets a bit the practice of the EU Commission in dealing with educational, cultural and youth-related organisations, as most of the projects supported by the EU on a ‘project funded’ basis typically covers part of the costs, the other part being supplied by the organisation carrying out the activity. In other areas of EU policy, this is not the case: for example, consultants are regularly hired by the Commission to execute projects under major EU Programmes, but they do so having all of their costs covered. The grant from the Commission does thus offset this different treatment somewhat. To us it is absolutely essential in maintaining a professional presence on the European scene and make sure that policy input is provided from our side on matters that concern young people. The application procedures for the grant have improved much since the last years. The questions in the application are relevant and it is logical and efficient to combine the planning for the future and the reporting of the past year into one document. It reinforces the need to comply with the need for continuity and reliability. I would qualify all of the above as strong points. As to the weak point: most youth organisations work with numerous volunteers – it is virtually impossible for us to accomplish many of the things that we do without the constant input and assistance from volunteers. When presenting our budgets we are allowed to list the voluntary contribution in monetary terms, but this contribution is not taken into account when calculating the grant. I see this as a major drawback. The other weak point is the late payment of the grant. Both of these aspects should be improved. Informatie uit de interviews met stafleden EFIL. Geïnterviewden: Arjen Bos (26) - nationaliteit: Nederlandse - boardmember - functies: vice-voorzitter en director of training. Claudia Reusch (24) - nationaliteit: Duitse – secretariaatsmedewerkster – functie: programma coördinator [nam geen deel aan meeting]. EFIL is een service-organisatie, aangenomen door AFS. AFS heeft in 23 landen een AFS-organisatie. Deze organisaties hebben de gelegenheid lid te worden van EFIL. De members van EFIL kunnen hun behoeften kenbaar maken en EFIL zorgt voor trainingen, meetingen, seminars, congressen en lobbying voor de members en uitwisseling tussen de members. Bovendien fungeert EFIL als schakel tussen membersorganisatie en hoofdkantoor AFS. EFIL gaat bij het samenstellen van haar service-aanbod steeds uit van de behoeften van de members. Structuur van EFIL Het kantoor: Het hoofdkantoor van EFIL is gevestigd in Brussel. Hier zit het secretariaat bestaande uit: 1 Secretary General 1 Assistent van de Secretary General [die ook andere taken uitvoert waar nodig] 1 Trainingscoördinator 1 Programmacoördinator 1 Financieel manager [komt één dag in de week] EVS – vrijwilliger De taken van de stuurgroep [waar het grootste deel van de meeting over ging]: klankbord voor de secretary general het adviseren van de board representatie van de member organisaties [de PD’s in totaal 22 organisaties in 22 landen] het verrijken van het debat – expertise uit de praktijk toevoegen aan de debatten van de board Ontwikkeling van EFIL EFIL heeft in de afgelopen jaren grote vooruitgang geboekt op tal van gebieden. De meest positieve ontwikkelingen zijn: Kantoor: EFIL heeft een grote reorganisatie doorgevoerd, vooral op ICT-gebied: AFS (de moedermaatschappij ) heeft een nieuwe database waardoor alle leden van EFIL beter met elkaar en met AFS-organisaties (de memberorganisaties) in verbinding staan. EFIL heeft dankzij de innovaties op ICT-gebied toegang tot alle documenten, rapporten van discussies en meetings, bibliotheek en andere relevantie informatie van zowel AFS als de memberorganisaties. EFIL heeft het kantoor opgeknapt, geschilderd, opnieuw ingedeeld, meer kantoorplekken gecreëerd, nieuwe bureaus en kasten. Organisatie: EFIL heeft een reorganisatie doorgevoerd in de structuur, manier van aanpak en de samenstelling van de medewerkers: Voorheen was er één secretary-general met assistent om de taken van het secretariaat uit te voeren. Nu bestaat het secretariaat uit 5 betaalde krachten (zie boven). Het geld voor de uitbreiding van het secretariaat komt hoofdzakelijk van de A-grants (EU-subsidie) en van de leden (meer leden en meer contributie). In de afgelopen drie jaar heeft EFIL een nieuwe manier van begroten doorgevoerd, waarbij duidelijk onderscheid gemaakt wordt tussen: - fixed-projectcosts – flex-projectcosts en overheadcosts. Dat betekent dat de subsidie voor de projecten doelgerichter aangevraagd kan worden en dat er een beter beeld is van de ‘overheadcosts’ die grotendeels door de Grants opgevangen worden. EFIL is in de afgelopen jaren een nieuwe koers gaan varen en heeft haar programma uitgebreid. Voorheen hield men zich hoofdzakelijk bezig met lobbying en training, maar toen er vanuit de members grote behoefte bleek aan sharing (uitwisseling van elkaars ideeën en ervaringen) heeft EFIL sharing als derde prioriteit aangenomen. Netwerk en samenwerking: Het totaal van reorganisatie, innovatie en de nieuw ingeslagen koers hebben ervoor gezorgd dat EFIL van 16 members (AFS-organisaties, één per land) in 1999 naar 22 members in 2002 is gegaan. Dat betekent dat bijna alle AFS-landen inmiddels lid zijn (op Ijsland na). De samenwerkingsverbanden zijn breder geworden. Voorheen hadden alleen de directeuren van iedere AFS-organisatie onderling contact – dankzij het organiseren van ‘vrijwilligers seminars’ en de prioriteit van ‘sharing’ is er nu ook onderling contact tussen de voorzitters en vrijwilligers van de verschillende organisaties. Communicatie: De nieuwe website is de grootste vooruitgang op communicatiegebied. Een deel van de site is openbaar en voorziet iedere bezoeker van up to date informatie. Via inlogcodes kunnen echter ook belangrijke dossiers, rapporten van vergaderingen en overige bedrijfs-interne informatiemappen uitgewisseld worden. EFIL streeft ernaar om binnen korte tijd de hele papierstroom naar de organisaties en binnen het secretariaat te automatiseren via de website. De belangrijkste reden hiervoor is om de huidige informatiestroom beter te organiseren en gebruikersvriendelijker te maken. Organisaties kunnen nu via de website zelf kiezen welke informatie ze willen printen en kunnen dus gerichter informatie opvragen. Voorheen ontving iedere organisatie altijd het totale service aanbod van EFIL. Andere redenen voor de automatisering van de papierwinkel zijn het milieu en de veronderstelling dat de gemiddelde organisatie zoveel krijgt toegestuurd dat men door de bomen vaak het bos niet meer ziet. Projecten: EFIL heeft een aantal nieuwe projecten gestart waarvan met name het jeugdprogramma zeer succesvol is; EFIL kan steeds nieuwe trainingen aanbieden en daarmee goed aansluiten op de verschillende behoeften van de members. Doelen op langere termijn: ‘Visie 2010’ dat wil zeggen dat EFIL ernaar streeft om interne trainingsprogramma’s, extern te gaan aanbieden (buiten de 23 AFS-landen). EFIL wil extern trainingen aanbieden omdat: deze trainingen volgens EFIL noodzakelijk zijn voor organisaties uit alle Europese landen; om de leden van iedere organisatie op de nationale kaart te zetten en de organisaties op de internationale kaart; het netwerk voor AFS organisaties breder wordt; Het tevreden houden en ondersteunen van de members; ernaar streven dat EFIL steeds aan hun wensen en behoeften kan voldoen (op het gebied van training, lobbying en sinds kort ook sharing). Belang van A-grants voor EFIL Zonder de A-grants was het voor EFIL haast onmogelijk geweest de groei van members te bewerkstelligen en aan hun behoeften te kunnen blijven voldoen. Er is geen andere subsidie waar EFIL gebruik van kan maken voor puur administratieve kosten. De kosten worden ook voor een deel gedekt door de contributie van de leden. Zonder de A-grants zou deze contributie omhoog moeten en zou het voor leden moeilijker worden gebruik te maken van de service van EFIL. De subsidie mag natuurlijk altijd hoger, maar tot dusver kan EFIL zich er goed mee redden en ziet het er niet naar uit dat de groei van de organisatie stagneert om financiële redenen. Suggesties voor het verbeteren van het proces van EU-subsidieaanvraag. Het gaat ieder jaar om stapels papierwerk en ieder jaar moet er min of meer hetzelfde ingevuld worden. Misschien kan men de gegevens die constant blijven beter archiveren bij de EU zodat EFIL alleen de zaken die veranderd zijn op hoeft te geven – dat scheelt een hoop dubbel werk; De formulieren veranderen ieder jaar een beetje van opzet. Het gaat dan om hele kleine details, maar hierdoor kunnen de reeds ingevulde papieren van het jaar daarvoor niet gebruikt worden als standaard dus daar zit ook een hoop dubbel werk in. Positief aan subsidieaanvraag. De gebruikershandleiding is helder en toegankelijk genoeg om zelfstandig alle formulieren in te vullen; De informatiedag over het invullen van de subsidieaanvraag was zeer nuttig en absoluut leerzaam.

64




235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


29 93,6 2 6,4 0 0,0 31

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

EFIL

7.

All

15 48,4 11 35,5 5 16,1 31

Table 75 Gender

EFIL

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


EFIL

1.

All


15 46,9 17 53,1 32

Table 76 Age


EFIL

4,5

3,8

4,1

4,2

3,9

4,2

3,9

3,8

3,8

33,3 32


13.


Directly Indirectly Not

Table 73 Country

Table 67 Website

32,0 256

Total

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

EFIL

Internal media

4,4


All

Magazines

22 68,8 12 37,5 1 3,1 2 6,2 17 53,1 7 22,9 32


EFIL


152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

8.

All

Electronic media

All


All

Table 72 Average ratings 2.

EFIL

Table 66 Media

3 9,4 14 43,8 15 46,9 32

Candidate country Other European countries (West and East) Non-European country Total


25 83,3 5 16,7 0 0,0 30

Table 69 Activities

10.





206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

EFIL

5.

All

Youth work

18 58,1 13 41,9 0 0,0 31



187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

EFIL


All

6.

13 40,6 21 65,6 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 3,1 32


65

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

EFIL

Very important

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254


48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

1 3,1 20 62,5 11 34,4 32


All


EFIL

4.

All

Table 74 Sector

Directly

EFIL

All

EFIL 21 65,6 2 6,52 5 15,6 4 12,5 32

15.

3 6 1



10 5

Total

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

EFIL


204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263


All

EU-country

14.

2 6,2 18 56,2 12 37,5 32


1 16.

1



2 1

31

Total

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

EFIL


1 3,2 17 54,8 13 41,9 31


All


16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

9.

All


EFIL


All


29 90,6 2 6,2 1 3,1 32

4. Open answers of stakeholders EFIL takes the EU subsidy very seriously and never fails to highlight the funding support it receives from the EU. The subsidy is a token recognition from the EU toward the extensive work international organisations perform in disseminating EU policies or programs at local level and in providing expert input. Thanks to the support and information provided by the EFIL Secretariat based in Brussels, its member organisations, which are based in different European countries (not only of the EU) have been able to benefit of actions supported by the Socrates, Leonardo or the Youth Programme. Some countries have participated in a Comenius project; I also know of volunteers participating in EVS (now part of the Youth Programme); another example is a project supported under the Euro-Mediterranean Youth Action Programme in the Basque Country with people from Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, France, the Basque Country and Portugal. The work carried out by EFIL has also contributed to train people to represent youth organisations at European level; EFIL has had and has volunteers involved in the decision making structures of the European Youth Forum (e.g. in the Bureau and in various commissions). A-3029 is one of the best tools the EU has to promote the European project and reality!! It is vital for most international youth NGOs. On the one hand, the management of these budget lines should be more user-friendly. It is also important that contracts are signed and paid EARLIER, i.e. decreasing the period where youth organisations or young people have to advance their own money; On the other hand volunteer work should be recognised by the EC as contribution made by youth organisations (and other volunteer organisations); More resources should be allocated for A-3029; without this budget line many European youth organisations would not be able to survive and therefore the EU spirit would also be less spread. EU institutions are not aware of the real VALUE FOR MONEY of this budget line; its multiplier effect and potential is really high, considering for example that young people trained at European level spread the word when they go back home. Furthermore, it is well known that the number of applicants and beneficiaries of this budget line has increased A LOT, whereas the budget line has not that much. Less than 2 M EUR for all international youth organisations (NGOS) is peanuts! Beneficiaries should also be limited to real NGOS; empathising the word YOUTH and EUROPEAN (i.e. active presence in several countries). I’ve got to admit that I don’t know how exactly EU grants work, for example are they given for special projects or is it a general subsidy. However, it is important for an organisation such as EFIL to maintain these subsidies as EFIL (and AFS in general) is a non-profit organisation. Especially EFIL doesn’t create an own income except for participation fees of AFS organisations in Europe and the above mentioned EU grants. EFIL supports in a very important way Europe’s AFS organisations to work more efficiently and reach a higher quality for their programmes. The result for the national AFS organisations is the participation of young people in student’s exchanges which is their major income – EFIL doesn’t benefit that way from their supportive role. It is therefore important for every national AFS organisation in Europe that EFIL maintains its work. It is therefore important for EFIL to get subsidies to continue working on a European scale. All above was the AFS perspective but EFIL is also doing important work in close co-operation with the EU itself and other youth organisations in Europe. I can’t really say much about this field of work, as I don’t have too much insight here. However, it also seems important that EFIL continues to work here. Also, as I have mentioned before, I don’t know in what form the subsidies are given so I cannot suggest any improvement. Support esp. programs with future member countries. They should be target not cut down. More for /// learning. For AFS Sweden, re-joining EFIL HAS BEEN VERY IMPORTANT, BOTH ON A practical and policy level. To be updated and involved in EFILs policy work for youth issues is important so that we can improve our own lobbying work in Sweden. EFIL opens possibilities for the org. ( read members) to broaden perspectives and get insights into the realities of other European org. and youth. It helps us improve in different areas and reach out to a larger target group. We feel it’s vital for youth members to feel that they are part of a larger network and have a better knowledge about other European civil societies. For over thirty years, EFIL has pursued a single mission: to ensure the benefits of intercultural learning and global education are available to as many young Europeans as possible. EFIL’s member organisations, many of which have been active since immediately after the second world war, have traditionally pursued this mission by arranging long-term family and school exchanges for young people from around the world. In a Europe that is changing very rapidly, EFIL fulfils an essential role by developing the pedagogical bases for intercultural learning experiences and sharing these, through seminars, publications, with hundreds of volunteers across Europe, who will use this learning to help their communicates deal with intercultural learning issues. The EU subsidies that EFIL receives are crucial to this work. An example will illustrate why. The direct constituency that EFIL serves is made up almost entirely of unpaid volunteers, who have few opportunities for learning about intercultural tools in a multinational environment. Yet the work they do is crucial to intercultural understanding in their communities. EFIL’s seminars are a unique opportunity for them to acquire the knowledge and skills that will make them more effective volunteers. Since, as volunteers, they cannot contribute financial support to the training’s EFIL organises for them, EFIL is dependent for its financial needs on the donations of other parties. The EU is the largest donor to EFIL, and without its support the work of the Federation would effectively grind to a halt. EFIL’s activities are focused on creating European and global awareness, especially among young people. The project addressing global education reaches number of students and teachers, as well as their families and communities, and promotes the values crucial in the integrating Europe and globalizing world. Teaching about democracy, development, environment, human rights, peace and intercultural education is all very much needed in the Czech post-communist society too. Through EFIL seminars large number of people are influenced directly, and function as disseminators of information, knowledge, skills and practices after they return back to their home countries. EFIL stresses during the seminars the need to pass on what is being learned, and gives the participants tools and support to do so. Thus the „light“ spreads to the participants NGO, community, school etc. EFIL seminars and activities are very motivational for young people, give them new energy for volunteering in the youth and intercultural learning field, help them to gain new views and give them the opportunity to discuss and exchange with other people their ideas, and opinions. It also helps them to find solutions to their problems. Last but not least, the intensive intercultural environment experienced by the participants, and the friendships that are created, are the best basis to deepening European awareness. EFIL’s work in providing its services is very professional, and flexible, and the organisation works well in dissemination of information, and know-how, in promoting synergies and of course, in its main focus, promoting intercultural learning and global education through many ways. Coming from a country applying for the membership in EU, I see the support of youth, diversity, peaceful coexistence, tolerance and other values important in the development of European society as crucial. I find the support of EU to the above mentioned and similar activities very important. I think it’s very important that the organisation provides information about the EU actions, especially the EVS program and have the contacts to the EU and plays a key role in developing new actions. It is kind of difficult to plan all activities exactly since approval of funding is mostly coming in very late While the organisation is used to plan ahead of time and it’s difficult to deal with participants who are also expecting a clear answer. I think they are very important in reaching pan-European constituencies and in developing activities that in the long run will foster a European democratic constituency. It is not easy to plan youth activities ahead of time which get funding from EU since it is usually project based and often you don't know if you get the funding long time before the activity shall take place. This renders a strategic and long-term approach to international youth activities difficult. EFIL étant une fédération d’association européenne (AFS), elle est présente dans l’ensemble des pays de l’UE. A ce titre, elle peut permettre à l’UE de toucher une cible de jeunes au même moment et dans tous les pays de l’UE en même temps. L’activité propre d’EFIL, à travers ses publications, son action et les échanges faits par toutes les associations AFS qui la compose permet également d’entretenir le dialogue et le débat à travers l’UE dans son ensemble de façon complémentaire aux autres organisations de jeunesse. Les associations AFS qui sont membres d’EFIL entretiennent toutes des liens très étroits avec le monde de l’Education et constituent donc un lien très important entre Education formelle (à travers les systèmes scolaires nationaux) et Education informelle (à travers l’expérience interculturelle). EFIL et ses associations affiliées sont présents également dans les pays d’Europe de l’Est, futur candidats à l’entrée dans l’UE ; à ce titre EFIL peut contribuer grandement, à travers le nombre important de jeunes concernés par ses programmes, à créer une future conscience politique européenne. EU subsidy should encourage and subsidise those organisations that operate with a large diversification of countries and not just 3 or 4 of them. In particular, if they are able to reach the countries that are usually more neglected or even those that are outside the EU, but will soon be in the Union, they should deserve particular respect and support. I feel that it is of the highest and utmost importance, necessity and responsibility that the EU provides funding to international youth organisations in general. If the EU institutions want to reach out to their citizens and to young people in Europe, they need to make an effort to support their initiatives. Young people actually are the future of Europe, therefore they need to be equipped with the necessary competencies and knowledge to find their way around, to shape their opinions and to empower them to put their missions, visions and ideals into practice. This cannot be established with a bubble of air. The organisations that stimulate and allow young people from everywhere in Europe deserve to be supported with the necessary resources (financial, human, materials) in order to contribute to the construction of a Europe where all people like to live and to participate. The EU holds the largest responsibility in making this possible. Their policies need to be transparent, fair and supported by the people of Europe. The EU is a public institution that spends public money for the better interest of the public. It is desirable if the EU would invest its resources in such fashion and manner that young people and their organisations feel appreciated, valued, involved and strengthened. I think the EU subsidies to international youth organisations are very important not only to exchange different ideas but also to establish a European democratic feeling. The EU funding is often project based and the amount can also vary from year to year. The uncertainty of receiving the funding or not for an activity jeopardises the continuity of well-organised and interesting international youth activities. I believe that some activities are more labour intensive than others and that E$U should consider this aspect in deciding on subsidies. Organising successful educational exchanges with minors in a large international network that does not privilege the countries which have traditionally run exchanges (such as France, UK, Germany) but covers most of Europe – this is indeed very complex and requires more investments. Let’s not forget that youth exchanges are the main gate to building a Europe of conscious citizens. Most important in order to develop a European awareness among young people and teachers as EFIL facilities a great help by counselling and matching partners for different youth and school activities on human rights, dialogue and intercultural learning

66

5. Report of our observer RAPPORT VAN OBSERVATIE-BEZOEK MEETING EFIL BRUSSEL 21-04-02 Algemene impressie van de meeting. De meeting vond plaats in het hoofdkantoor van EFIL, gevestigd op de vierde etage van een kantorencomplex in Rue des Colonies te Brussel. Strakke entree, wit steen en gouden naamplaatjes op de postvakken, die een overzicht geven van de organisaties die in het gebouw kantoor houden. De etage van EFIL zit goed in de verf, mooie bureaus, moderne computers en heel veel kasten waarin het papierwerk van de organisatie keurig in ordners en mappen gearchiveerd is. De meeting vindt plaats in de vergaderzaal aan een ovale houten tafel. Alle aanwezigen luisteren aandachtig naar het verhaal van boardmember Arjen Bos. Naast de tafel staat een flip-over met daarop een organigram van de linkin-pin structuur van EFIL. De tafel is bezaaid met bedrukte vellen papier, schema’s, agendapunten, achtergrond infonformatie, overzichten, brochures etc. Arjen verwijst in zijn betoog steeds naar een paginanummer of titel van een rapport, waarna de nieuwe stuurgroepleden tussen hun persoonlijke stapel papieren het genoemde document opzoeken. Gelukkig is er veel koffie en een uitgebreid aanbod aan chocolade want de meeting is zeer intensief en er wordt weinig gepauzeerd. De stemming is bloedserieus. Er wordt weinig gelachen, niet gebabbeld en de agendapunten worden strak gehandhaafd. Ondanks het feit dat er niet één native English speaker aanwezig is, spreekt iedereen uitstekend engels. Meest opvallende positieve (P) / negatieve (N) elementen. P. EFIL wekt de indruk ontzettend goed georganiseerd te zijn; De samenstelling van de groep was goed: twee leidinggevende t.o.v. drie nieuwe stuurgroepleden – in totaal vijf nationaliteiten; De deelnemers aan de meeting waren allen uitstekend op de hoogte van de onderwerpen die aan de orde kwamen; Maar voor het geval dat niet zo geweest was, was er over werkelijk alles wat aan de orde kwam wel een drukwerkje of papiertje te vinden op tafel; Er werd goed en met respect naar elkaar geluisterd; Hoewel er twee leidinggevende personen aanwezig waren, trad er maar één op als gespreksleider; Alle vragen van de nieuwe stuurgroepleden werden serieus behandeld; De gespreksleider was een ervaren spreker; De trainingscoördinator en de drie leden van de nieuwe stuurgroep wekten de indruk al vele malen met vreemden om een tafel gezeten te hebben en wisten zich goed te presenteren – ze wisten ook hoe zich te gedragen in een dergelijk gesprek; De sfeer was ontspannen en iedereen was welwillend; Ik had de indruk dat de drie gasten (nieuwe stuurgroepleden) ook na de meeting opgevangen zouden worden en er goede accommodatie voor hen geregeld was; Iedereen was ontzettend gedreven [de manier van praten en discussiëren was bijna politiek ]. N. Misschien lag het tempo waarin de enorme hoeveelheid informatie vertrekt werd iets te hoog. Ook de stapels papieren en rapporten waar steeds naar verwezen werd en de hoeveelheid aan statuten binnen de organisatie maakten het gesprek soms moeilijk te volgen. Bijvoorbeeld: Nee, dat kan niet want in dat en dat rapport zijn die en die clausen opgenomen, waardoor de board in die en die gevallen zich altijd eerste zal moeten richten tot het secretariaat omdat deze volgens die en die regels, opgenomen in die en die aktes, opgesteld door die en die verantwoordelijke om die en die redenen niet zelf een beslissing vallende onder dat en dat artikel mag nemen…. Maar het kan natuurlijk ook aan mij liggen. De trainingen zijn goed, maar hoe breng je hetgeen je geleerd hebt in praktijk – de theorie is vaak te pathetisch, weinig voorbeelden. De documentatie uitgereikt tijdens trainingen is vaak in zeer gecompliceerd engels. Veel leden uit niet-Engelstalige landen komen er niet doorheen. Grote behoefte aan uitwisseling van ervaringen en knowhow met member-organisaties uit andere landen. De tijd die de stuurgroepleden volgens de papieren aan hun stuurgroep werkzaamheden kwijt zijn (drie meetings en 52 uur) komt niet overeen met het grote aantal taken dat zij van EFIL krijgen. Korte impressie seminar Montpellier Dit rapport is bedoeld om een kleine impressie te geven van mijn bezoek aan het EFIL / AFS seminar in Montpellier. Veel zaken (zoals opvallend goede en opvallend slechte onderdelen van het seminar) worden reeds uitgebreid besproken in de deelnemers-interviews. Informatie over de structuur van de organisatie is te vinden in het Brussel-rapport en in de (per post toegezonden) informatiemap. Opmerkingen en suggesties m.b.t. de A-grants zijn te vinden in de interviews met staffmembers van zowel EFIL als AFS. Training voor trainers. De Locatie De training voor trainers vond plaats in een vakantiepark ten zuiden van de stad Montpellier. Alle deelnemers aan het seminar konden in het vakantiepark logeren, ontbijten, lunchen, dineren en ontspannen. Ik vernam dat het de eerste keer was dat EFIL voor een dergelijk openbare locatie had gekozen. Normaal gesproken vinden seminars altijd plaats in besloten vorm (d.w.z. dat de groep gedurende het seminar niet in aanraking komt met ‘anderen’ – wat in het vakantiepark tijdens het eten en in de ontspannings-uren wel het geval was). Er bestond dan ook even angst dat de locatie een slechte invloed zou kunnen hebben op de groepsbounding – maar dit bleek achteraf niet het geval. Persoonlijk vond ik dat de locatie veel voordelen had. Om te beginnen het prachtige weer, waar iedereen tijdens de pauzes weer nieuwe energie van kreeg. Maar ook de exotische omgeving, de rust en de uitkijk op het meer droegen bij aan een ontspannen en opgewekte sfeer. Een nadeel was echter dat de locatie moeilijk bereikbaar was – maar door de uitstekende logistiek van de organisatie (inzet van taxi’s en bussen) is dit nadeel te verwaarlozen. Het prepteam Het prepteam (ofwel de trainers en organisatie) bestond uit vijf leden, te weten: 3 trainers van de organisatie Sietar; 1 EFIL trainingscoach (betaalde kracht van hoofdkantoor Brussel – verantwoordelijk voor de organisatie, logistiek en problemsolver); 1 EFIL staffmember (zeer ervaren vrijwilligster werkzaam voor hoofdkantoor Brussel) – assistent van trainingscoach en notulist); 1 AFS host – staffmember (betaalde kracht) van AFS Frankrijk. Het prepteam hield iedere avond, na de trainingssessies van die dag een uitgebreide evaluatie. Tijdens de evaluatie werd zeer zelfkritisch teruggekeken op het verloop van de training die dag, werd besproken wat de behoeften en het uithoudingsvermogen van de groep waren en hoe het programma van de volgende dag daar zo goed mogelijk op aangepast kon worden. Ik heb een evaluatie bijgewoond en heb geconcludeerd dat zowel trainers als organisatie zeer gedreven, serieus en professioneel te werk gingen. Ook merkte ik op dat ze een grote betrokkenheid hadden met de groep, iedereen bij naam kenden en zeer complimenteus waren over het hoge denkniveau van de deelnemers. Voor iedere training werd besproken op welke manieren de groep feedback kon geven en hoe de trainers met hun programma het beste uit de groep konden halen. Het prepteam was, met uitzondering van de evaluaties, volledig deel van de groep. Tijdens het eten, de pauzes en in de avonduren mengden zij zich volledig in het deelnemersgezelschap en schrokken zelf niet terug voor een paar uur stevig dansen op house-muziek (terwijl de gemiddelde leeftijd van de trainers naar mijn schatting toch een jaar of 40 was). Ook tijdens het geven van de trainingen ontbrak iedere vorm van autoriteit of belerendheid. Alle opmerkingen uit de groep werden serieus behandeld en de groep werd meerdere keren per dag om suggesties gevraagd voor het verdere verloop van de training. Zo kon de groep constant kiezen uit verschillende onderwerpen – teambuilding, logistiek, presentatietechnieken, motivatiecursussen etc. Op democratisch wijze werd besloten welke onderdelen meer aandacht kregen dan andere. De trainers presenteerde zeer professioneel (met laptops, diaprojecties, uitgebreide documentatie, verwijzingen naar overige literatuur of websites over de onderwerpen) en zeer ontspannen. Er was ook steeds ruimte voor een goede grap of improvisatie, waardoor de training vlot en boeiend verliep. Op de trainers en hun trainingen valt (mijns inziens) niets aan te merken. De organisatie hield zich tijdens de trainingen op de achtergrond (op enkele huishoudelijke mededelingen na). Eén van hen notuleerde het hele seminar met als doel de notulen later te verwerken tot een rapport voor de website – dit om iedereen die niet in de gelegenheid was deel te nemen, toch mee te laten profiteren van het seminar. De organisatie verliep vlekkeloos. Alle deelnemers ontvingen bonnen voor maaltijden en consumpties. Alle probleem(pjes) werden snel en effectief opgelost, het vervoer van en naar treinstation en vlieghaven was geregeld, de kamers (logies) waren lux en het eten was voortreffelijk. Op de organisatie valt (mijns inziens) niets aan te merken. De Deelnemers Toen ik (op de derde trainingsdag) arriveerde had ik het gevoel dat de groep elkaar al jaren kende. Dit bleek niet het geval te zijn – vandaar complimenten aan de teamgeest van deze mensen. Respect, interesse in elkaar en tolerantie voor elkaars culuur waren volop aanwezig (hoe kan het ook anders gezien de idealen van AFS en EFIL). Af en toe was er een klein ‘brandje’ dat direct zeer diplomatiek geblust werd. De sfeer was uitstekend en de inzet bewonderenswaardig. Op de dag van vertrek werden uitgebreid visitekaartjes en telefoonnummers uitgewisseld en ik twijfel er niet aan dat veel van de deelnemers ook daadwerkelijk na dit seminar met elkaar in contact blijft en dat er vruchtbare samenwerkingsverbanden uit ontstaan tussen verschillende AFS landen. Opvallend was dat er een kleine groep deelnemers van middelbare leeftijd (40-50) aan het seminar deelnam. Bij navraag bleek dat deze training voor trainers georganiseerd door EFIL één van de weinige trainingen is zonder leeftijdsgrens. [Het betrof hier deelnemers die vroeger actief waren binnen AFS of EFIL en ook nu, na hun ‘jeugdige jaren’ actief zijn gebleven in de verschillende AFS landen.]

67

ESN Observer: Bart van Melik 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


7.

8. 9. 10.

1999 1999-13 2000 2000-16 ESN Erasmus Student Network N 1999 2000 Total 16 19 EU-countries 12 14 Third countries 4 5 EU-Youth 1021 1244 STUDENTS Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) 1999 Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) 2000 Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 2 2000


YES YES

YES YES

In how far could your organisation realise its publications and publicity plans for 1999? In how far could your organisation realise its publications and publicity plans for 2000? Planned activities as coded from the application form(s) Conference(s), board meeting(s) Seminar(s), workshop(s) Exhibition(s), festival(s), camp(s) Youth exchange(s) Other activities

11.

13.


14.


15. 16.


17.

A-3029 allocation

12.

1999 2000 1999 2000

N YES YES YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€4.000,00 €4.000,00 €8.680,00

1999

68


5% 17%

1999 YES YES YES

2000 YES YES YES

YES

YES




235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


17 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 17

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

ESN

7.

All

16 88,9 2 11,1 0 0,0 18

Table 91 Gender

ESN

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


ESN

1.

All


11 61,1 7 38,9 18

Table 92 Age

Table 82 Media


ESN

4,7

3,8

3,7

4,2

4,5

4,2

4,3

3,8

1,2

ESN 25,4 18


13.



Table 89 Country

Table 83 Web-site

32,0 256

Total

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

ESN

Internal media

4,4


All

Magazines

14 77,8 2 11,1 12 66,7 0 0,0 4 22,2 9 50,0 18


ESN


152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

8.

All

Electronic media

All


All


2 11,8 7 41,2 8 47,1 17



16 88,9 2 11,1 0 0,0 18

Table 85 Activities

10.




206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

ESN


All

Youth work 5.

17 94,4 1 5,6 0 0,0 18



187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

ESN


All

6.

9 50,0 1 5,6 12 66,7 0 0,0 3 16,7 18

Not Total


69

15.

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

ESN

Very important

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

Indirectly

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

1 5,6 9 50,0 8 44,4 18


All


ESN

4.

All

Table 90 Sector

Directly

ESN

All

ESN 15 83,3 1 5,6 2 11,1 0 0,0 18

11 1 1



72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

ESN


204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263


All

EU-country

14.

3 16,7 10 55,6 5 27,8 18


16.

1



2

16

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

ESN


0 0,0 16 88,9 2 11,1 18


All


16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

9.

All


ESN


All


13 72,2 3 16,7 2 11,1 18

3. Open answers of stakeholders Important because increases mobility of students in Europe. Helps to increase number of multi-lingual, open minded, flexible youth. who will be future Europe. A unified Europe without borders. Int. students can deal with cross-cult. Problems and therefore they are important for more understanding between nations. Important for creating Eur. awareness, this should be more supported. We are org. with poor students. sub. are very important for us., Eurpean, understanding, integration. Too much work for a small amount of money, papers are too complicated. EU should take into consideration that the org. are made of students who do voluntary work. EU standard of financial reporting is too extensive for a volunteer student network, who lack sufficient time and professional experience to meet these standards satisfactionally. As the meetings in the network(within the sections) are the most important according to the work. Too much work for a small amount of money Important for the survival org. Needs sub. normal that we get it because we support Erasmus program. appl. too difficult, should be more personal, contact too difficult with EU, we are not profs. Sub. Is the most unpleasant task of my job. Lot stress. Conclusion: work more human and be aware that we are just students. EU should make easier access to money for daily work. of org. Increase them, further problem is lack of transparency in EU subs. Vital for non-profit student org. The amount of money should be related to what is done with it Young people from different countries could integrate within the values of the EU as long as they can meet each other and communicate freely, sharing their notions and objectives. Since MILSET is a part of this process we strongly support its activities throughout Europe and world-wide

70

4. Report of our observer Reportage interview met ESN Interview gehouden op 05-7-02. met Dominiek Benoot, International administrator, duur: 1,5 uur 1) Wie is ESN? Vanaf 1990 is Erasmus Student Network (ESN) een Europese studenten organisatie, die zich bezig houdt met de ondersteuning en ontwikkeling van uitwisselingen voor studenten. ESN is een sociale aanvulling op het Erasmus Programme, dat vanaf 1987 een Europese Unie project is. Het Erasmus programme maakt de uitwisseling voor studenten technisch, financieel en administratief mogelijk. ESN is ontstaan uit een gebrek aan sociale omkadering voor de uitwisselingsstudenten. ESN richt zich op de sociale en persoonlijke integratie van studenten tijdens de uitwisseling. Dit vindt meestal op lokaal niveau plaats in de vorm van bijeenkomsten, feesten en praktische ondersteuning door lokale studenten. Op nationaal niveau komen de locale secties samen om o.a. een nationale vertegenwoordiger te kiezen voor de 'International Board' (IB). Tijdens de 'Annual General Meeting' worden de zes bestuursleden van de 'Executive Board' (EB) uit de IB gekozen. De taken van de IB zijn het ondersteunen en volgen van de werkzaamheden van de EB leden. Vooral de EB leden vormen ESN op internationaal niveau. Zij houden zich bezig met de communicatie naar en tussen de locale secties d.m.v. voorziening van contact informatie, organisatie van internationale evenementen, uitgave van een nieuwsbrief en de distributie van nieuws via e-mail. 2) Betekenis van A-3029 voor ESN. ESN is een vrijwilligersorganisatie die volledig door studenten wordt georganiseerd en uitgevoerd. De locale secties worden financieel gesteund door de locale universiteiten. De A-3029 is voor de ESN de enige vaste inkomsten bron en bestrijkt ongeveer 30% van het totale budget van ESN. ¾

¾ ¾

Stopzetting van de A-3029 zou voor ESN betekenen dat er veel minder communicatie materiaal gegenereerd kan worden. Hierdoor zou ESN bijna geen aandacht en geld kunnen besteden aan promotie en acquisitie. Dhr. Benoots benadrukt dat zonder promotie het vinden van vrijwilligers nog moeilijker zal zijn. ESN gebruikt de A-3029 vooral voor de productie en distributie van promotiemateriaal. Onkosten die EB of IB leden maken voor vergaderingen of coördinatie worden gefinancierd vanuit de eigen universiteit of vanuit sponsorgeld. Een verandering van de A3029 in een subsidie systeem waarbij voor elke activiteit apart subsidie aangevraagd moet worden zou volgens Dhr. Benoot geen probleem zijn voor ESN, zolang de aanvraag flexibeler zou zijn dan de huidige aanvraag voor de A-3029. Een activiteitsgebaseerde subsidie die inhoudt dat er elke keer een korte en simpele aanvraag ingediend moet worden is zeer welkom. "Immers de Europese Commissie weet dan waar het geld heen gaat".

3) Geschiktheid van ESN voor de A-3029. ¾ ¾

¾ ¾ ¾

Creatie van Europees bewustzijn onder grote aantallen jongeren wordt bewerkstelligd door uitwisselingsstudenten te begeleiden tijdens de integratie in een nieuwe culturele omgeving. ESN poogt een positief wederzijds contact te bewerkstelligen tussen het gastland en de uitwisselingsstudent. ESN bereikt jaarlijks 60.000 studenten die gebruik maken van het netwerk. Verder komen talloze locale studenten in contact met de uitwisselingsstudenten tijdens colleges en feesten. ESN heeft samenwerkingsverbanden met andere uitwisselingsorganisaties, namelijk: AEGEE en ESIB. Jaarlijks vindt een vergadering (Liassion Group Meeting) plaats waarin de organisaties samen vergaderen met de Europese Commissie. Tijdens deze vergadering worden nog meer uitwisselingsstudenten vertegenwoordigd. De specifieke doelgroep van ESN is in de eerste plaats de uitwisselingsstudenten die deelnemen aan het Erasmus project, verder betrekt ESN ook overige internationale studenten in haar activiteiten, b.v. bij feesten. Het samenbrengen van internationale studenten, impliceert een ontwikkeling in de creatie van internationale normen en waarden. ESN onthoudt zich heel bewust van de politieke dialoog. Politieke verschillen onder Europese landen, en dus ook onder Europese studenten, zijn enorm groot. Politiek betrekken in de activiteiten van ESN zou een ongewenste onrust veroorzaken onder studenten. Ter illustratie: ESN heeft na 9-11 haar medeleven betuigd aan de University of New York. Deze actie is door sommige leden afgekeurd en heeft een ongewenst politiek debat binnen ESN veroorzaakt.

4) Evaluatie van aanvraag procedure van de A-3029. Dhr. Benoot heeft twee jaar ervaring met de aanvraag van de A-3029. Hoewel hij een lichte verbetering constateert in de communicatie heeft hij een aantal kritiekpunten: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

¾ ¾

Doordat het bestuur van ESN snel van samenstelling wisselt, is de kennis overdracht vaak gering en onvoldoende. Dit heeft Dhr. Benoot vooral gemerkt tijdens de aanvraag van de A-3029 die hem veel lees- en naslagwerk heeft bezorgd. De informatievoorziening vanuit de EC is gering en gehuld in moeilijk taalgebruik. Er ontbreekt een overzichtelijk stappenplan met basisinformatie over hoe de subsidie aangevraagd moet worden. ESN heeft geen enkele reactie ontvangen op e-mails gericht aan de EC. De EC communiceert in de vorm van dreigementen, die Dhr. Benoot als bijzonder stressvol ervaart. Bijvoorbeeld: "U moet voor een bepaalde datum, deze ontbrekende papieren sturen, anders verliest u de subsidie". Vaak is de termijn waarbinnen ESNmoet reageren belachelijk kort. Dit in tegenstelling tot de tijd die de EC neemt om een aanvraag te beoordelen. De EC verdiept zich niet in de aard van de organisatie. ESN is geen professionele organisatie en heeft ook geen officieel kantoor waar de EB leden constant aanwezig zijn. ESN kreeg namelijk het verwijt van de EC geen officieel kantoor te hebben. Vorig jaar vroeg de EC naar nog meer informatie omtrent de vergaderingen van ESN. Vervolgens heeft Dhr. Benoot de notulen van alle vergaderingen opgestuurd, waarna hij een boze brief terug kreeg dat de informatie te uitgebreid was. Er heerst tussen de EC en ESN grote onduidelijkheid over welke documenten opgestuurd moeten worden. Dit leidt tot een negatieve samenwerking.

5) Ideeën ter verbetering van de A-3029. ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Er ontbreekt een helder en kort stappenplan hoe de A-3029 aangevraagd kan worden. Vooral voor organisaties met een snel wisselend bestuur kan een stappenplan enorm veel tijd schelen. Mocht er in de toekomst alleen nog een activiteitssubsidie voor internationale jeugdorganisaties bestaan, dan is een vergoeding van 50% op alle facturen een snelle oplossing voor zowel de EC, als de jeugdorganisaties. De EC moet sneller contact opnemen bij aanvraagfouten, zodat ESN meer tijd heeft om deze fouten te herstellen. Dhr. Benoot heeft zich erg gestoord aan de dreigementen die de EC gebruikt in haar communicatie in het geval van een fout. "Er ging soms geen dag voorbij dat ik niet dacht aan de A-3029". Dhr. Benoot merkt op dat hij moeite heeft gehad met de langdurige onzekerheid omtrent het ontvangen van de A-3029.

71

EXPERIMENT 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2.

Organisation's name

3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

14.


16.


17.


18. 19.


20.

A-3029 allocation

15.

1999 1999-46 2000 2000-50 EXPERIMENT Experiment in Europe-European Association of the Experiment in International Living YES 1999 2000 Total 12 12 EU-countries 9 9 Third countries 3 3 EU-Youth 8103 7000 YOUTHEXCHANGE Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2 1999 2 2000 3

Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity Fully or almost fully


YES YES YES

YES

YES YES 1


Conference(s), board meeting(s) Seminar(s), workshop(s) Exhibition(s), festival(s), camp(s) Youth exchange(s) Other activities Fully or almost fully Fully or almost fully 1999 2000 1999 2000

YES YES YES YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€10.000,00 €9.000,00 €11.000,00 €11.000,00 €15.000,00 €30.000,00 €18.000,00 €18.000,00 €17.000,00 €17.000,00 €17.000,00 €14.000,00

1990

72

21% 27%

1999 YES YES

2000 YES YES

YES YES

YES YES



198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258

2 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 2

235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


2 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 2

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

EXPERI MENT


All

7.

Table 107 Gender

EXPERI MENT


All


EXPERI MENT

1.

All


158 60,8 102 39,2 260

2 100,0 0 0,0 2

Table 108 Age

Table 98 Media

4,2

4,0

4,2

3,5

3,8

3,5




16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254



204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

EXPERI MENT


All

EXPERI MENT 0 0,0 2 100,0 0 0,0 2

9.

2 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 2


196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

2 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 2

Table 101 Activities





206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

EXPERI MENT

5.

All

Youth work

1 50,0 1 50,0 0 0,0 2


All

6.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

EXPERI MENT


2 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 3


73

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

EXPERI MENT

Very important

10.

Not Total

0 0,0 0 0,0 2 100,0 2



Directly

All


EXPERI MENT

4.

All

Table 106 Sector

Indirectly

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256


48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

EXPERI MENT


All


35,5 2

EXPERI MENT

13.

Directly

3.

32,0 256


Table 105 Country

Table 99 Web-site

EXPERIMENT

4,5

All

EXPERI MENT

3,8

0 0,0 1 50,0 1 50,0 2

Table 111 Involvement in local or regional youth policies 1 15.

1



72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

EXPERI MENT


4,5

0 0,0 1 50,0 1 50,0 2


16.


Directly Indirectly

1

Not Total

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

EXPERI MENT


4,4

All

Internal media


All

Magazines

8.

All


2 100,0 1 50,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 2 100,0 2

All

Electronic media

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

All


EXPERI MENT

2.

All


2 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 2

3. Open answers of stakeholders We have been highly involved in several EU youth progr. as an umbrella org. in the centralised scheme. The main problems are delays in programs, approval, delays in payments and too much paperwork. I believe some improvement should be made on these 3 aspects. I understand Subsidy is being cur/reduced and our service from Ex-Yugoslavia. In Europe will be cur. This would have a very negative impact on my work. Allows us to have a presence in Brussels, has given access to the European bodies and information at an early opportunity. Many changes would have been missed without this presence, the info flow from our Brussels office is very important. EU sub. could be higher and distribution less restrictive.

74

EYFA Observer: Manon Beurskens 1. Record of the organisation 21.

File number

22. 23. 24.


25. 26.


27.


28.


29.


30.

31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36.



37.


38. 39.


40.

A-3029 allocation

1999

1999-43

2000

2000-48

EYFA European Youth Forest Action N 1999 2000 Total 33 35 EU-countries 13 14 Third countries 20 21 EU-Youth 65342 70000 ENVIRONMENT Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services

YES YES YES YES

International standardisation, norms and values

YES

Youth exchange

YES

Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 4 2000 6

Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity Fully or almost fully

YES YES YES YES 4 3 5

YES YES YES

Fully or almost fully 1999 YES YES YES YES YES

Conference(s), board meeting(s) Seminar(s), workshop(s) Exhibition(s), festival(s), camp(s) Youth exchange(s) Other activities Fully or almost fully More than planned 1999

YES

2000

YES

1999

YES

2000

YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

€10.000,00 €25.000,00 €20.000,00 €28.000,00 €15.000,00 €17.000,00 €12.000,00 €13.000,00

1999

€13.000,00

10%

2000

€13.000,00

9%

1992

75

2000 YES YES YES YES YES

2. Open answers of the key organiser A3029 subsidies were basically the only legitimate source of funding for office costs in the year 2000, when it was not possible for us tp receive support from the Eur. Youth Foundation (please refer to the financial statement of 2000). Funding sources that we had (other ones) were possible only for projects and not for administrative costs. In my opinion the main advantage of these grants-without them it would be hard for the organisation to maintain the office-rent of it had cost annually almost half of the grants. In general I would say The EU grants for European youth organisations are useful, The amount of paperwork- filling out the application form is really hugh though taking almost 1 month work of a person. Whereas the report of activity could easily be substituted by the annual report ect.( and why is it necessary to waste so much paper on copying it all) The good point about the grants is that, since they are given for a fixed year, they stimulate org. to finish their bookkeeping reporting from the previous year and strategically plan for next year. In my opinion the forms can be shorted, and possibly in that way the time to decide be shorter, like it is done by the European Youth Foundation Structuur van EYFA Het kantoor: Het hoofdkantoor van EYFA is gevestigd in Amsterdam (Muiderpoort) en wordt bevolkt door 5 stafleden waarvan 1 in vaste dienst, 2 via het EVS programma en 2 vrijwilligers die samen de taken van 1 fulltime baan vervullen*. Taakverdeling: 1 office manager 1 publiciteitsmedewerker 1 EVS coördinator 1 fondsenwerver 1 ‘vliegende keep’ Vergadermomenten: Formeel: 2 keer per week een stafvergadering over het reilen en zeilen binnen het kantoor en 1 keer per maand een strategie vergadering over mogelijke nieuwe activiteiten, acties, netwerkverbreding en andere zaken; Informeel: alle stafleden dineren aan het einde van de werkdag samen en aan tafel worden vaak ook gesprekken gevoerd over de organisatie. * naast de vaste bezetting van het kantoor werkt een groot aantal vrijwilligers voor EYFA en organiseert EYFA veel in samenwerking met ander jongerenorganisaties uit heel Europa. [Opvallend is dat er erg veel Oost Europeanen betrokken zijn bij EYFA.] Info café Naast een hoofdkantoor heeft EYFA ook een info-café aan de Oosterparkstraat te Amsterdam. Het info-café is niet open voor publiek maar kan bezocht worden door mensen die gericht zoeken naar meer informatie over EYFA en aanverwante organisaties. Uitgeverij: ‘Greenpepper’ wordt uitgegeven vanuit het oude filmacademiepand aan de Overtoom in Amsterdam. Activiteiten van EYFA EYFA organiseert een groot aantal projecten en activiteiten. Sommigen keren ieder jaar terug, anderen worden ad hoc gepland naar aanleiding van een actualiteit op het gebied van milieuzaken en bio-industrie. Er wordt bij iedere activiteit gestreefd naar samenwerkingsverbanden met jeugdorganisaties uit andere Europese landen. Vaste proecten/ activiteiten: EVS [European Volunteers Service] EYFA maakt onderdeel uit van het EVS-programm van de EU. Dit is een soort uitwisselingsprogramma waarin Europese jongeren de gelegenheid krijgen gedurende een jaar in een ander land binnen een jongerenorganisatie [naar keuze] te werken. Voorwaarde is dat de jongeren in hun eigen land actief zijn bij een soortgelijke jongerenorganisatie zodat er ook uitwisseling plaats kan vinden tussen verschillende jeugdorganisaties. Voor EYFA houdt dit in dat er ieder jaar twee nieuwe medewerkers, via het EVS-programm op het hoofdkantoor komen werken en twee medewerkers of vrijwilligers van EYFA uitgezonden worden. Kamila Jelenska is verantwoordelijk voor de coördinatie van EVS. Summer- and wintermeeting Twee maal per jaar organiseert EYFA een grote internationale meeting [waarvan één in de zomer en één in de winter]. Voor deze meeting worden jeugdorganisaties uit heel Europa [met dezelfde idealen en doelen als EYFA], uitgenodigd. De meeting vindt afwisselend in Oost-Europa en West-Europa plaats (Bulgarije – Spanje – Turkije etc.) De doelen van deze meetings zijn: verbreding van het netwerk, uitwisseling van gedachten en filosofieën, het plannen van nieuwe activiteiten. Greenpepper Greenpepper is een magazine dat kan bestaan dankzij een samenwerkingsverband met EYFA. Dit magazine komt vier maal per jaar uit in een oplage van 10.000 stuks en wordt verspreid in bijna alle Europese landen [via de netwerken aldaar]. Sinds kort wordt er bij speciale gelegenheden ook een actiekrant gedrukt: The Earth Crimes. De eerste ‘The Earth Crimes’ is gedrukt tijdens de debatten en conferenties over de klimaatverandering, de tweede tijdens het congres naar aanleiding van de discussie over bio-industrie [nu in Den Haag] Voorbeelden van ad hoc activiteiten: Benefitparty’s voor organisaties in Afrika die zich inzetten voor AIDS-patiënten – voor veel Afrikaanse organisaties is het onmogelijk om aan subsidie te komen, vandaar dat EYFA de benefitparty’s organiseert [vinden meestal plaats in voormalig krakersbolwerk ‘Vrankrijk’ en de oude Filmacademie]. Het coördineren van de conferentie van ASEED in Den Haag. Ontwikkeling van EYFA EYFA heeft in de afgelopen jaren grote vooruitgang geboekt op tal van gebieden. De meest positieve ontwikkelingen zijn: Meetings: De winter- and summermeetings trekken steeds meer bezoekers en participanten uit andere landen en hebben een serieuzere toon. Waren de meetings in voorafgaande jaren voornamelijk gericht op uitwisseling, ligt de nadruk nu op maatschappelijke onderwerpen op het gebied van milieubescherming. Kamila Jelenska: “De laatste wintermeeting in Barcelona overtrof alle voorgaande meetings. Er waren meer dan 120 jongeren aanwezig uit meer dan dertig verschillende landen. In voorafgaande meetings lag de nadruk vooral op uitwisseling van culturen en ideeën. In Barcelona hebben we voor het eerst écht gewerkt samen. De blauwdruk van de Klimaatconferentie in Bonn is in Barcelona ontstaan. We hebben het zo goed voorbereid en zo goed samengewerkt met organisaties uit andere landen dat de Klimaatconferentie de meest succesvolle, internationale en professionele activiteit is geworden in de geschiedenis van EYFA.” Gareth Bahliss: “De meetings krijgen een serieuzer karakter, het zomerkampgevoel is er een beetje vanaf. Er wordt echt gedebatteerd over belangrijke thema’s en iedereen heeft het gevoel dat we echt iets kunnen veranderen in de wereld omdat we samen streven voor hetzelfde. Ik krijg persoonlijk altijd gigantisch veel inspiratie als ik zie dat zoveel mensen uit zoveel landen voor dezelfde dingen strijden. Dat eenheidsgevoel maakt ons sterk en gemotiveerd.” Netwerk en samenwerking met andere jongerenorganisaties. EYFA heeft in de afgelopen twee jaar haar netwerk in Europa behoorlijk kunnen uitbreiden. Dit is deels te danken aan een betere publiciteit en aan het EVS-programm, maar hangt ook samen met de kwaliteitsverbetering van de meetings en de grote toestroom van nieuwe leden. Gareth Bahliss: “Door iedere meeting te voorzien van een thema trekken we meer jongeren aan dan voorheen. Jongeren die zich willen inzetten voor een beter milieu komen op de meeting af en sluiten zich vaak aan bij een van de aanwezige organisaties. De organisaties groeien en worden steeds professioneler. Hierdoor heeft het netwerk dat we opbouwen meer mogelijkheden. Op verschillende plekken in Europa voeren organisaties zelfstandig uit wat we gezamenlijk hebben bedacht tijdens de meetings. Ook het feit dat we de meetings afwisselend in West en Oost Europa organiseren zorgt voor snelle uitbreiding van het netwerk. Oost ontmoet West zeg maar en Europa wordt voor ons steeds kleiner. Inmiddels zit er in bijna ieder Europees land wel een organisatie waar we mee samenwerken.” Publiciteit: Op het gebied van publiciteit heeft EYFA grote sprongen vooruit gemaakt. Kevin Smith: “Een gedeelte van de oplage van Greenpepper verscheen tijdens de conferentie in Den Haag voor het eerst in het Nederlands. Hierdoor kon het magazine huis-aanhuis worden verspreid in de directe omgeving van de conferentie en was het blad toegankelijker voor passante bezoekers uit Den Haag. Het voornemen is om een deel van de Greenpepper-oplage telkens te drukken in de taal van het land waar een belangrijke conferentie gehouden wordt met als doel het publiciteitsmateriaal toegankelijker te maken.” De inhoud en de lay-out van Greenpepper zijn dankzij nieuwe samenwerkingsverbanden ook sterk verbeterd - Kevin Smith: “Ons netwerk wordt steeds uitgebreider, waardoor er nu ook een aantal milieudeskundigen meewerken aan Greenpepper. Dit heeft zeer positieve gevolgen voor de inhoud. We kunnen nu over bijna ieder onderwerp gespecialiseerde informatie verstrekken. Dit betekent automatisch dat meer mensen Greenpepper gaan lezen en in veel gevallen naar de activiteiten en congressen van EYFA komen. Een ander resultaat van nieuwe samenwerkingsverbanden is ‘The Earth Crimes’. Deze krant hadden we zonder de samenwerking met anderen nooit kunnen maken.” Ook de website is in de afgelopen twee jaren eindelijk volledig van de grond gekomen [www.EYFA.org] Tijdens de afgelopen conferentie in Den Haag is bovendien nauw samengewerkt met de plaatselijke media waardoor straatinterviews met mensen die een activiteit bezochten of bekeken later uitgezonden werden op de lokale radio. In Den Haag was tijdens de conferentie een apart persbureau. Er was ook een persconferentie gepland maar deze kon helaas niet doorgaan [waarom is niet duidelijk]. Kantoor: Het kantoor is uitgebreid met nieuwe computers en de kantoortaken zijn beter verdeeld waardoor het er nu een stuk professioneler aan toe gaat allemaal. Gareth Bahliss: “Mede dankzij de subsidie vanuit de EU kunnen we het kantoor professionaliseren. Dat heeft als direct positief gevolg dat we hierdoor beter in staat zijn om kleinere, opstartende jongerenorganisaties te coachen en ondersteunen. Deze conferentie hier in Den Haag is daar een goed voorbeeld van. ASEED is zeven jaar geleden ontstaan binnen EYFA. ASEED wordt dankzij de knowhow en ondersteuning van EYFA steeds professioneler en is inmiddels al een onafhankelijke organisatie en belangrijke samenwerkingspartner geworden.” Helpen A-3029 grants bij het runnen van EYFA Ja: omdat er geen andere fondsen zijn die subsidie verlenen voor het inrichten en draaiende houden van een organisatie – we kunnen buiten de A-grants alleen subsidie aanvragen voor projecten en activiteiten; omdat we dankzij de A-grants een belangrijk blad als Greenpepper kunnen ondersteunen – Greenpepper heeft een te kleine en te

76

specifieke doelgroep om zonder hulp te kunnen blijven bestaan – het behoudt van Greenpepper is ook belangrijk voor ons omdat het zorgt voor goede promotie en nieuwe leden voor EYFA - [bovendien is de redactie van Greenpepper tegen het plaatsen van advertenties en dus volledig afhankelijk van subsidie en goodwill]; omdat EYFA dankzij de grants de mogelijkheid heeft op organisatorisch niveau te groeien en professioneler te worden – het grootste voordeel hiervan is dat andere, beginnende jongerenorganisaties gebruik kunnen maken van de knowhow van EYFA [ook via het EVS-programm waarbij EYFA mensen uitgezonden worden en anderen een jaar meelopen en leren van EYFA]; omdat EYFA zo snel groeit de laatste jaren dat het kantoor, de faciliteiten, de knowhow en het vaste personeel ook moeten groeien, anders verzuipen we. Zijn jullie tevreden over de manier waarop de grants aangevraagd kunnen worden? Nee omdat: de aanvraagformulieren zijn erg pittig en daarom vergt het veel tijd en kennis om ze in te vullen; beginnende organisaties worden al uitgesloten van subsidie omdat ze eenvoudigweg niet door het papierwerk heen komen; ieder jaar moeten we opnieuw alle gegevens doorgeven omdat men onze gegevens kwijt is geraakt bij de EU – soms worden onze gegevens verwisseld met die van andere organisaties – we krijgen de indruk dat de medewerkers van de EU zelf ook verzuipen in de stapels papier en zelf slachtoffer zijn van de bureaucratie binnen de EU; het gebruik van zoveel papier is ontzettend slecht voor het milieu; de subsidieregeling geldt alleen voor landen die lid zijn van de EU – hierdoor worden veel jongerenorganisaties uit Oost Europese landen uitgesloten terwijl zij het juist zo hard nodig hebben; het is bijna niet mogelijk om telefonisch advies te vragen of informatie in te winnen over de subsidieprocedure omdat men het bij de EU altijd druk schijnt te hebben –je moet het als organisatie echt helemaal zelf uitzoeken. Suggesties voor het verbeteren van het proces van EU-subsidieaanvraag maak de formulieren eenvoudiger zodat iedereen in staat is ze in te vullen; maak het mogelijk dat de aanvraag via internet gedaan kan worden; pas de bijgevoegde gebruiksaanwijzing aan, deze is nu veel te gecompliceerd; zorg voor een telefonische hulpdienst of stel adviseurs beschikbaar die een workshop komen houden over de manier waarop de aanvraag ingediend moet worden; organiseer een workshop op het ministerie in Brussel, zodat organisaties kunnen leren hoe de formulieren in te vullen en bovendien eens een kijkje kunnen nemen achter de schermen van de commissie; organiseer een dag [eens per jaar bijvoorbeeld] waarop de organisaties die subsidie ontvangen zichzelf kunnen introduceren en bovendien kennis kunnen maken met de mensen in de commissie die de subsidie verleend zodat er een betere relatie ontstaat tussen de organisaties en de subsidieverstrekkers. Is het bedrag van de subsidie toerijkend voor het runnen van een internationale jongerenorganisatie? We zijn heel tevreden met wat we krijgen, maar het is niet geheel toerijkend. Kregen we meer geld dan konden we: meer mensen in vaste dienst aannemen [is er nu maar één] zodat we onze groei ook organisatorisch kunnen bijbenen; de kantoorbezetting van nu zou minder overuren hoeven maken – iedereen werkt nu bijna 50 uur in de week – vaak vrijwillig of tegen onkostenvergoeding – deze mensen hebben eigenlijk nauwelijks nog tijd en geld om te leven – het lukt nu alleen omdat we elkaar aan alle kanten bijstaan maar het is eigenlijk nauwelijks vol te houden; een aantal belangrijke innovaties doorvoeren, waardoor de functionaliteit van het kantoor enorm zou kunnen stijgen; meer cursussen volgen om het kantoorpersoneel verder en beter op te leiden [cursussen in het kader van jeugd en cultuur, talencursussen en computercursussen bijvoorbeeld]; de website is nu goed maar moet onderhouden worden door middel van intensief en veel research en er zou een webredacteur moeten komen want het updaten van de website is bijna een dagtaak waar binnen de huidige kantoorbezetting absoluut geen tijd voor is; Wat zijn de voor- en nadelen van het EVS-programm? Voordelen: uitwisseling van culturen, ideeën en politieke opvattingen; de mogelijkheid een jaar te werken in het buitenland en kennis en ervaringen op te doen die bij terugkomst in het eigen land toegepast kunnen worden. Nadelen: Het EVS programma in zijn huidige vorm heeft enkele nadelen die vooral betrekking hebben op het functioneren van de organisatie: het kantoor van EYFA mag slechts twee EVS mensen per jaar aannemen, terwijl er veel meer aanvragen binnenkomen en men die mensen op kantoor heel goed zou kunnen gebruiken; EVS mensen mogen maximaal een jaar blijven – binnen dat jaar zijn ze net een beetje ingewerkt en gewend aan hun nieuwe leefomgeving en dan komen er alweer twee nieuwe die van begin af aan ingewerkt moeten worden – gezien de huidige minimale bezetting is deze regeling heel slecht voor de continuïteit en stabiliteit van de organisatie; Nederlanders mogen niet in Nederland werken via EVS – wat betekent dat heel veel jongeren die staan te popelen om op het EYFA kantoor aan de slag te gaan - en ook langere tijd kunnen blijven – en meer knowhow hebben van de Nederlandse cultuur en politiek – niet aangenomen kunnen worden; CONCLUSIE: EYFA is heel tevreden met het feit dat ze subsidie ontvangt en het gaat ook ontzettend goed met EYFA, maar door gebrek aan geld en gebrek aan mensen dreigt de groei van EYFA momenteel te stagneren – deze problemen zouden voor een deel opgelost kunnen worden als de verantwoordelijke EU commissie sommige regels en afspraken opnieuw in overweging zou willen nemen.

77




235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


20 95,2 1 4,8 0 0,0 21

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

EYFA

7.

All

15 65,2 7 30,4 1 4,4 23

Table 123 Gender

EYFA

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


EYFA

1.

All


158 60,8 102 39,2 260

10 43,5 13 56,5 23

Table 124 Age


All 4,3

3,8

4,1

4,2

4,2

4,2

4,5

3,8

4,6

28,6 21


13.



Table 121 Country

Table 115 Web-site

32,0 256

Total

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

EYFA

Internal media

4,4


All

Magazines


EYFA


20 87,0 22 95,7 21 91,3 1 4,4 3 13,0 4 17,4 23

8.

All

Electronic media

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

EYFA


All


EYFA

Table 114 Media

0 0,0 11 47,8 12 52,2 23



17 73,9 6 26,1 0 0,0 23

10.


Academic, student NGO, volunteer Information services, ICT

5.

Youth work



206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

EYF

Education, training

All


13 56,5 9 39,1 1 4,4 23


All

6.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

EYFA


18 78,3 2 8,7 1 4,4 0 0,0 4 17,4 23

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2


78

8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

EYFA

Very important

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254


48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

4 17,4 8 34,8 11 47,8 23


All


EYFA

4.

All

Table 122 Sector

Directly

EYFA

All

EYFA 19 82,6 4 17,4 0 0,0 0 0,0 23

15.

3 6 1



1

1

Total



9

23

2 9,0 11 50,0 9 40,9 22


16.

1

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

EYFA


204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263


All

EU-country

14.

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

EYFA


1 4,6 13 59,1 8 36,4 22


All


16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

9.

All


EYFA


All


18 78,3 5 21,7 0 0,0 23

4. Open answers of stakeholders I do not have closer information about Eyfas funding. But youth support is very important and should be seen in relation to other costs of EU, for example agricultural subsidies, unsustainable projects and support of development banks, bureaucracy. Since EU is suffering from democracy deficit it is very important to include and support citizens groups and certainly youth, as we’ll be the leaders of tomorrow. Youth activities by associations as Eyfa that is driven by youth itself are often very efficient: we do a lot will small means. To meet other young people in Europe is also very important. In my opinion EYFA is very worthy of EU subsidies. The main reason for this is the fact that EYFA has developed real links between grass roots groups with real activities, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Whereas my experience of many other youth groups is one of hierarchical decision making and a content of (for instance) seminars that is dictated from above, EYFA events are always just providing a forum for a multitude of local groups to express their concerns and create activities based on their own needs. As far as I know, there are practically no European youth networks other that EYFA that accomplish this. In my experience the funds received by EYFA are well used as they are now, in support of various groups and projects. I think that in general the European subsidies are very important for Eyfa. They enable Eyfa to organise big meetings and exchange programs, which reach out to many, many young people. In spite of the sometimes a little bit chaotic preparation and program, I have heard and seen many examples of young people, who have told later that visiting an Eyfa meeting or taking part in an exchange program has been an eye-opener, which influenced the rest of their life. The programs pass on the message, that young people can influence (environmental) politics and can be heard, if they take their life in their own hands. From my experience of eyfa since 1993, I have discovered a fantastic network of mixed cultures and races; learnt so much about my fellow Europeans; learnt about and engaged in European politics and society; and later when I had the opportunity to work in eyfa for 2 years it was one of the best times in my life. I grew hugely in confidence and experience, and have been able to get quality work back home subsequently, that would have taken me years to qualify for otherwise; I have been able to share skills and knowledge with many young people from different backgrounds and education-access; and all these opportunities have been available to many other young people too. I think the EVS is a wonderful scheme and has been a great instrument in achieving eyfas aims. I am very glad it is now more inclusive and fair towards eastern Europeans – we tried to create our own for a while just to balance it! I still recommend it to the young unemployed I work with in Wales, whenever I can – it’s a great tool for learning, self development and cross cultural understanding in our current climate of fear and nationalism. Please may it continue, and may it increase in its inclusively. One problem that always occurs is a lack of support for core activities with all the emphasis on money for exciting projects, I think eyfa and other groups suffer from this as the heart of the group struggles to survive. The EU subsidies to EYFA in particular have been very productive, reaching many different kinds of people from many different backgrounds and cultures. This is helping young people to open their perspective respecting other cultures and countries. In my year working in the EYFA office I never heard of anybody not enjoying what they were doing. On the contrary, all the volunteers were amazed about that year and would like to repeat it. My suggestions would be to wider a bit more the range of people to target. Sometimes we where very limited in the number of eastern Europeans or Mediterranean noneu volunteers. And more support in dealing with legal visa related problems that these people could have. From my experience it is definitely a well invest money which rich many people and try to create a new living community spirit within the EU. In my opinion the relationship between EYFA and the EU is a healthy one. The EU funding is vital for EYFA, especially in maintaining its connections with organisations in Eastern Europe and in strengthening the European youth environmental network. Reciprocally, EYFA does much of the work that the EU aims at doing itself but cannot as a very large institution. In particular I am referring to making young people wore European, more conscious and more involved in their local and regional political debates, leading to a healthy European civil society. As a beneficiary of an EVS grant I can say that it is a very important scheme for social, personal and European reasons but it should be advertised more widely, especially in disadvantaged areas e.g. inner city London, South Wales Valleys, etc. Also the Future Capital scheme is an excellent idea although I think people who wish to start projects in western countries should be entitled top more money in order to pay for high accommodation and food costs. I think EYFA’s been doing a great, invaluable job reaching out to lots of young people and providing them with a chance to go live in a different country and work on socially or environmentally important projects. There have been numerous great outcomes of their work and the individual projects would have suffered a lot or not have taken place at all without EYFA. To sum up I think that the EU subsidies provided to EYFA have all been well invested and the funding has helped bring about great values: co-operation, friendship and support among the European youth; increased awareness of environmental and social issues both in the general public and youth; as well as projects that have helped to address and solve some of these issues. I think the EU funds (especially the EVS programme) through EYFA help and inspire many youth organisations and individuals. I feel though the programme a bit restrictive (e.g. just people under 26 can participate in the EVS programme, they have to be just from certain countries, so on I feel that EYFA performs a very important function on a number of levels. It is the only network I know of that maintains such a high level of communication and Cupertino outside of the bi-annual meetings. It provides a number of exciting opportunities for young people to experience different cultures and perspectives, and really promotes long lasting channels of friendship and understanding between young people from all over Europe. And this isn't in a trivial, holiday camp kind of way, but in a really focussed way of getting people to learn from each other and to co-operate in order to deal with the number of serious environmental problems which we are facing today. As a taxpayer, I am very happy to see EU money being spent to promote youth and civil society in Europe. In these times of global uncertainties where there is so much international fear and mistrust, I think that it is vital that there are many institutions, which are promoting cross-cultural understanding and tolerance. I consider the experience made thanks to the EYFA subsidy (in the frame of the EVS project supported by the EU) very important as it has contributed to improve very much my technical (organisational and time management skills, expertise in dealing with computer programmes and with internet information, fund-raising activities) and personal skills (confidence in my skills and my responsibility feeling). Moreover, the possibility to get in touch and to exchange experiences with very different cultures has contributed to open my horizons, to make me more aware of intercultural differences inside the EU and even further and more respectful of those. While I had the possibility to improve my written and spoken French and English skills, during my EVS period I also have started to learn a new language, the Greek one, which I am willing to improve in the future. I can recommend such an experience to every young person. I think the subsidies are really important. In what other way could we get people over here to work with us, exchanges skills, etc. it’s so important for young people to have this opportunity! My experience with EYFA so far is really positive. They are really helpful. Improvement? Less bureaucracy would be great! I don’t have much knowledge of how the Eu subsidy and eyfa interlink as I was not responsible for funding. So I don’t feel that I can give any constructive comments on the topic. EYFA combines many ways of outreach, ones I feel many other institutions simply overlook. Of course the magazines and guides produced by EYFA are largely distributed, and the large Gatherings twice per year are well attended by youth from east and west. I think the innovativeness of EYFA is, however, in the utilisation of “open space” in various forms: opening up an Info Space in Amsterdam, for various groups to use and fill with their own content, not defined by EYFA but by the needs of the local groups. The same is of course true for the EYFA-gatherings. I have attended various youth seminars and meetings, and always felt that the focus and rhetoric of the meetings were defined “from above” by international arranging groups. With EYFA-gatherings the focus always begins with the local issues facing local groups, and is then developed outwards to European themes. EYFA is a grass roots network like none other that I have encountered in Europe. For this and other reasons I feel the support and funding received by EYFA from the EU is very well spent. The construction and functioning of the EYFA-network is, I believe unsurpassed on the level of EastWest and now also North-South interaction it creates. If Europe and European youth are to understand each other’s and co-operate, it must happen through networks like EYFA where the direction of the network is defined by the participants. It can not happen through hierarchical organisations creating massive structured conferences. I feel EYFA is very needed and has been essential for me in making real contacts with relevant political grass-roots actors all over Europe, and beyond. I think the EU funds (especially the EVS programme) through EYFA help and inspire many youth organisations and individuals. I feel though the programme a bit restrictive (e.g. just people under 26 can participate in the EVS programme, they have to be just from certain countries, so on) Usefull. Not that big composed to some other big summit, but really on the case. Good links between delegates, NGO people etc. inside the CBD conference and concerned citizens EYFA plays an essential role in facilitating the activities of youth environmental groups in Europe. Their meetings provide a useful forum for discussion and exchange of ideas amongst European youth groups concerned with environmental issues They are great Gives a voice to young groups to express their feelings .The meeting in The Hague was important in bringing young people together working on genetics and social issues, making a link between these issues and inspiring people to take this back to their communities and to let farther Is doing a good job in reaching groups young people all around Europe, supporting act. This meeting is an opportunity for networking and interchange of ideas not only with the people that already know us but also with a wider arch connected to the issues we work on Nice atmosphere, well organised. A lot of interesting info and nice people. This meeting is not organised by EYFA, but the EYFA crew helps out and distributes lots of info like the Earth crimes am hoping to de a EVS project later on. Visit the gatherings and feel inspired by them, people from EYFA is also very useful answering questions about all sorts of issues like funding youth org. and so on. Meetings like this very important because of the dialogue, debate, learning from each other

5. Report of our observer RAPPORT VAN OBSERVATIE-BEZOEK CONFERENTIE EYFA / ASEED THEMA VAN CONFERENTIE: Biological Diversity VOORNAAMSTE PARTICIPANTEN: EYFA en ASEED DATUM VAN BEZOEK: zondag 14 april PLAATS: Den Haag AANTAL AANWEZIGE STAFLEDEN EYFA: 3 AANTAL BEZOEKERS: 50 (naar schatting), voor zover geobserveerd Poolse, Spaanse, Engelse, Nederlandse, Duitse De conferentie van EYFA/ ASEED is bedoeld als alternatieve conferentie over hetgeen op ‘hoog niveau’ wordt besproken. Het alternatief wordt geboden vanwege grote argwaan t.o.v. de ministeriële conferentie (The Convention on Biological Diversity op ministerieel niveau in Den Haag): EYFA en ASEED zijn van mening dat de ministeriële conferentie slechts gehouden wordt om de suggestie te wekken dat er iets gedaan wordt tegen de genetische manipulatie van gewassen en vee. Volgens E en A worden echter nauwelijks concrete daden verricht of maatregelen genomen door de politiek; E en A zijn van mening dat het ministeriële debat ontoegankelijk en misleidend is vanwege de ‘dure taal’ vol jargon en ingewikkelde begrippen; E en A zijn van mening dat ‘het gewone volk’ geen stem heeft in deze discussie en bovendien na afloop misleidend worden geïnformeerd door de politiek. De conferentie wordt gehouden in een oud schoolgebouw aan de Waldeck Pyrmonthkade te Den Haag. Aan de elektriciteitshuisjes in de straat hangen witte doeken met het opschrift ‘Resistance is fertile’. Op het plein voor het schoolgebouw staan twee beschilderde bestelwagens en een grote witte tent. In het fietsenrek staan versierde fietsen voorzien van vlaggen [restanten van ‘Tour de Plants’ blijkt later]. Op de trappen van het gebouw staan enkele jongeren, gekleed in hippie-achtige [jaren 60] kleding shag te roken. De deuren van de voormalige school staan wijd open. De entree [op de begane grond] van het gebouw is ingericht als ontspanningsruimte en informatiepunt. Een tafel met ongeveer de lengte van de gehele achterwand, dient als receptie. Op tafel liggen tientallen stapels met folders, flyers, pamfletten, stickers en actiekranten [zie bijlagen per post] die in relatie staan met het onderwerp van de conferentie. Achter de tafel hangen vellen papier waarop met stift het programma aangekondigd staat. Een staflid van EYFA bemand de receptie. Een andere tafel dient als koffiepunt. Vier grote stalen ‘horeca’containers voorzien de bezoekers en organisatoren onbeperkt van bio-koffie, bio-thee en warme bio-chocomel. Op een schoolbord worden de activiteiten in dat weekend schematisch weergegeven in volgorde van aanvangstijd. De locaties van de meeste workshops bevinden zich in het gebouw op de eerste verdieping, de activiteiten en een enkele workshop vinden buiten het gebouw plaats. Eveneens op de begane grond [niet toegankelijk voor publiek] bevindt zich het kantoor van de organisatie – het zogenaamde zenuwcenter van de conferentie. Vanaf deze plek wordt het randgebeuren van de conferentie gecoördineerd: vergaderingen over het verloop van de conferentie, de verdeling van de taken, de aanvoer van actiemateriaal, de coördinatie van de keuken (er worden ‘biologisch’ontbijt, lunch en diner geserveerd), de planning van de workshops en activiteiten etc. Het kantoor is ingericht met een tafel en een vijftal stoelen, twee computers, enkele matrassen met slaapzakken en stapels pamfletten, kranten en flyers om de informatietafels te bevoorraden. De workshopruimten op de eerste verdieping zijn ingericht als klaslokaal en voorzien van schoolbord met krijt en flip-overs. Ook in deze ruimten ontbreekt het niet aan informatie via flyers en folders. De grote witte tent, buiten op het schoolplein, fungeert als keuken [en hoeft niet onder te doen voor een professionele catering]. Verder hangen overal in het gebouw plattegronden waarop vluchtroutes (nooduitgangen) worden aangegeven en wordt duidelijk aangegeven wat te doen in geval van behoefte aan EHBO [namen en mobile nummers van mensen in bezit van EHBO-diploma en –materiaal]. Meest opvallende positieve (P) / negatieve (N) elementen. Locatie: P. De locatie is groot genoeg voor het aantal verwachte bezoekers en de ruimte is goed besteed en op logische, gebruiksvriendelijke wijze ingericht. De locatie straalt een sfeer uit die goed past bij het ‘actievoerende karakter’ van beide organisaties en hun doelgroep. De locatie ligt vrij centraal en is makkelijk bereikbaar met het openbaar vervoer. N. Er wordt niet duidelijk aangegeven dat er een conferentie gaande is in het pand en welke organisaties daarbij betrokken zijn, waardoor het geheel een wat chaotische en illegale indruk maakt. Sfeer: P. De sfeer is uitermate goed en eendrachtig. Zowel organisatie als bezoekers zijn zeer gedreven en serieus bezig met de conferentie. Ook in de wandelgangen is weinig ‘sociaal gebabbel’, de gespreksstof heeft steeds betrekking op de onderwerpen van de conferentie. N. Er lijkt een bepaalde kledingcode onder zowel bezoekers als organisatie. Hierdoor zijn de leden van de organisatie niet te onderscheiden van het publiek. Bovendien werkt de unanieme en vrij excentrieke manier van kleden drempel verhogend voor passantenpubliek en geeft het de conferentie een vrij ‘incrowd-aanzien’ [hoewel ik ervan overtuigd ben dat werkelijk iedereen welkom is]. Informatie en publiciteit. P. De voorlichting over de onderwerpen van de conferentie, relevante andere onderwerpen en andere organisaties met dezelfde doelstellingen is zeer uitgebreid. De informatie is voor iedereen toegankelijk omdat het: a) gratis is b) in vele talen wordt verspreid c) makkelijk te vinden is. De informatietafel/ receptie wordt constant bemand door iemand van de organisatie (van EYFA)- deze persoon is goed geïnformeerd en geeft antwoord op alle mogelijke vragen. Alle leden van de organisatie zijn goed op de hoogte van het onderwerp van de conferentie (zowel van de politieke ontwikkelingen als de ontwikkelingen binnen hun eigen ‘alternatieve’ circuit). Op de parallel lopende ‘politieke conferentie’ op het ministerie, staat een stand van ASEED / EYFA zodat de bezoekers en organisatoren van het ‘officiële debat’ zich kunnen informeren over de stellingen en opvattingen op de ‘alternatieve’ conferentie. Voor informatievertrekking tijdens demonstraties en acties is een speciale info-bakfiets ontworpen. Een ingenieus voertuig dat als een soort van rijdende brochure/flyervitrine fungeert. Er is een speciaal perskantoor ingericht elders in de stad. De lokale radio zend straatinterviews uit met mensen die deelgenomen hebben aan of getuigen waren van een activiteit van ASEED. N. Door het gigantisch aanbod van informatie – en de manier waarop de informatie gepresenteerd wordt [alles ligt door elkaar op tafels, hangt aan muren, ligt op vensterbanken, wordt uitgedeeld] bestaat het gevaar dat een bezoeker die niet volledig op de hoogte is door de bomen het bos kwijtraakt c.q. de kern van het debat niet kan ontdekken. Een eerder geplande persconferentie werd op het laatste moment afgelast. Er was nauwelijks persaandacht. De workshops: P. De workshops hebben een hoog informatief niveau, zijn relevant, divers, afwisselend (zwaar en luchtig), goed georganiseerd en worden zeer goed ontvangen door het publiek. Bijvoorbeeld: De workshop Common Ground waarin boeren en tuinders uitleggen hoe zij hun gewassen op milieuvriendelijke en biologische wijze telen - is van redelijke zwaarte – vrij specifiek en trekt een divers publiek (zowel algemeen geïnteresseerde als studenten van de Landbouw Universiteit en Technische Universiteit). De activiteiten: ? P./N. De activiteiten hebben een ‘actievoerend’ karakter en zijn meer bedoeld ter voorlichting van niet-deelnemers dan wel-deelnemers aan de conferentie. Bijvoorbeeld: Tour de Plants: Een fietstocht door de stad, langs alle ministeries, waarbij de deelnemers aan de fietstocht behangen zijn met knoflook, knoflookgeur verspreiden, knoflook uitdelen met de leus ‘garlic for peace’ en er gepoogd wordt aan diverse ministers een boom aan te bieden – waarbij de desbetreffende minister moet tekenen voor ontvangst en moet beloven de boom goed te zullen verzorgen. P. De acties hebben een vreedzaam/ non-agressief karakter. De acties werken ‘group-bounding’ voor de deelnemers en zorgen voor een beetje ontspanning en ‘lucht’ als afwisseling op de ‘zware’ debatten en workshops. De acties geven het geheel een beetje een rebels karakter wat ook wel past bij de idealen van de organisatie. Het publiek: P. Het publiek is serieus geïnteresseerd, toegewijd en gedreven. Het publiek maakt de indruk vaker naar dit soort conferenties te komen en maakt de indruk goed bekend te zijn met de leden van de organisatie. ? P./N. Het publiek bestaat voor een groot deel uit Oost Europeanen. Er waren geen jongeren met een Marokkaanse, Surinaamse, Turkse of Antilliaanse achtergrond [ik weet niet of je deze jongeren mag betitelen als etnische minderheid?]. N. Ik kreeg de indruk dat er weinig nieuwe/ niet met de organisatie bekende jongeren aanwezig waren. Presentatie: P. Voordat de conferentie begon zijn de bewoners van de panden in de directe omgeving van de locatie middels huis-aan-huis-mailing op de hoogte gesteld van de duur, aard en doelstelling van de conferentie. De mailing bevatte eveneens een vrijblijvende uitnodiging om de conferentie te bezoeken. ? P./N. De overige bewoners van de stad Den Haag zijn d.m.v. eerder beschreven acties op de hoogte gesteld van de doelstellingen van de organisatie. N. De uitstraling van het gebouw waarin de conferentie wordt gehouden alsmede de uitstraling van organisatie en publiek is vrij ‘incrowd’ en ‘demonstratief’.

FICE Observer: Bart van Melik 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

In how far could your organisation realise its publications and publicity plans for 1999?2 In how far could your organisation realise its publications and publicity plans for 2000? Planned activities as coded from the application form(s)

16.


17.


18. 19.


20.

A-3029 allocation

15.

1999 1999-48 2000 2000-52 FICE Federation Internationale des Communautés Educatives N 1999 2000 Total 16 17 EU-countries 8 9 Third countries 8 8 EU-Youth INTEREST GROUP Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 4 2000 5 Less than half of them are young people Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity Fully or almost fully


YES YES YES YES

2

2

YES YES

YES

Fully or almost fully 1999 YES YES

Conference(s), board meeting(s) Seminar(s), workshop(s) Exhibition(s), festival(s), camp(s) Youth exchange(s) Other activities Not all of it Not all of it 1999 2000 1999 2000

N n

1999 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€5.000,00 €5.000,00 €10.000,00

22% 46%

2000 YES YES YES YES

2. Open answers of the key organiser Absolutely, our western-European members + board members can afford their own costs. Since we have this grant we have moderate opportunities to let participate eastern-and middle European countries and org. act. In (our case) ex-Yougoslavia, which are important to improve contacts and the level of professional youth care in these countries. For documentation see our report of S.E.-Europe conf. In General positive. Strong: its international perspective. Weak: some practical aspects: grant arrives when the year is almost half way. Quite a problem, 2. The system is quite complicated, 3. The amount of money is quite low. I know FICE creates and supports activities concerning human and special children’s rights in European countries, helps by building nets for co-operation between children and youth from different countries. Indirectly in fact through education of staff improvements relationships between involved youth and other people in the field of education and living together.

3. Report of our observer Interview gehouden op 24-6-02 met Onno van Praag, Penningmeester (Treasurer), duur: 1,5 uur Structuur reportage: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Beschrijving doelen en praktijken van FICE. Betekenis van A-3029 voor FICE. Geschiktheid FICE voor de A-3029. Evaluatie van aanvraag procedure van de A-3029. Ideeën ter verbetering van de A-3029.

1) Wie is FICE Europe? FICE Europe is een Europese netwerk organisatie, volledig bestaande uit vrijwilligers, die zich inzet voor kennisverbreding en verbetering van jeugdzorg d.m.v. uitwisselingen, congressen en andere internationale samenkomsten. FICE is een wereldwijde organisatie, opgericht in 1948, waarvan FICE Europe verantwoordelijk is voor het Europese netwerk. Wanneer we FICE schrijven in dit verslag wordt er uitsluitend verwezen naar FICE Europe. Dhr. Van Praag omschrijft FICE als 'een organisatie van organisaties voor jeugdzorg'. Er bestaan grote verschillen op Europees niveau qua vertegenwoordiging van organisaties voor jeugdzorg bij FICE. De Nederlandse vertegenwoordiging van FICE leden geschiedt meestal door directeuren van jeugdinstellingen. Echter in Duitsland wordt FICE vertegenwoordigd door veel hoogleraren. Uitwisselingen worden georganiseerd voor zowel professioneel jeugdzorgpersoneel, als voor kinderen die verbonden zijn aan een vorm van jeugdzorg. Hoofddoel van FICE is gericht op verbreding van praktijk en theorie kennis omtrent jeugdzorg in Europa. FICE heeft leden in 16 Europese landen. Oost-Europese landen worden momenteel actief uitgenodigd om deel te nemen aan het FICE netwerk. 2) Betekenis van A-3029 voor FICE. FICE heeft geen echt bureau of vaste medewerkers, daarvoor is geen geld. Dhr. Van Praag geeft aan dat er veel geschipperd wordt om de bestuursleden van FICE bij elkaar te laten komen. De kosten die bestuursleden uit West-Europa maken voor FICE kunnen gedeclareerd worden bij de instellingen waar zij werkzaam zijn. OostEuropese bestuursleden daarentegen, hebben deze mogelijkheid niet. Vooral voor bestuurlijke bijeenkomsten kunnen geen Westerse subsidiegevers worden aangesproken. ¾ ¾ ¾

Zonder de A-3029 zou FICE bijna helemaal een West-Europese organisatie zijn; 70% van de A-3029 gaat naar kosten dekking van Oost-Europese bestuursleden. De overige 30% gaat naar projecten waar geld tekort is. Een verandering van de A3029 in een subsidie systeem waarbij voor elke activiteit apart subsidie aangevraagd moet worden zou voor FICE nog meer schipperen betekenen om Oost-Europese bestuursleden aanwezig te laten zijn bij bijeenkomsten. Als oplossing voor dit probleem maken West-Europese bestuursleden nu al de eigen kosten hoger, om met het extra geld de kosten van de collega's uit het Oosten te compenseren. Een activiteitssubsidie zou betekenen dat deze 'oplossing' standaard in het beleid van FICE thuis hoort. Volgens dhr. Van Praag zijn er al genoeg activiteitssubsidies, waarbij alleen voor inhoud betaald wordt.

3) Geschiktheid van FICE voor de A-3029. ¾ ¾

¾ ¾ ¾

Creatie van Europees bewustzijn onder grote aantallen jongeren wordt bewerkstelligd door uitwisselingen te organiseren voor zowel professionele arbeidskrachten, als voor kinderen. Beide groepen krijgen meer inzicht in de culturele verschillen en overeenkomsten binnen de jeugdzorg in Europa. Er worden veel arbeidskrachten, vrijwilligers en kinderen betrokken in de activiteiten georganiseerd door FICE. In Nederland is de helft van alle betaalde krachten in de jeugdzorg lid van FICE. Elders in Europa ligt het percentage arbeidskrachten dat lid is van FICE tegen de 100%. Het netwerk van FICE heeft een grote dekking in Europa. FICE probeert zoveel mogelijk instellingen in Europa te bezoeken. De specifieke doelgroep van FICE is Europese kinderen die binnen de jeugdzorg vallen. Hierbij horen kinderen met sociale, psychische of lichamelijke problemen. De bijdrage van FICE aan de politieke dialoog en het debat op Europees niveau is gering. De discussie binnen FICE richt zich meer op een inventarisatie van methodes binnen de jeugdzorg in Europa en op de wijze waarop deze methodes zo breed mogelijk uitgewisseld kunnen worden. In de vragenlijst voor de 'organiser' staat dat FICE niet alle plannen voor activiteiten heeft kunnen realiseren in 1999 en 2000. Vooral het 'Professional Exchange Programme' verloopt nog niet naar wens. In dit programma wordt aan professionele jeugdzorg krachten de mogelijkheid geboden om ervaring op te doen in een gelijksoortige instelling elders in Europa. Dhr. Van Praag draagt, als belangrijkste reden voor de stagnatie van het PEP, aan dat de matching tussen de wensen van de uitwisselaar en de wensen van de ontvangende organisatie moeizaam verloopt. FICE ontvangt vooral aanvragen vanuit Oost-Europa, maar een ander probleem, specifiek voor deze doelgroep, is dat extra kosten (naast huizing en voedsel) die de uitwisselaar zelf moet betalen, niet betaald kunnen worden.

4) Evaluatie van aanvraag procedure van de A-3029. Dhr. Van Praag heeft al ruime tijd ervaring met de A-3029. In het eerste jaar vermoedde hij dat het enorme invul- en naslagwerk zou afnemen naarmate hij meer ervaring had met de aanvraag van de A-3029. Dit vermoeden bleek onjuist; nog steeds moet dhr. Van Praag zich door de aanvraag 'heen bijten'. ¾ ¾

¾ ¾ ¾

¾

FICE heeft het gevoel alsof er geen communicatie bestaat met de EC. Er komt lange tijd geen reactie op de aanvraag voor de A-3029. Verder wordt er nooit inhoudelijk ingegaan op de aanvraag, noch wordt er een reden gegeven voor een veel lagere toekenning dan het vorige jaar. FICE heeft een paar jaar geleden een afspraak gemaakt om met de EC te praten in Brussel. Dhr. Van Praag beschrijft het kantoor als een grote puinhoop met piepkleine kamers helemaal vol met papier. De verantwoordelijke voor de A-3029 destijds, maakte een doelloze en richtingloze indruk. FICE heeft geen bevredigende antwoorden gekregen tijdens het bezoek, maar een jaar na het bezoek was de toegekende hoeveelheid subsidie veel lager. Dit is voor FICE een reden om geen communicatie met de EC aan te gaan. FICE heeft ook moeite met de invoer van gegevens voor de A-3029 die allang bekend bij de EC moeten zijn. Deelname aan het 'European Youth Forum' is voor FICE geen optie om meer opheldering te krijgen van de EC. De antwoorden van de EC zijn indirect en deelname kost een bestuurslid van FICE drie dagen. Omdat het budget van FICE lager is dan 50000 euro, kunnen ze niet meer dan 10000 euro subsidie aanvragen. Door een vaste arbeidskracht aan te stellen zou het mogelijk zijn om voor de volledige A-3029 subsidie (25000 euro) in aanmerking te komen. Maar door de grote onzekerheid omtrent de toewijzing en de grote ervan, kan FICE geen continuïteit garanderen aan een betaalde arbeidskracht. De toekenning van de A-3029 vindt erg laat plaats.

5) Ideeën ter verbetering van de A-3029. ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Subsidie periode zou 3 jaar moeten zijn. Hiermee krijgen jeugdorganisaties de mogelijkheid om te investeren en lange termijn plannen op te stellen. Er moet altijd een subsidie blijven bestaan voor de dekking van organisatiekosten. FICE is namelijk een netwerk organisatie en het onderhouden van een netwerk kost veel tijd. Hiervoor moet geld zijn. De A-3029 aanvraag moet geautomatiseerd worden. Hiermee kan voor beide partijen enorm veel tijd bespaard worden. De EC zou in gesprek moeten gaan met jeugdorganisaties en meer kwalitatief moeten evalueren.

IACES Observer: István Szücs 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

1999 1999-54 2000 2000-56 IACES International Association of Civil Engineering Students N 1999 2000 Total 22 24 EU-countries 10 9 Third countries 12 15 EU-Youth 400 257 STUDENTS Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 12 2000 12


YES

YES YES


1999 Conference(s), board meeting(s) Seminar(s), workshop(s) Exhibition(s), festival(s), camp(s) Youth exchange(s) Other activities

14.

16.


17.


18. 19.


20.

A-3029 allocation

15.

1999 2000 1999 2000

YES YES YES

YES YES

1998 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€5.000,00 €5.000,00 €5.000,00 €7.500,00


7% 10%



Total

17.

Magazines Internal media Book, reports, publications Leaflets, posters, other media Total

IACES 3 75,0 3 75,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 25,0 3 75,0 4

12.


4,4

4,3

3,8

4,1

4,2

4,2

4,2

4,5

3,8

4,6


18.


Directly

I don't know their web-site Yes, I visit it regularly Yes, but I visit it occasionally Total

16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

3 75,0 1 25,0 0 0,0 4




204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

IACES

13.

All

IACES


All

Not 7.

3 75,0 1 25,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 4

Not (so) important Total Table 133 Activities


206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

IACES


4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 4


All

10.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

IACES



NGO, volunteer Information services, ICT Education, training

All

9.

Academic, student

4 100,0 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 4


35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

IACES

3 75,0 1 25,0 0 0,0 4

19.


Directly Indirectly

1


2 4

Table 139 Gender

15.

Are you

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

Male Female Total

85


Directly

1

4 100,0 0 0,0 4

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

1 25,0 2 50,0 1 25,0 4

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

2 50,0 1 25,0 1 25,0 4


20.

IACES

Rather important

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254


1 25,0 1 25,0 2 50,0 4


Total 14.

All

Very important

Total

Not

All


IACES

8.

All

Table 138 Sector

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256


Indirectly

Table 137 Country

Table 131 Web-site

IACES

IACES EYFA


152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251


Directly

All

Electronic media

All

Table 136 Average ratings Which information media or publications have you seen since 1999

All


Table 130 Media

6.

24,0 4

IACES

Not (so) important

32,0 256

IACES

Rather important


IACES

Very important

1 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 4

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

IACES

235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251

All

Total


All

Not (so) familiar

11.

All

Rather familiar

3 75,0 1 25,0 0 0,0 4

Table 140 Age

All

Very familiar

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


IACES

5.

All


3 75,0 0 0,0 1 25,0 4

3. Open answers of stakeholders The yearly EU grant, that IACES receives, is the main source of income on international level for our association. That income is used to maintain the communication and coordination of within IACES. IACES is an association, which I believe, is very much oriented towards the European Union ideas and aims. It promotes international understanding and intercultural communication. It develops the ways to work in an international team, creates professional and friendly contacts, explores the culture and language differences. Mt belief is that such subsidies for youth organisations that help the European integration are a good investment for the future. I was an international board member in the first two years that IACES applied for the A-3029 grant. My experience is that the A-3029 grant has Made a significant contribution to the organisation of IACES: more emphasis could be put on the contents of the courses, and better quality courses could be given to the students. In my opinion, the A-3029 grant works very well. Especially the grant forms that have to be filled in for application each year, force the board to be well aware of its local members' whereabouts, thus indirectly contribution to a more structured organisation as well. I don't have any recommendations for improvement right now. I think EU subsidies are very helpful for international youth organisations, because it makes possible to arrange international networks and keep them alive. In IACES we take nearly the whole subsidies to keep the organisation running and enable our members to take part in "internal policies". This is even more important as we are spread over Europe from Scandinavia to Mediterranean and from Atlantic Ocean to Anatolian Mountain. The IACES network is based on personal contacts. That means during our activities people of several countries have the chance to meet eachother and build up strong friendships across borders of countries and religions. On this way also happens an exchange of worth's and ideals. And as I can see, this creates an international feeling of belonging together and strengthens community of Europe. For the future the EU subsidies may should be given also to projects with wider boundaries than EU countries and applicants for the EU., because there are probable a lot young people, who believe in the same ideals of internationalism but can not promote and live this ideals as long there is no support by higher institutions.

86

4. Report of our observer Timisoara is third largest city in Romania having more than 300 thousand inhabitants. The tiny Bega-river crosses the town that has three universities with 60000 students. The town is far more developed settlement than the Romanian average – it is the North centre of culture and industry of Romania. Man can have a European feeling while taking a walk on the main city square – from which the revolution started in 1989. The common program of the university is not enough for a small portion of students of civil engineering faculty of Timisoara Technical University and they organise separate events for themselves, they join to the international youth organisation (AICES). Generally these programmes have three types: 17. Scientific - professional (technical and management courses) 18. Fun and entertainment 19. Country visitation The 19-26 of May Program5 was a combination of all three types. (We shall see later that it may be one possible reason of failure). This week of May was period a Student Week of Technical University Timisoara, so seemed to be ideal for an international event. Plenty of programmes were organised, thousands of students came together for different educational, fun and sport programmes. The preconditions of the report (When I arrived to the faculty building the LC members were holding a Job Shop for student fellows. (It proves that the program was well prepared as far as many locally interested companies were present and plenty student visited the job-marketplace.) The Romanian part of the program went on – despite the fact the course was postponed for October 2002.) The finding of this report is based on group interview and workshops conducted with 8 LC Timisoara and 2 German members of IACES. The Strengths and the Weaknesses of the preparation is summarised in the Supplement 5. Why was the Program Postponed? The organiser LC members predicted 22-25 participants for the program including 6-10 Romanian and 12-15 foreign participants from different university. Preliminary (two weeks before the conference) the situation of application was: Preliminary Applied Students Number Italian 3 Ps German 2 Ps Turkish 4 Ps Albanian 1 Ps Romanian 6 Ps Together 16 Ps

Verified the Application one Week Before Italian 3 Ps German 2 Ps Turkish Albanian Romanian 6 Ps Together 11 Ps

The organiser team decided not to organise a conference for 5 foreign student and postponed it for October. It was not an easy decision, but as far as the organising body had a great input prior the event they did not want to vast the procured resources for an unsuccessful program. How (well) was the program organised? The organiser team thinks that they did everything what could be expected in preparation: The Organisation of the Preparation Process 5. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25.

The local organisation established an Organising Committee (OC) to prepare the event. The OC had a responsibility chart that contained all essential tasks and their leaders6: The web construction (http://www.iaces.org/timisoara/) The PR of IACES The „job-shop”7 The presentation technique and personnel of the job-shop The course The promotion of the program Touristical program-part Sport program Treasurer The Board of Directors of Local Community supervised the job of OC They sent e-mail to 815 members of IACES 4 months before the course. They organised a separate home page for the event before two months and sent an e-mail to all addresses in which they asked the members to apply directly by mail. The result can be seen in Table 1. first column. The text of invitation was: „LC Timisoara invites you to a spring course between the 20th and 26th of May. The course will debate a major subject: Improving Building Structural Quality By New Technologies. A few lectures will be hold by some of our professors. A nice excursion is also on the schedule. But don't worry, we didn't forget about the good time, there will be plenty of it. So don't make other plans, you are wanted in Timisoara.” One week before the program they sent an e-mail to applicants that the program was postponed, but they are welcome in Timisoara (Italian and German students arrived and had a very nice, sunny week in the student-down town) Even if all pre-applicant had verified the application one week before the event the organisers would have cancelled this program because it was not organised for eleven foreign students. The number of target audience were minimum 15 students.

The Organisation of the Content of the Course The impressive title of the program was: „Including Building Structural Quality by New Technologies” The five lecture were the professional centre of the program. The students contacted in time with the prospective lecturer professors. The feature of professors selected were: 21. Made IACES course before 22. International experience 23. Well known experts in their fields 24. Represented different fields of civil engineering. What could be the problem? Why the program has failed? Only the members of IACES can tell why they did not applied and why did not they express their interest to be present on the really impressing conference. The local communities IACES organise their general assembly in September in Sofia. They should abuse the common meeting to find out the causes the failure. The members of Timisoara LC will conduct soft interviews with the fellow members of different countries LC to reveal the real personal problems of the program. This time the members of LC could only try to guess what might be the real back holding forces: 1.) The timing might not be ideal for two reasons: 6. Examination time in different European universities. But as the organisers stated the IACES has 50 LCs, it is very hard to find a period of the year, that is ideal for all organisations and members. In former years courses were organised also in May. 7. Pentecost was the first two days of the program. Christian celebration hold back an essential portion of optional applicants. 2.) The place might not be attractive enough 5. May be that the image of Timisoara (Romania) is not attractive. The organisers took this fact into consideration that’s why they organised a manly professional program. 6. Romania is not most attractive touristical target area. However Timisora is an outstanding comfortable city of the country and attractive guide and leisure program was promised. More intensive promotion should be expressed on this issue. 7. The location of accommodation was organised in the campus which is a newly built settlement in the city containing flats for 40000 students. This youth-town could provide service at different level and different price from student comfort to four stars hotel level. 3.) The content and the structure of the program The team of LC (10-12 motivated LC member) wanted to give a strong professional feature to the program. They thought that Timisoara has not a chance to compete with other LCs in term of ’fun’ programs, so they organised five interesting lectures that covered all areas of architecture and organised show about bridges of Danube (really cross national interest) and also organised an exiting excursion to Iron Gate on the river Danube. (Supplement 3. contains the description of professional program) Despite of the fact that the planned program had a strong professional content, those students did not applied who were interested in professional development. Why? Perhaps: the CV of lecturers could not be read on web site the program did not focus on professional side, the organisers „wanted to keep the balance of the day” so that participants could see the country and have a good time as well The written program gave too much „freedom” to the participants. They might think it was a „laissez faire” program, nevertheless the program that was written and communicated in English contained only the international part of the Youth Program organised for the whole week. The local youth organisation offered busy program for the whole student week for Romanian students. Despite of the fact that the program contained many leisure program events those participants did not apply who wanted to travel to Timisoara for a funny week. Why? Perhaps for these student a fun programs were described on too generous way. (The Supplement 1. contains such program titles as „on 20th of May: 14.30-19.00 – Coffee and Free Time, 21st of May: The Boss Club, which means to be in a restaurant, 22nd of May: 16.30-18.30 Free time, act.)

5 The planned Program is attached – Supplement 1. A remark should be made: this program is only the program proposed for international students, for inhabitants the program contained more professional elements in Romanian language. 6 The Responsibility chart is attached as Supplement 2. (It is in Rumanian language, but with the remarks it can be understood.) 7 The Job Shop was essential part of the program as far as the interested companies provided the financial background of the planned program

87

Perhaps for these students the professional part was too large The touristic part of the program was the most balanced part: Boat trip, site seeing, river excursion. Despite of the fact that the program was cancelled for this period, 2 German and 3 Italian students came to see the place and the fellow students and they took part on student week fun program. German and Italian students applied for the Timisoara program because they have never been in this part of Europe before, and: 4. To meet foreign students 5. To solve general student problems 6. For professional interest 7. To see the possibilities 8. To see the specialities in central Europe 9. To build friendship 10. The conference was about modern technology. 4.) The preparation organising job The format of invitation How far is/was the electronic communication effective. German students stated that the traditional invitation form is more effective, because students take it more seriously. Some years ago a mail was enough, but today so many information arrive on mail, that the real important information dilute. The other problem of e-mailing that many students do not have exclusive personal computer so they can get mails and information only occasionally, not to speak about technical problems. May be a significant portion of members even did not get the invitation for application and for the program. Anyhow if the program was published and communicated on Internet, it could be done a little bit more scheduled manner. There was not a defined application deadline, the price of the participation was not clearly stated. The members of IACES get information about the program 2 month before the implementation time, but the lack of deadline let applications be delayed and postponed. Time management of preparation Program organisers some times must cancel the planned program for the simple reason of having no applicants. So the most critical problem was not that the program was postponed but that when it was postponed. The LC took the decision not to realise the course one week before the implementation date. It happened because there was not a strict application deadline defined on web, so the team hat to way to the last minute. If there was strict deadline one month before the event, the organisers would have more moving area, could cancel the program in time or could strengthen the pre-organising efforts by direct contact with other LCs. Content management of preparation The team focused on the content (their product). Each program part has its responsible, each program part was planned and prepared including financial and technical resources and preconditions. However the most important thing in this game was forgotten: the clients, the prospective participants. The IACES members could or could not get the information through Internet, they could send their applications freely, but it was not controlled in time. Only one week before the program they realised that the program could not be implemented. That’s why the cancellation was painful. The LC had to explain for supporting companies that the given money is not spent in vain, it is still on the bank account, they had to be beg pardon from Mayor of the city, they had to mail to all applicants and LCs. The program organisers wanted to provide a diversified program with strong professional, fun and touristic features. Perhaps for those who wanted a professional program it was too loose, for those who wanted a fun program it was too heavy. Such programs must have clear profile – of course must contain complementary elements. Integration into the other youth program (Technical University Youth Days) organised by the same university and the same participants. It was a good idea to match the program to the Youth Days program of the University. Some parts of the program could be realised (E.g. Job Shop, fun and sport programs for Romanian students) so not all organising effort were useless. They could abuse the resources (organised programs, climate, PR, act.) of the fellow youth organisation. To Ensure the Financial Background This program has not failed because of the lack of money. All necessary fund was organised in advanced more over it was a special problem after delaying the program to keep the money until the repetition of the program in October. It was not easy for LC to organise financial basic for the course. But as far as the LC is a professional organisation they could find those companies who are interested in future expert of the trade, so companies in civil engineering supported the program. 6. The companies supported the program because> 7. It was a PR of the companies 8. The event matched their professional interest 9. It was an international promotion opportunity for these companies 10. The companies could find their future employees on the course of co-operation (job shop) For an international program it is a crucial question to provide the financial background in advance, to avoid uncertainty. The organisers knew this and procured the money in time, and they began the organisation of the program only after the money was ensured. They did not applied for EU fund because they did not know it is possible or not, and they thought it is too bureaucratic and the other hand, they would like to keep their independence from money providing organisations. The money organising is a time conusming process so such programs should be started a half year before the implementation time. The lesson so far The postponed conference would be a self organised. The LC did not applied for support and did not get support from EU or other intentional organisation. They organised the financial background on the basis of their local network (companies, alumni, mayor of the city). The IACES is a loose network of national LCs of IACES. Each LC organises its organisation and programs on its own account. They did not get any support from the European Headquarter. LC Timisoara is the strongest LC of Romania. (Their introducing leaflet is in the Supplement 4.) The members of LC Timisoara are also the members of the general Youth Association of their university. The idea of international co-operation is good and the most active young people all over the World abuse the opportunity of international co-working. The membership of IACES is based on age and profession. Due to the „age – feature” it is changing over time, due to the „professional feature” it is an exclusive organisation. The organisation has a direct effect on the students of Civil Engineering Faculties of universities. The intensity of activity is different by countries and by time. So when considering the EU support my suggestion is: 1. The supported local community should guarantee at least 50 students’ participation 2. The supported conference should not be exclusive 3. The list of participants should be available – the written application of 80% of minimum number - one month before the event. Something was wrong in the organisation but only the IACES members can tell exactly what were the real reasons. The leadership of LC Timisoara should conduct soft interviews with the member at the nearest time (on the Sofia General Assembly in September) to find out the cause of the failure, and they should communicate the findings within IACES to avoid the repetition of the same mistake ageing in organisation. Despite of the fact that this program has faild, the organiser LC of IACES is a strong and motivated team (15 person). It can serve as a bridge between IACES and other Romanian faculties in civil engineering. The team is ready to promote the ideas of IACES in Romania. The LC is ready to organise a nation wide program to promote the IACES movement, but they need international support to this. The LC Timisora will repeat the organising effort to implement the course in October.

88

IBO 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

14.


16.


17.


18. 19.


15.

20.

A-3029 allocation

1999 1999-7 2000 2000-8 IBO Italia Associazione Italiana SOCI Costruttori N 1999 2000 Total 10 13 EU-countries 6 8 Third countries 4 5 EU-Youth 1971 2079 VOLUNTARY SERVICE Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 5 2000 7 Most of them are young people Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity Fully or almost fully

YES YES YES YES

YES

1 1 1 1

YES


Conference(s), board meeting(s) Seminar(s), workshop(s) Exhibition(s), festival(s), camp(s) Youth exchange(s) Other activities Fully or almost fully Fully or almost fully 1999 2000 1999 2000

YES YES YES YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€3.000,00 €8.000,00 €8.000,00 €8.000,00 €10.000,00

1997

89

11% 12%

1999

2000

YES

YES

2. Open answers of the key organiser IBO can engage 1 person more who dedicates completely in the youth exchanges. Volunteering ass. cannot realise very much thanks to the support of the volunteers. But still, in producing nothing, which you can sell, it ends up being difficult to manage and realise everything. By this grant we can carry out our activities and look forward. Strong points are seen in the simple finding of info thanks to a well-taken care web-site. The simplicity of the applications with which to present requests and as well as the sufficiently fast and simple way with which you can effect final balance and reports. Weak points can be seen in the small contributions directly awarded towards the functionality and maintenance of the structures (such as for example A3029). Very often the grants are for projects (50%), which during their realisation spend the whole grant without even taking any share in the future. The system could be improved through awarding more grants to the functioning of secretaries. Often it is asked a certain professionality (regarding translation, final balances, knowledge of the sector, informatics, facilities, disposability of time, accountancy, etc.), which is only possible to guaranty if you are well structured, however at the same time there is no money available for the maintenance of the structure it is difficult to keep professionality and continuity.

90




235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


14 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 14

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

IBO

7.

All

12 85,7 2 14,3 0 0,0 14

Table 155 Gender

IBO

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


IBO

1.

All


9 69,2 4 30,8 13

Table 156 Age


All 4,7

3,8

2,7

4,2

4,7

4,2

3,9

3,8

3,5

36,0 13


13.



Table 147 Web-site

32,0 256

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

IBO

Internal media

4,4


All

Magazines


IBO


8 57,1 7 50,0 6 42,9 1 7,1 0 0,0 9 64,3 14

8.

All

Electronic media

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

IBO


All


IBO

Table 146 Media

2 15,4 8 61,5 3 23,1 13

Table 153 Country



IBO 13 92,9 1 7,1 0 0,0 14



Education, training


206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

IBO


All

Youth work 5.

11 78,6 3 21,4 0 0,0 14



187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

IBO


All

6.

9 94,3 5 35,7 7 50,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 14

Total

15. 10.

Information services, ICT Table 149 Activities

Not


91

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

IBO

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

All

Very important

All


Indirectly

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

IBO 3 23,1 8 61,5 2 15,4 13


Table 154 Sector 4.

Directly

All

All

IBO 12 92,3 1 7,7 0 0,0 0 0,0 13


1

Directly

2


1

1

2

13



2

9 69,2 2 15,4 2 15,4 13


16.

1

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

IBO


204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263


Total

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

IBO


1 7,1 9 64,3 4 28,6 14


All


16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

14. 9.

All


IBO


All


9 69,2 3 23,1 1 7,7 13

4. Open answers of stakeholders Grâce a ses chantiers de travail volontaire, l’ IBO favorise les rapports internationaux parmi la jeunesse, européenne d’abord, mais aussi d’autres Continents. Par ses projets de développement de base, depuis 1956, l’IBO est aussi pressente en Afrique, Amérique Latine( centre et sud), ainsi qu’en Asie (Inde, Sri Lankais, Israël, Turquie). Bien avant la chute du mur de Berlin, nous étions aussi présents dans les pays de l’Est: Pologne, Yougoslavie, Hongrie, Roumanie, Macédoine, Tchèquie, Slovaquie.)Tout ceci a été possible surtout grâce a des aides privées; parfois aussi publiques, celles ci spécialement des gouvernements Belges et Italiens. Je suggère que les subventions de l’UE puissent soutenir les ONG en favorisant le déplacement des jeunes diminuer les frais des voyages…)Important aussi aider les ONG a organiser les projets dans les pays en voie de développement; favoriser aussi la présence des jeunes volontaires européens(étendre a ses pays le Service Volontaire Européen pour une présence de 2 ou 3 ans). Ces projets devraient aussi prévoir un budget pour les ONG(de jeunes)présentes dans ces pays. Je suis assez réticent envers les Congres ou rencontres internationales qui coûtent souvent tres chers et favorisent tres peu l’échange des jeunes. Je tiens a remercier tous les fonctionnaires européens qui nous avons contacter depuis plus de 30 ans et qui nous ont soutenus grâce a leurs conseils et une aide concrète. IBO well deserves its EU sub. I do not know enough about other int. youth org. Je considère très importantes les subventions de l’UE, qui permettent les échanges culturels, surtout ceux entre les jeunes. Cela parce que les échanges permettent de connaître, apprécier et mettre en valeur non seulement sa culture, mais aussi celle des autres. C’est une des façons les plus simples pour faire croître un sentiment de fraternité entre les peuples. Le soutien aux associations comme IBO, qui dès ses premiers pas dans l’Europe de l’après-guerre a contribué à la collaboration et à l’aide réciproque entre gens de différentes nations, n’est pas seulement souhaitable, mais juste. Les échanges culturels devraient être aux premiers rangs dans les engagements financiers de l’UE. I have a rather good opinion about the work that EU and Ibo do for the young people. I wish to see more activities for young people with less opportunity and more concrete things for them. By means of several work camps all over Europe, IBO works in order to obtain a real integration between boys and girls coming from different European countries. Watching dozens of guys working together for a social purpose and not speaking the same language is really amazing. I have met also some foreign guys involved in an IBO’s EVS program and I can state that such mean improves efficiently the youth mobility among the UE. The Ibo project I’m involved in is to support a new Roma association we have constituted in Panciu in Romania. I’m training Roma young people to run a non-profit association. We are already in contact with the Romanian National Agency to apply for the actions of the Youth Programme and I’m really satisfied of their work. During the time of the work’s camp for the persons is possible to speak, to understand the different idea, life of the other countries. J think that a person may understand that the others are not different or dangerous for him, but is possible to see that peace is possible and the war against the different man or woman is not necessary. Phelps it is possible only understand…. IBO Italy is operating in general for the youth and takes aim at the European youth mobilisation and at promoting volunteering. I think this activities are very important to wake up the European youth, to stimulate them to an active participation in youth policies, to create a personal and valid political and European opinion; to promote a greater tolerance in confront of other ethical and social groups. But I think it would be more efficient if there is a bigger financial support by the EU for the organisations non-profit Ibo is working in Europe since 1950 and my personal opinion is that it has always been having an important rule among young people. Nowadays It's very difficult maintaining an activity like this because of the raising costs of almost everything: budget, meeting, transport etc. So I think that the contribution of the UE is vitally important for that association. IBO works in Europe since 1953. And is present in almost all the nations more important of the UE. IBO performs an action very important for the young people. I think that the contributions of EU to the youthful voluntary service associations are very important to keep on working serenely and do more and more. EU should increase the budget at disposal for the associations. Je pense que c’est important donner la possibilités aux jeunes de cultures différentes de pouvoir voyager et connaître des autres cultures, des autres pays….Je pense que c’est très important donner plus d’argent et plus d’aide aux associations, aux jeunes de l’Europe de l’est (de pays “Tiers”). IBO Italy is working for youth with youth. By organising/offering volunteering opportunities in whole over Europe for young people, it aims directly at promoting Social change, European youth mobilisation and raising European awareness. These activities are very important to wake up the European youth, to stimulate the active participation in youth policies, to create a personal and valid political opinion; to promote a greater tolerance in confront of other ethical and social groups. But I think it could be more efficient, if there would be a bigger financial support by the EU for non-profit organisations.

92

IFM-SEI 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

14.


16.


17.


18. 19.


20.

A-3029 allocation

15.

1999 1999-116 2000 2000-122 IFM-SEI International Falcon Movement-Socialist Educational International YES 1999 2000 Total 44 45 EU-countries 11 12 Third countries 33 33 EU-Youth 235044 230000 SCOUTING, OTHER KIDS Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 2 2000 1

Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity Fully or almost fully realised


YES YES YES 4

4


Fully or almost fully 1999 YES YES YES

Conference(s), board meeting(s) Seminar(s), workshop(s) Exhibition(s), festival(s), camp(s) Youth exchange(s) Other activities Fully or almost fully

YES

Fully or almost fully 1999 2000 1999 2000

YES YES YES YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€6.500,00 €6.500,00 €9.000,00 €13.000,00 €17.000,00 €17.000,00 €15.000,00 €14.000,00 €10.000,00 €11.000,00 €11.000,00 €12.395,00

1990

93

5% 8%


2. Open answers of the key organiser Without that money we could not org. a lot of activities. Especially pedagogical innovation would not be possible. But the money is often coming late and is not enough. To work for a Youth org. means self-exploitation, 7 days weeks, less holidays, bad salary. Or you have an adult organisation in the background and you are less independent. A. Not enough money B. Payments are not made in time C. Application is over complicate D. There is no co-governance like in the European Youth Foundation.

94


Total

13.

Electronic media Newsletters and bulletins Magazines Internal media Book, reports, publications Leaflets, posters, other media Total


152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

3 50,0 6 100,0 0 0,0 1 16,7 2 33,3 1 16,7 6

IFMSEI


All

IFMSEI

All

Directly 8.

4,4

4,3

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,5

4,2

4,0

3,8

4,5


14.




16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

2 33,3 2 33,3 2 33,3 6




All

9.

204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

15.


10.




206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

6 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 6


All

6.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

IFMSEI


5 83,3 4 66,7 3 50,0 1 16,7 0 0,0 6


Directly Indirectly

11.

Are you

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

Male Female Total

95


Directly Indirectly

6

6

4 66,7 2 33,3 6

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

2 33,3 3 50,0 1 16,7 6


16.

Table 171 Gender

All


IFMSEI

5.

All

Youth work

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

IFMSEI

IFMSEI 6 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 6


Total

IFMSEI

Rather important

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

1 16,7 4 66,7 1 16,7 6

4 66,7 2 33,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 6

Not

All

Very important

All


48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254


Table 170 Sector

4.

0 0,0 5 93,3 1 16,7 6

IFMSEI


IFMSEI


All

Total 3.

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256


Table 169 Country

Table 163 Web-site

IFMSEI

IFMSEI


All


Table 162 Media

2.

30,5 6

IFMSEI

Not (so) important

32,0 256

IFMSEI

Rather important


Not Total

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

IFMSEI

Very important

5 83,3 1 16,7 0 0,0 6

IFMSEI

235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251

All

Total


All

Not (so) familiar

7.

All

Rather familiar

6 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 6

Table 172 Age

All

Very familiar

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


IFMSEI

1.

All


6 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 6

4. Open answers of stakeholders I think that EU subsidies are very important to IFM-SEI. With these subsidies IFM is able to exert a good European work. Without these subsidies IFM-SEI wouldn't be able to work properly on European level (would have the affect on world-wide too). I think that EU should put a big emphasis on international youth work to promote the European values and to create European confident in young people. This is particularly important in the post-communist countries. If for improvements, I would propose to give extra subsidies with certain conditions, to use the money for ONLY European awareness raising, promoting European values, etc. Maybe even to spread some certain themes, like Council of Europe does. IFM-SEI, is an international European Youth and Children based world movement, touching different types of organisations trying to develop children and young people with a critical awareness of the world and its present inequalities. IFM-SEI is using camps, seminars, youth exchanges and specialised educational projects to develop youngster’s knowledge, attitudes and skills. Budget line A - 3029 supports the general functioning and constitutes an important financial contribution for the core funding of INGYO's. Most youth organisations have a constant challenge in running their European structures. Often, and especially towards the end of the year cash-flow of most organisations is low, that regularly we face problems running our activities including the payment of staff members. A big improvement would be an effective management and speed up of the process of this budget-line so those grants can be paid out during the first half period of the granting year. Cette subvention est très importante et couvre très partiellement les frais d’administration. couvrait même pas 8 % des dépenses. Cette subvention est indispensable pour l’IFM-SEI. Au niveau des améliorations, je crois savoir que les paiements de ces subventions ne sont pas toujours très rapides. Le montant total accordé, pour cette ligne budgétaire ,à toutes les OING est vraiment ridicule si on le compare aux autres lignes budgétaires. Il faudrait plus conscientiser le pouvoir décideur agir en faveur de la jeunesse. Et cela surtout dans le cadre de de l_Europe. Le pouvoir décideur encourage très fort la « participation des jeunes à la vie démocratique » mais ne donne pas assez de moyens et aspects concrets. International Youth organisations who benefit of this Budget line are not large and powerful organisations, therefore it is not a luxury grant but mostly an essential for their liquidity. International youth organisations represent exceptional value to implement many European programs and to bring European dimension to many thousands of young people. These youth organisations play a key role in encouraging and feeding active citizenship among young people. Therefore we fully support INGY in their voluntary work and hope that this budget-line can be increased Since 95 there is a strong approach to strengthen European Cupertino. Since that there are regular meetings. For this we are still facing lack of funds to realise all our ideas. The subsidies of the EU are vary helpful, but unfortunately not enough. The budget line is important, but not enough to realise the administrational necessities. Youth program is well funded but I think there are still too many obstacles as far as strong Europe-wide coop. The subsidy is very important to us. It gives us the opportunity to meet, get info, to each other. Very important for young people to know about other parts of Europe.

96

JEF Observer: István Szücs 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

14.


16.


17.


18. 19.


20.

A-3029 allocation

15.

1999 19992000 2000-71 JEF Jeunes Européens Fédéralistes YES 1999 2000 Total 31 30 EU-countries 13 12 Third countries 18 18 EU-Youth 18000 18857 POLITICAL Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 2 2000 2 All are young people Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity More than planned


1 1 3 1 1 3


More than planned 1999 YES YES YES YES YES


YES YES YES YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€23.000,00

2000

97

24%


2. Open answers of the key organiser Definitely helpful, enables us to organise a wide range of events without JEF could not survive. Absolutely needed supports specially small NGO’s contributes to stability in youth org. ----late payments no priority for pro-European work very difficult reports ,applications no corresponding is decisions ----!80% own contribution!!

98


13.

JEF

Table 178 Media Table 184 Average ratings


11 84,6 11 84,6 11 84,6 1 7,7 2 15,4 1 7,7 13


Indirectly JEF


152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

8.

All

Electronic media


Directly JEF


All

2.

4,4

4,9

3,8

4,4

4,2

4,1

4,2

4,2

3,8

4,9

Not Total

14.




16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

3 23,1 10 76,9 0 0,0 13




204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

JEF

9.

All

JEF


All

Total 3.

8 61,5 3 23,1 2 15,4 0 0,0 13

15.


Directly Indirectly






JEF

5.

All

Youth work

206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

12 92,3 1 7,7 0 0,0 13



187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

JEF


All

6.

11 84,6 13 100,0 2 15,4 0 0,0 1 7,7 13


Are you

Male Female Total

99

1 7,7 2 15,4 10 76,9 13

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

1 7,7 4 30,8 8 61,5 13


35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

16. 7 3 2



1

12

Table 187 Gender

11.

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

JEF

10.

All

JEF 13 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 13

JEF

Rather important

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

All

Very important

All


1 7,7 6 46,2 6 46,2 13


Not

Table 186 Sector

4.

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256


Table 185 Country

Table 179 Web-site

JEF


JEF

Total

25,2 12

JEF

Not (so) important

32,0 256

JEF

Rather important


158 60,8 102 39,2 260

6 46,2 7 53,8 13

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

JEF

Very important

13 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 13

All

235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251

All

Total


All

Not (so) familiar

7.

All

Rather familiar

13 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 13

Table 188 Age

All

Very familiar

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


JEF

1.

All


10 83,3 1 8,3 1 8,3 12

4. Open answers of stakeholders The subsidy that JEF has received from the Commission has allowed it to maintain its headquarters in Brussels and maintain a staff to organise several big activities across Europe (Youth Forum at the Nice Summit, etc). I consider it essential that the umbrella organisations of European NGOs should continue to receive support from the Commission in order to be able to carry out its activities, promoting European awareness. JEF is able to use the subsidies in a very professional way. The financial means available for both the organisation and the members, who are mostly students, are quite limited. Therefore JEF has to manage to use these sources in the best possible way. Also JEF members are very critical of the work of JEF-Europe as such, which forces the responsible people to work extremely efficient. I think it would be quite helpful, if the EU would make samples more often and watch careful, how youth organisations are using the provided money. I’m sure that some subsidies could be used in better ways, than they are at the moment. I’m sure that JEF could easily withstand regular controls. Jef is a great “place" to experience Europe. Me as well as all the people I have met on Jef seminars have gained so much. This has been the best place for my (and others) personal development in learning about Intercultural exchange, English and other foreign languages, leadership, independence. But in the time I have been member of JEF, it has by far strengthened its international profile with as many international events/seminars as never before. Travel reimbursements, which under the Youth programme account for 70% are far too low for poorer students and in general for normal people from CEE. I myself organised a seminar funded by YOUTH and have been involved in schemes like EVS_ applications take too long to be processed, decisions (particularly when taken in Brussels) are not transparent. The money arrives sometimes far too late (if ever) so that we can’t count on it for important projects. Institutional grant is far too low for JEF-Europe itself and in particular to aid its national or regional/local sections. Suggestion: Make decision-making more effective and TRANSFER the money when a yes-decision has been reached. Be more flexible with deadlines! (In both ways) Work would be made far easier for both sides if >institutional support was increased. An organisation of our little size just cant go on rely on project funding as it used to be in recent years. JEF is a small organisation with a large agenda, varied activities and wide field of action. The outcome of JEF political work is very big – we co-operate with other organisations, lobby on them, and work on their pro-European profile. We organise activities and events for a much broader audience, than our members and affiliates. We a re a group of not many, but vary well trained and efficient people. Unfortunately the criteria of this budget line proved more and more difficult to satisfy. The Commission seems to be favouring in its budget lines big organisations with huge, complex structures and therefor also big budgets, organisations with objectively many expenses. JEF is not as big as i.e. LYMEC, or even Int. Eur. Movement. Well, unfortunately it probably never will be as big as they are. We learned to work with relatively modest budget and moderate expenses. Also because the grant form the Commission is dependant on our budget, and has even been lowered in the past years. But with the project of Commission financing only 20% of our projected budget Jef may face serious difficulties in surviving at all. Subsidy JAF has received has allowed to maintain its headquarters in Brussels and maintain staff to organise several big activities across Europe (youth Forum at Nice Summit etc.) I consider it essential that the umbrella org. of European NGO’s should continue to receive support from the Comm. In order to be able to carry its activities, promoting European awareness. 10 Support for JEF (and org.s in general) is good value for money because of the high level of voluntary activity involved-very little money is spent on administration, etc. am concerned about the high demands placed on youth org. concerning EU sub. Especially the requirement of proving 80% own contribution is a hugh burden for small org. 10 Being active in an international, independent youth org. demand a huge effort in terms of time and money. On top of that we have to organise our self in a more and more professional way. All this requires a lot of young people, who are studying (looking for a job in the meantime), This way we loose a lot of experience. Finding other resources in this sector is very difficult. Before 1998, JEF was awarded a grant under another budget line, dedicated to organisations promoting the European integration, what indeed JEF is doing, be it towards young people, our main target, but also towards the overall population of Europe. This budget line covered 80% of the administrative costs of the organisation – whereas the Youth budget line covers only 20% maximum. After 1998, JEF has been denied the right to further get a grant for "NGO's promoting European integration" with the argument that as a youth organisation, we should apply for a grant under the youth budget line, what JEF did. The consequences of this change were huge, since the youth grant covers only 20% of the administrative costs. This situation was seen as unfair, esp. comparing the range of the activities organised by JEF with the activities of other organisations, which were further granted with the EU subsidy. Fortunately, thanks to the grant of the youth DG, JEF could further organise numerous and successful activities. The grant JEF now receives covers approx. 20 % of the administrative costs. This is quite low, esp. in comparison with the grant mentioned before. As a youth organisation, it is not easy for JEF to find other sources of funding than institutional one. Private company do not really see their interest to support our projects, event those reaching a large number of young people, or a specific target group. Furthermore, as a youth organisation run by young and volunteer people, we are regularly beginning from the start. Our board is elected for two years, and even if older board members give help, one has to keep in mind that gathering experience does not happen like in a private company or in an administration, where people work there for years and years. Such a renewal has good point: always new innovative ideas come, but it also has a big drawback: the organisation is starting each 2 years from almost zero. Only people who were never active in a genuine youth organisation might consider the administrative grant to be a "start up" grant. Even if each board tries to transmit its knowhow, there is always a loose of information between two boards. Another consequence of our constant rejuvenation is the long time needed for each new team to become confident with the EU and its subsidies system. Not only a good understanding of the European institutions but also lot of patience and a like for sometimes Kafkaesque situations is required while dealing with the Commission. First, while the Commission is very strict on the deadlines for the submission of applications and reports, it takes far too much time to transfer the awarded grant (esp. in youth prog.). It even happened that we had to cancel a youth exchange for which we had been granted a subsidy, because the Commission did not transfer the money on time – several months of preparation of the exchange and of the participants were lost. Our organisation, like many youth organisations, is just too small in order to provide the cash flow needed for such a small-scale event like a youth exchange. Furthermore, for the European Youth NGO's it is not very clear whether they have to apply for the youth prog to the European Commission directly or to the national agency of the country where the measure takes place. The decentralised implementation of the youth prog. is in principle a good thing – but the problem is that the national agencies give to our members different and contradictory information on the conditions of the youth prog. For example, a project, which would be accepted in Austria, would not be accepted in Greece! Consequently, it is quite difficult for the European level of the organisation to deal with the wishes of the different national agencies, also to act a "best-practice" adviser towards the national and local sections. Often, the staff of the national agencies is not able to enough informed. As an activist in a local section during many years, I also have to say that, concerning the youth program, we had to rely only on the information coming from the national or European level of JEF, since the national agency did not inform us directly of the existence of the youth program. As I already organised a few events under the youth program, I also have to regret that filling in the application and then reports are very time-consuming. This is also true for the form for the administrative grant. This time could be dedicated to more productive tasks. On the geographical frame of the youth prog: it should be extended to the Balkan countries and Moldova as soon as possible! Young people there just do not understand why they cannot participate as their counterparts in the activities – and so do we. Last but not least, the 70% travel reimbursement granted by the action 1 are far too low for most of the participants coming from central and eastern Europe – this 30% left are sometime as high as one average monthly salary! To conclude on a more positive point, I have to admit that despite all these problems, the youth program has shown its high relevance and contributes to the active presence of youth organisations in civil society. One has to be aware that without the administrative grant awarded by the Commission, most of the European youth organisations would slowly die, because they could not afford to have a European secretariat and to organise activities at European levels. And these are indispensable conditions of a lively and well-functioning youth trans-national network, contributing to the development of European awareness and citizenship among young people. JEF Europe does a marvellous job with very limited resources, it is able through the hard work and commitment and voluntary support of its members to produce high quality activities on a very small budget. It relies very heavily on the voluntary contributions of time and effort from its members, which unfortunately is not applicable as own contributions in financial reports. The necessity of proving 80 per cent own contribution is also hugely problematic for small NGOs like JEF. Commission subsidies for JEF have been declining fairly sharply over the past years while the scope and variety of activities carried out has increased significantly. In particular JEF has been leading the way in integrating young people of Central and Eastern Europe into the European networks and working hard to promote European ideals on a panEuropean basis. The Commission subsidy is absolutely vital to help preserve diverse activities and encourage youth activities across Europe. A final crucial point is the administration of the Commission funds. The application and reporting process is massively complex, putting a huge burden on youth organisations who do not have highly-paid and well-trained staff with experience of these processes. The payment of granted funds is also very frequently seriously delayed. JEF and other youth organisations do not have the cash flow or financial reserves to cope with these delays, which are often questions of life or death for specific activities and indeed for the organisation itself. The burden of late payment of Commission funds falls heaviest on our individual members, who are all young people on tight budgets. This discourages people from continued involvement and limits significantly the number of people who can benefit from the youth programmes. A significant improvement in the administration of Commission funds would have a huge effect on the ability of JEF to carry out more activities and to involve greater numbers of young people. I believe that EU subsidies to JEF are a very good investment, comparing the financial input and the wider range of activities involving thousands of young people every year. Administrative grants for youth organisations, and especially pro-European activities are absolutely vital in order to guarantee public support for the Eu. It is only with these grants that smaller organisations like JEF can survive, I see the subsidies therefore as absolutely necessary if Europe wants to keep the civil society involved. Improvements could be the amount as such (has gone done significantly despite the fact that the activities have been increased), the delay in the procedures (late payments…) should be improved, the percentage of own contribution (80%) is far too high for smaller NGOs who are independent from any political party and therefore have limited external funding-

100

50/50% as in former years is a fair compromise. Priority should be given to organisation, which actually contribute to pro-European debates and campaigns, rather than being caught in the trap of youth issues only. Independent youth NGOs should have the right to apply for funds from the budget-line “Organisations of general European interest I think that the EU-subsidies-system functions quite well, but in particular one thing must be improved: It is imperative that the granted funds reach the receiving organisations in due time. It is very hard to run a youth organisation, whose members to a large degree are students, if you constantly must spend your own money and wait to be reimbursed. I know for a fact that this can be an obstacle for some young people who would like to participate in youth activities, and that organisations with limited budgets on their own cannot help this situation. So, please improve the timeframe for payments of granted funds. I also think that the level of an organisations own contribution when receiving funding from the Commission should be lower for ideal youth organisations of JEFs size and scope. In closing I would like to emphasise the importance of an organisation like JEF. JEF is desperately needed to promote the idea of European integration and democracy – now, more than ever. JEF is also crucial for the future creation of a European political space. Because of, among other factors, JEF’s unique political foundation which transcends party-lines, NO other organisation – now or in foreseeable future – can ever fill it’s shoes. Jef gives the possibility to young people all over Europe to experience policy and political debate. It gives as well the possibility to learn a lot about the European Institutions, and to be in formed on the main political events and developments that Europe is facing nowadays, with also a special attention to the candidate countries. Unfortunately it is difficult to organise events due to financial reasons. It is difficult to contribute helping national and regional sections, since the institutional grant is too low for Jef Europe. It is also difficult planning activities or events since sometimes it is uncertain when you will receive the money. It would be better to have an easier and clearer system. There are a lot of Youth organisations that could really contribute to the European integration process, but they cannot always reach their goals work due to the lacking of funds Il me semble que JEF est une organisation qui correspond exactement aux objectifs que se fixe l’Union européenne depuis ses origines : rassembler les européens et leur permettre de développer des échanges entre eux, notamment en se concentrant sur les questions de réformes institutionnelles et de promotion de l’élargissement de l’Union. Dans le cadre de la réforme des institutions (Convention sur l’avenir de l’Europe) et du futur élargissement, les activités de la JEF contribuent à promouvoir les intérêts de l’Union européenne. Une subvention conséquente de sa part me semble donc tout à fait justifiée. Au titre des améliorations, néanmoins, le financement de l’Union devrait inciter les organisations bénéficiaires à promouvoir également la diversité linguistique. Je pense particulièrement au financement des publications et des différentes activités et réunions, dont le caractère multilingue devrait être soutenu. Il n’est pas acceptable que des organisations prétendument européennes ne fonctionnent qu’en une seule langue (l’Anglais, en l’espèce). Il semble également, au vu du budget de la JEF, qu’alors que ses activités ont sensiblement augmenté ces dernières années, la dotation financière en provenance de l ‘UE a eu tendance à diminuer. Nous avons pu par ailleurs remarquer la lourdeur des procédures, notamment dans l’aide apportée aux volontaires pour le Service volontaire européen. Enfin, le simple financement de nos réunions statutaires est rendu très difficile par le manque disponibilités financières : non seulement des associations comme la nôtre fonctionnent grâce à des volontaires, mais en plus ces volontaires doivent payer de leur propre poche à hauteur de plusieurs centaines d’euros par an, ce qui est particulièrement difficile pour les étudiants, notamment.

101

5. Report of our observer REPORT on International Youth Exchange Seminar from 17 to 24 of March in Budapest in Hotel Fortuna. Title: „Europe’s role in global security, democracy and justice” Composition of participants Country Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Estonia Finland France Germany Hellas Italy Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Moldova NL Norway Romania Slovenia Spain Sweden UK JEF Europe All together

All 4 3 3 2 1 3 5 5 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 4 10 65

Male 4 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 3 7 32

Female 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 34

Impression of the 'mood' of the meeting The participants and the politicians of the host country took the seminar very seriously, however the Hungarian countrywide media did not move on the event. The reason of that is that the media turned towards the election of Hungarian MPs. (And nothing that is positive and successful was interesting). Participants had a very good time on the seminar. All interviewed gave positive evaluation about the seminar. (Not only on this specific seminar but all such type of JEF happenings.) I observed e.g. the Simulation Game exercise on “Foreign Policy Crisis” on Wednesday afternoon conducted by Jeremy Hargreaves from UK. (The Game and the end conclusion nd of the two groups in which participants worked are attached in the Supplement 2 .) The maturity of the final conclusion (professional text, highly responsible decision) proves that participants know what they do and they are genuine advocates of EU (Federation). Evaluation (comments) on the Situation Game were made as follows: Positive: “ Interesting to get into the role of representative of a country” “Useful experience that enabled to speak in front of the public” “ Good way to make people creative” “ Good opportunity to get in touch with decision making of ever criticised politicians” “Participative, not exclusive but inclusive, instructive, not too much detail” “Useful, well organised” Negative: “Attack against Israel was unrealistic” “ Participant have different language skills, more time were needed to prepare and to understand” “Hard to focus on issues” Conclusion: we are much closer to politicians than before. (Should be further developed) (Critical) Remarks of Participants on the whole seminar “Roma minority question was the most interesting” “The situation game would have been more interesting if it was possible to prepare in advance” “We would lesson ore Hungarian specialities about media, election system, general political situation” “Some lectures were short” “City and location was very nice” “Sustainability?” “To meet with each other were very interesting” “The invited people were good “ About the leadership of seminar “Be more authocrative!” “Be present in groups!” “Organise more activity, exercise, proper portion of lectures-games-exercises!” “Invite English speaking trainer!” How can the seminars be more effective? 1. JEF is a youth organisation. One of the main problems of such organisations is that members are getting older and getting out of the organisation and new members are coming into the organisation within relatively short period of time. To be effective the organisation JEF has to organise its “corporate memory” otherwise it may learn again and again the same things. This principle is valid for example for the “big seminars” such as the subject of this report is . JEF should develop 41. standard scenarios , 42. self-evaluation system (evaluation questionnaire e.g. Supplement 3. ), 43. the internal improvement system of the seminars and 44. a database to make seminars comparable, to make them suitable to further development and to avoid the repetition of mistakes. Of course all seminars will be different, but comparable. 2. The seminars should have standard points on the agenda e.g. that makes it possible to compare, evaluate and develop. 21. PR and federation promotional ideas – structured debate, brain storming exercise 22. National adaptation of best practices 23. Political situation (actualities, problems) in the host country 24. EU and the host country 25. Situation exercises, case studies 26. EU actualities 27. JEF actualities 28. Evening games and parties 29. Country side visitation, etc. 3. Seminars and exercise should be delivered in English. (The lecture and the exercise on Friday was conducted in Hungarian with interpreter Statement of interviews JEF member from Hungary A good methodology for distribution of JEF ideas and values was the Hanover EXPO 2000 where the Hungarian JEF member gave the assistance and the host role. Why should it get into the ‘best practice’ dictionary? Because this exercise realised three goals at once: 21. Fund raising for JEF Hungary 22. Professional (international) exercise for Hungarian JEF members 23. Opportunity to distribute JEF values and principles. In Hungary it is not easy to keep party independence, but they can realise the annexation is commonly accepted by different parties. Focus points: annexation, constitution.

102

Comments of JEF member from Slovenia JEF is constitution friend because the constitution will give support and safety for currently outsiders. They participate in campaign for annexation and common constitution. JEF Slovenia is accepted by the government (Foreign Minister, EU Minister) but not supported at all. The JEF can use the channel of Internet www.mef-drustvo.si of Lubljana University Faculty of Political Sciences. Comments of Norway’s JEF member They are in more difficult situation as far as countryside people in Norway are against the annexation of EU. They try to “pick up both sides and conduct constructive debate"” all 19 counties. On their Annual Meeting the Norway press and the publicity is represented by 60-70 people. JEF Norway has established Thorbjrn Jagland Price (former Prime Minister) named European of the Year of JEF Norway. This initiation also can get into the “best practice” dictionary as a mean of creating publicity. Sweden comment and good ideas It was realised during the interviews that JEF member co-operates through out Europe. Even in the North the Baltic Sea Federalist work together in sub-alliance. They organise two big seminars a year and a few smaller seminars. Last May when on the Göteborg European Week JEF Norway had a separate stand. They organised debate amongst all Youth Party leaders about the future of Europe. It is a god idea for how to avoid party influence: manage the debate process between them (and get outside of the colours). Their operational big challenge is the EMU referendum – Their general problem is that young people don’t care about politics. How can they overcome this barrier? How the can reach young people? 3. They make them talk on meetings? Ask them? 4. With games 5. Debates 6. With special girl seminars 7. With international exchange of ideas at Baltic Sea (exchange of experience in Latvia) A lot of women are working in Latvia JEF. German ideas and practice JEF Germany is a relatively strong organisation having 400-450 members. All the JEF members have a personal network so the JEF principles and ideas spread on a multiplied direct channel. The German organisation is supported by the Ministry of Youth and by local grants as well. (Members pay membership fees as well) The strong German JEF organisation has a Newspaper (a periodical journal). A sample of that is attached at Supplement 3. It contains the most outstanding projects of them. Which also can get into the “best practice dictionary” The journal itself and the ten projects. They generate more money by organising more projects. The administrative aid is not enough. They can sustain their organisation by using volunteers and with unpaid hours. They give a great importance on motivating women. Organise special women seminars and invite women into the board of German JEF. Remarks of a Czech JEF member The young Bohemian JEF has 120 members. Their financial and operational problems: They have no local subsidies Funds are coming from EU and German foundation but they are bound to projects – having no source for background activities. As far as they can’t finance the permanent presence their initiations have limited effect in time. After the seminars and programs the motivation and EU thinking go down, these programs are not self-going, are not sustainable after the grants are used. They organised a road show dialog about the EU integration in secondary schools. Program was successful but they realised down going interest after first occasion, so after the project they organised a follow up and awake the sleepy ideas. It was a volunteer endeavour with a very great effect proving that the orderly presence is essential and needed. In this road show JEF also visited disabled students. They have a newsletter only on e-mail, because have no money for press. The French practice JEF France is an well-organised organisation that was established 10 years ago. The council of JEF Fr. meets every two months. They have own bureau, administrative staff and more then 700 members. What is in the French best practice basket? EU Coffee House Each local groups organises an evening in which JEF is the host and academics, local politician have a conversation with in an informal way with the audience. 30-50 people are present in such evenings. JEF provide the publicity and manages the process. Big lectures Famous men are invited to provide lectures. EU at the school 12-15-18 years old young people are the target group. They invite the Erasmus program students to come to the French schools with them. They provide information, lecture, organise play with young students and they are warmly welcome. It is also very good idea how to combine together the different EU initiations. While EU students get real life experience in French schools the JEF-Fr. builds its image through organising the process. Big entertainment 9 th of May is the EU Day their 600 square meter EU flag had a great publicity in Strasbourg. JEF could go close to people and convinced them about the need of federation. The French organisation is a relatively strong organisation but they also have difficulties in operation. They can represent views of federalists as far as it is against the official point in France. The JEF can overcome this by putting the weight on EU ideas instead of emphasising the pure federation. It is a great lesson for young politicians. The French examples also show that there is not a best practice in Europe. There are good ideas in the methodologies of different national organisations but these must be adapted to national specialities. In France under the high school there is no politics at school. JEF tries to make the education more European. It was a great success of JEF that there was a shift in French education system toward Europe - although it was not titled to JEF. Any way - JEF stressed the education reform and it has begun. The experience of FR-JEF is that the local self-governments don’t initiate anything European except a motivating force. When JEF is present and motivate them, local authorities are very active about EU and ready to organise such events, programs. (Instead of double financing – as it is a fear at the Commission- they pay 1.75 EURO to JEF EU – said one of JEF member.) The question of effectiveness and the value8 for money It is a commonly accepted view amongst JEF members that EU needs direct channels for its PR. The media and the official communication can not get close enough to people. (Great distance between EU politicians and the national public) JEF is a very effective and grateful channel for PR of EU for reasons: 18. JEF EU spread the good practice within the organisation, 19. All JEF members have a personal network. All information and idea goes directly and personally, all initiations have a multiplicity effect. 20. JEF is more and more known. It has gained authority in schools, and local governments. 21. On big open programs and demonstrations JEF is able to call people one by one. 22. Cheapest way of reaching EU goals, 23. Cheapest way of PR 24. The French, Czech, Swedish examples proved that personal and orderly presence is essential to make things happen about EU. 25. JEF is an NGO which delivers the ‘not official’ information 26. JEF is a value centred, loose, EU organisation that can be present in every country and every district. 27. JEF controls, selects and trains its members, puts great emphasis on quality of members. As far as EU can not measure the effectiveness of PR it is a theoretical question to ask: Is the JEF way an effective way of communication? It is more then communication. It is a movement of which the mission is to go ahead. It is a very effective PR if EU support those who go ahead because public watches those who are ahead. (– Public yes, but may 9 be EU not.) Other remarks EU Commission does not subsidies even the JEF embryos on the Balkan an in former SU countries. – They also would like to be “a generation ahead” when these countries will have real chances to be EU member state. In all fairness EU should find an exceptional way of promoting ( e.g. via JEF of member countries) such movements and initiations in those countries in which the current government and official administration does not deserve it.

8 9

Value is: Making people feel European, inform people about EU norms, values and movements, reduce the gap between people and EU politics Sceptical remark

103

MILSET Observer: Linda Raymond 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

1999 1999-127 2000 2000-130 MILSET Mouvement International pour le Loisir Scientifique et Technique N 1999 2000 Total 48 60 EU-countries 12 13 Third countries 36 47 EU-Youth 251100 260000 CULTURE Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 110 2000 10


16. 17.


1999

18. 19.


20.

A-3029 allocation

1999 2000 1999 2000

YES YES

YES

1998 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

104

€4.000,00 €4.000,00 €4.000,00 €14.000,00

1

YES



15.

2

YES


YES YES YES YES YES

3% 13%





235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


7 87,5 1 12,5 0 0,0 8

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

MILSET

7.

All

7 87,5 1 12,5 0 0,0 8

Table 203 Gender

MILSET

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


MILSET

1.

All


7 87,5 1 12,5 8

Table 204 Age


Directly

3,8

3,2

Indirectly Not

MILSET 0 0,0 6 75,0 2 25,0 8

9.

Total




204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

7 87,5 1 12,5 0 0,0 0 0,0 8


196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

6 75,0 2 25,0 0 0,0 8


10.





206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

MILSET

5.

All

Youth work

7 87,5 1 12,5 0 0,0 8


All

6.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

MILSET


7 87,5 2 25,0 5 62,5 0 0,0 1 12,5 8


105

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

MILSET

Very important

All

MILSET 1 12,5 3 37,5 4 50,0 8




48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

2 25,0 5 62,5 1 12,5 8


All


MILSET

4.

All

Table 202 Sector

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

MILSET

16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

All

4,0


15.

1 4



2

Total

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

MILSET


4,2

13.

2 25,0 6 75,0 0 0,0 8


16.



1 8

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

MILSET


All


3,8

Table 201 Country

Table 195 Web-site

3.

3,4

4,2

41,1 8


All


3,8

32,0 256

All


4,2


All

Internal media

MILSET

Magazines

4,4

MILSET


8 100,0 1 12,5 1 12,5 1 12,5 4 50,0 5 62,5 8


All

Electronic media

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

8.

All


MILSET

2.

All


MILSET

Table 194 Media

6 75,0 2 25,0 0 0,0 8

3. Open answers of stakeholders Nous avons absolument besoin de relais internationaux pour alimenter notre réseau associatif. Des lieux de réflexion permanents sur les conditions d'échanges interculturels de qualité. Le MILSET permet des rencontres de jeunes de toutes conditions sociales autour de projets communs par des rencontres, des débats, des expositions de travaux scientifiques réalisés durant leurs loisirs ou en milieu scolaire. Il permet des échanges de jeunes pour la visite de Centres Culturels et Scientifiques, organise des camps d'été... Il forme de futurs jeunes animateurs et cadres de la jeunesse. Il favorise la créations de structures scientifiques et techniques de jeunes y compris dans les pays émergents. Il encourage à la fois le travail collectif et l'autonomie des structures par la création de Secrétariats de Région. Actuellement : Secrétariat EUROPE en SLOVAQUIE après avoir été en BELGIQUE. Secrétariat Méditerranéen en ALGERIE, Secrétariat Afrique Australe en AFRIQUE DU SUD, Secrétariat Amérique Latine au MEXIQUE, Secrétariat Asie au KOWEÏT. Connaissance mutuelle, compréhension, respect, citoyenneté, solidarité et paix sont les objectifs que nous cherchons à atteindre. La subvention Européenne nous aide dans ces objectifs en permettant un développement particulier des actions en faveur du Secrétariat Général EUROPE, y compris fortement vers les pays de l'EST ou Méditerranéens candidats à l'EUROPE. Le MILSET (Mouvement International pour le Loisir Scientifique et Technique) est une association de promotion de la culture scientifique et technique, à vocation internationale et orientée principalement vers les jeunes. Joindre le Milset, c’est donc adhérer à un mouvement qui concerne le monde, participe au développement local des loisirs scientifiques et techniques. C’est promouvoir la coopération internationale, la citoyenneté et la paix, dans un esprit de respect, de compréhension et de solidarité des diverses communautés. Avec le Milset, des dizaines de milliers de jeunes ont, ensemble, développé des projets, découvert des langues, des cultures et des techniques nouvelles, et se sont formés pour les acquérir. Pour porter ses actions, l’association fait appel, autant que possible, à des jeunes des pays concernés. Les jeunes impliqués tiennent ainsi un rôle actif dans la démarche. Ils prennent conscience de leur appartenance à une communauté supranationale, tout en menant une action utile à la société. Aujourd’hui, une plate-forme régionale du Milset est en cours d’établissement à Bratislava, ce qui renforce encore la dimension européenne de son action : expo science européenne à Bratislava à l'été 2002, expo science mondiale à Moscou en 2003. Ces deux évènements ambitieux créeront une dynamique dans tous les pays d'Europe, pays de l'Est inclus. A côté de ces expositions, les associations membres profiteront du soutien du Mouvement pour organiser des formations, des animations ou des camps scientifiques (robotique, fusées,…) tout particulièrement en Europe. L'action du Milset est donc profondément ancrée en Europe, plate-forme solide s'il en est. L'association a depuis longtemps intégré la construction européenne et la devance même, parfois (je pense aux pays de l'Est). Il me paraît donc logique que le Milset puisse bénéficier de crédits de l'UE. J'espère que celle-ci continuera à le soutenir à l'avenir. International youth organisations are very important subjects in the development of new political and public conditions for young people. I am not involved in the financial aspect of the activities and hence I cannot comment on this section. Les subv. attribués au Milset ne sont pas suffisantes au regard du des jeunes et d’adultes touches par les activités-Des moyens nouveaux permettrainent de consolider l’équipe qui fonctionne trop avec les bénévolats,. Plus d’informations ne le mobilité, des jeunes ….. MILSET:initiative tres positive pour les jeunes

106

4. Report of our observer Process To examine MILSET I applied a goals, process, outcomes-based, evaluation. From, there, I focused on impacts/benefits/changes that MILSET may have as a result of funding from the EU program, and from which MILSET systems have derived inputs, activities/processes, outputs and outcomes. The System MILSET starts-off by selecting those who has a special interest in the French language in their countries and they then coupled this with a scientific interest. They decided to do this after examining certain elements in the economy. Because in the targeted countries, for a long time languages were the most important subjects in schools because of the need for tourism etc… They then make special links with the Science teacher and make sure that they also had the necessary language to then accompany the youth to France and to be able to continue with the process while at home. Inputs – The materials and resources that the program uses in its activities is it good recourse of scientist in all scientist subjects. These individuals are able to provide on hand demonstration for the youth and then allowed them to assimilate certain tasks and activities etc… This process seems to work quite well with the group I observed as they hands on involvement acted to give a self achievement satisfaction as it demonstrated to the individuals that they were capable of producing items or discovering thing that were out of they conception. MILSET provides a service for youth that bridges knowledge and reality and convince them that they could actually achievea scientific knowledge. The equipment were quite simple, but the staff are quite experience and able to attract the attention to even the mobile telephone addict teenagers. I observed that a small amount of volunteers are used, so as to ease spending. These seemed to be those accompanying the youth and some other contribution. The facilities were also simple but spaces were used wisely by providing a public venue such as the City de Science to assembly, etc. Activities – MILSET is a French association which participate in the Science sector. It has other activities, but one important one is creating Science awareness among young people. They have created a global link with several Science and Youth organization. (see list) They keep in touch daily by the NET. They provide a chat site so that ideas can be exchanged and also, hold a global chat once a week. They have a Net-Newspaper allowing all members to contribute to the activities on line. With this installation, they invite Youth already in this association to spend 5 or 6 days in Paris to participate in Science experiments, visit the Cité de la science and other Science venues and notwithstanding, allowing some time for cultural and artistically visit of Paris. The process MILSET undertakes in order to meet the needs, for example, is teaching the art of science. Outputs – MILSET reaches directly more than 500 Youth in this way every year. Indirectly it is difficult to estimate. They have an advantage as they are in Paris and use the backdrop of the Cité de la Science for their workshop. Since this area has been well designed to attract the scientific minds, and entertain families it is a little easier to have a successful program. There were successful stories in a pictures form. Photograph of youth who visited them a while back, from far away land and shows them now working and studying Science, in France and other places. Another activity was the collection of used Science Books to send to these countries. Every year they collect books disregarded by schools and other institutions in France and send it as cheaply as possible to the necessary people abroad. I must admit some of the books were out of date, for example, how to write 4 Tram a computer language used more than 30 years ago and is quite out of date, but on the other hand some of the books were quite classic and could always be of used. Outcomes – MILSET actual impacts/benefits/changes for participants seems to be in the area of creating alliances with these young people and then, showing them how science and technology can meet the needs of people all over the world and moreover, how it could also be fun and interesting, all this with the hope that the young participants would focus they future on this field. It is difficult to say how much individuals were influenced in this way, but they show that the outcome is quite positive, especially from certain regions. Out of the 16/17 participants I spoke with, more than 12 of them intended to continue to study a scientific subject when they returned home. Conclusion This was for me an excellent way to introduce young people to science. I spent the whole day wishing I could have had that introduction at age 10 or so. Most of the young people stated, that they wanted to do more of this kind of projects and eventually become scientists. The staff consisted of different disciplines and with an array of languages but moreover they skills with presenting the experiments were quite enticing and kept the attention of all the participants. I observe a session where the Monitor engaged the youth in a scientific creation. There were mutual satisfactions. The Monitor who showed a lot of experience with this and dealt with the youth equally well although at times he had to communicated through a translator etc. Although most of the Youth spoke some French at times they also needed a translator. Together it was quite impressive to watch as they had the same subject on hand using different languages with Science being the key object. Another observation was the visit of the City the Science. The young people were taken to a section where they could do experimentations and also play with certain objects, there was a definite bond between the organizers and the young people. Through my participation, I had a real thrill of how, for example, an engine worked from inside out, and how a Robot is created and operated. A young person told me that to see inside makes it simpler. I certainly agreed. Most of they work was in a sense of total involvement with the young people, and as a result I feel that they were meeting their goals: showing young people how science and technology can meet the needs of people all over the world and how they could participate in a valuable way.

107

MUSICALES Observer: Ellen Pieterse 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

1999 1999-134 2000 2000-136 MUSICALES Union des Jeunesses Musicales d'Europe YES 1999 2000 Total 25 25 EU-countries 14 14 Third countries 11 11 EU-Youth 850000 CULTURE Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 2000


16. 17.


1999

18. 19.


20.

A-3029 allocation

1999 2000 1999 2000

YES YES YES

YES YES YES

1992 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

108

€3.000,00 €4.000,00 €0,00 €5.000,00 €6.000,00 €9.000,00 €8.000,00 €10.000,00 €10.000,00 €14.000,00

3 1 2 4 3

YES



15.

YES

YES YES YES



8% 6%

2000

YES YES YES




235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


8 80,0 2 20,0 0 0,0 10

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

MUSICA LES

7.

All

8 80,0 2 20,0 0 0,0 10

Table 219 Gender

MUSICA LES

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


MUSICA LES

1.

All


8 80,0 2 20,0 10

Table 220 Age



196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

9.

EU-country Candidate country Other European countries (West and East) Non-European country Total Table 218 Sector

6 60,0 4 40,0 0 0,0 10

10.




206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

MUSICA LES

All

Education, training


10 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 10


All

6.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

MUSICA LES



9 90,0 4 40,0 3 30,0 0 0,0 2 20,0 10

204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

9 90,0 1 10,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 10

All

MUSICA LES

All

MUSICA LES

All

Indirectly

0 0,0 2 20,0 8 80,0 10




48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

2 20,0 3 30,0 5 50,0 10




5.

3,0

Total


MUSICA LES

Very important

All


3,8

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

MUSICA LES

MUSICA LES 0 0,0 5 50,0 5 50, 10


4.

Directly



109

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

1

15.



7



9

1 10,0 3 30,0 6 60,0 10


16.

1

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

MUSICA LES


16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

42,4 10

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

MUSICA LES


4,5

Table 217 Country

All


4,2

13.

Not

Table 211 Web-site

3.

3,6

All


3,1

4,2

All


3,8

All

Internal media

32,0 256


4,4

MUSICA LES

Magazines


4,4

MUSICA LES


8 80,0 5 50,0 2 20,0 0 0,0 8 80,0 1 10,0 10


All

Electronic media

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

8.

All


MUSICA LES

2.

All


MUSICA LES

Table 210 Media

8 80,0 2 20,0 0 0,0 10

3. Open answers of stakeholders It is important to see what other musicians/groups do, to see beyond limitsWe want to start some kind of org. in Belgium Big understanding of each others cultures, meeting is very important at this age, achieving respect, for other minded people. Meeting other people that play music, the whole concept should not become too prof. Ccmpetition is less important than participation. Important meeting, gives opportunity to make their dreams come true. Important that young people are being aware of their own cultural identity. Too much influence at this moment from the US. Important that as many as people can be reached and that there is money to de so. Important to reach minorities and girls so that they get a fair chance as well. Important for young people, to get to know people from other countries. Important to reach many persons, to get money. As for my work in Africa we are also very much involved in the fighting of HIV/Aids. Using music as a medium is very helpful to reach young people. Very well org. meeting, good that people from different backgrounds can meet. A shame that there are no classical participants. I am not well enough informed on the specific procedures to obtain these nrs it is a stimulant towards multi-lateral collaborations within Europe, for sure. The paperwork and follow-up on the sub. dossiers are very heavy, so if this could be simplified, once your org. received in the past a sub. Parmi les évènements récents aux Jeunesses Musicales qui m’ont personnellement le plus marque depuis 1999.,je voudrais citer les stages des musiques traditionnelles et régionales organises par les Jeunesses Musicales d’Europe, tels que “Ethno” ( Belgique flamande & Suède),”session”(Irlande) et “Flamenco-Chipiona”(Espagne):lors de ces manifestations ,des jeunes musiciens venant de différents pays européens se réunissent et s’échangent autour des musiques régionales européennes. Ces expressions artistique bien particulières échappent aujourd’hui trop souvent a une perception marquée par l’uniformisation et l’effet mondialiste, ou elles se réfugient dans des recoins folkloriques, réchauffées pour touristes de passage.. or les expressions artistiques régionales font partie du patrimoine européen. Les cultures régionales représentent une richesse et une diversité extraordinaires qui méritent d’être connues et partagées surtout par les jeunes citoyens. D’autant plus de nombreux pont existent entre les traditions musicales des différentes régions en Europe. Les jeunes Européens, Passionnes de maintenir en vie ces cultures régionales et parfois marginales ,ont une formidable écoute de l’autre et un don de partage. Tout naturellement, ils communiquent et œuvrent “en concert” comme bâtisseurs de réseaux d’échange et d’amitié. Il ma parait primordial pour l’avenir d’une Europe forte et solidaire que ses cultures régionales, dont le patrimoine musical soient également fortes et vives. Je crois que les Jeunesses Musicales d’Europe ont contribue a cette mission, grâce en partie, a l’aide continuelle de la Comm. Eur. Through its network Jeunesses Musicales of Europe involves some 5 million young talented musicians and music lovers in Europe. These people are involved in a multitude of activities, at local, national and European levels. In recent years the organisation has focused on specific minority groups, creating opportunities for socials tolerance and cohesion. I feel that registering and reporting every single participant at these activities as usually requested by the European Commission, may create an administrative burden which is not manageable. It is recognised that Jeunesses Musicales of Europe is a leader in terms of empowering young people, and including them on organisational boards. The organisation is also a leader in creating possibilities for young people from EU countries to interact with young people from other regions such as Eastern Europe, America, Asia, Africa. Of the many youth organisations in Europe, not so many are active in culture, even less in music, and nearly non-as large and professional as Jeunesses Musicales. Jeunesses Musicales is, even in the world, one of the few organisations with so much knows how but also the power to act, and use this knows how. Over the last eight years, JM strengthened the internal and external network, build long-term relationships with partner organisations in the field of youth and culture, and set up different projects that directly influences the daily life of young people living in Europe. Many cultural organisations in the Balkan and Eastern part of Europe face the problem that their countries cut the cultural budget, not at least because they want to become EU Member: unfortunately, culture is often the first budget to cut. This is, especially in these countries, a disaster. It is therefore very important to support organisations like JM, which organise projects in and with these countries. Amongst others, it will avoid that networks in these countries disappear. In a European Organisation like MUSICALES the projects concerning different European countries and its outreach to other world regions is essential. In charge of the international projects of JM Spain since October 1999, I have been able to appreciate funding in various areas from the EU, such as structure, training, concrete projects, meetings, etc. The well working and well organised Head office in Brussels provides us with a lot of information and they do the essential work of co-ordination in different projects.; e.g. thanks to them we have been able to collaborate in the European Tour of the Brundibar project and then to organise a Spanish tour with a Belgian Choir and a Spanish Youth Orchestra. Regarding the improvements, I would like to comment on how useful it would be to receive much earlier the results/acceptance of the funding demands; projects which involve different partners from different countries need to be organise very much in advance to assure the best outcome It’s of greatest importance to reach special target groups of young people like young musicians. This kind of networking is I think a very efficient way to develop contacts and understanding within the European system. Étant du Canada, il m’est très difficile de commenter avec justesse les subventions de l’UE aux organisations internationales de la jeunesse. Cependant, pour avoir vécu trois sessions avec l’Orchestre Mondial des Jeunesses Musicales à titre de membre du personnel, je dois dire que la musique sollicite la créativité, la rigueur, la vivacité d’esprit et le sens de l’initiative des jeunes musiciens. Elle les réuni autour d’un spectre invisible et intouchable, mais combien enthousiasmant et réconfortant. De plus, l’idée d’un « networking » toujours plus fort, nécessaire à tous musiciens, est une valeur qui accompagne chaque action et pensée des Jeunesses Musicales Internationales. La culture musicale est à mon sens essentielle et la soigner est un plaisir, une récompense Is necessary to support organisations, because project work is too often short time oriented. Long term strategies need a solid basic structure. It is necessary too, that education, culture and youth will have a common budget line. Cultural projects with young people are very successful and very strong related to education. Very interesting and good projects often do not receive a funding, because they are situated between ”all chairs” Music/culture among young people in Europe is of great importance, especially to prevent racism and create spirit of peace. Young people should be the main target group for more EU funding. For org. like ours very important help with international understanding and communication and in the long run support peace and helps against racism.

110

4. Report of our observer Impressie van de atmosfeer: Goede sfeer, alles draait om de jongeren. Ze worden met respect behandeld. Er is geen verschil tussen de behandeling van “established artists” en deze jongeren. De Crew wordt dan ook speciaal op hun attitude geselecteerd. Er werd voor de jongeren gevlogen. Dit was onder meer te merken aan de soundchecks; dit werd zeer gedegen gedaan. Ca 30 min. Soundcheck voor ca 10 min. totale speeltijd van 10 min. Tijdens de optredens werd de P.A. zeer goed bijgehouden. Problemen werden direct opgemerkt en opgelost, bijvoorbeeld door het vervangen van instrumenten en/of snoeren. Er was een zeer professionele lichtshow. Geluidsapparatuur was zeer goed. Er was tevens een beamer in de hal waarop de show te volgen was voor publiek dat de zaal niet in wilde of kon. Overdag waren er lezingen en workshops die goed werden bezocht. Om 18.00 uur begonnen de finales, deze duurden tot 21.30 uur. De presentatie werd verzorgd door een komiek die tijdens de jamsessies ook nog een heel behoorlijk musicus bleek te zijn. Genoemde jamsessies begonnen om 22.00 uur en eindigden om 01.00uur. Je kunt misschien wel stellen dat deze sessies belangrijker waren nog dan de wedstrijd op zich, want hier mengden de musici van alle verschillende stromingen zich. Ook de staf en de Crew speelden, zongen of drumden af en toe een nummertje mee, dit tot groot plezier van de jongeren. Ook de winnaars van vorig jaar waren present. Deze verzorgden optredens, namen deel aan de jamsessies en enkele voormalige winnars zaten in de jury. Erg goede sfeer tussen de jonge musici. Als illustratie: violistes, hip-hoppers en hardrockers kregen even veel applaus en erkenning van elkaar. De concerten en de jamsessies waren rook-vrij. Roken was niet verboden, maar het moest buiten gebeuren. Dit werd keurig netjes gedaan. Voor het verkrijgen van alcohol moesten de jongeren zich identificeren. Nog geen 18 jaar? Dan geen alcohol! De licht- en geluidsmensen waren tijdens de jamsessies ook actief en zorgden ook hier voor optimale resultaten. Goede sfeer tussen de jongeren onderling. De competie was sportief. Goede omgang en sfeer tussen staf en jongeren. Er waren ook duidelijke afspraken over de orde: Herrie maak je tijdens de jamsessie; in het hotel slaap je. Dit ging wonderwel. (Een enkel klein incident daargelaten.) alles onder de beste omstandigheden. Opvallend vond ik wel dat alleen de beste musici lef genoeg hadden om het podium op te gaan bij de jamsessie. Hierin ondescheidde kwaliteit zich, maar ook leeftijd en ervaring. Meisjes waren ondervertegenwoordigd, maar in het aantal winnaars waren de beide seksen gelijkelijk vertegenwoordigd. (Dit tot grote opluchting van de organisator en zonder dat er met de geslachten rekening was gehouden bij de jurering.) Meisjes waren vooral zangers, violistes, een enkele toetseniste en één bassiste. Een klein gedeelte van de deelnemers was allochtoon. Performances waren over het algemeen hoog van niveau. Dit verschilde volgens Per Ekedahl wel een beetje per regio. Er wordt geen speciale actie ondernomen om bepaalde doelgroepen te bereiken. Een belangrijk doel van de organisatie is om jongeren met verschillende muzikale achtergronden en dus sociale posities zich met elkaar te laten vermengen en elkaar te leren kennen en waarderen. Mede hierom zijn de prijzen die de jongeren naar het buitenland laten vertrekken zo belangrijk. Op zo’n reis doen ze indrukken op omtrent andere mensen, muziekstijlen, culturen die al dan niet erg anders zijn dan hun eigen cultuur. Ze verruimen hun blik. Een belangrijke prijs is dan ook de Music Crossroads-prijs. Met deze prijs gaat de groep die hem gewonnen heeft naar zuidelijk Afrika, waar ze deelnemen aan een muziekfestival voor jongeren. Daar treden ze op, doen mee aan de workshops en leren iets over de cultuur van de jongeren daar. Verderop in dit verslag kom ik daar nog op terug. Deze prijs was ook de grote favoriet onder de jongeren, mede door de lezing van Stig Asp, de (Zweedse) Jeunesses Musicales medewerker in zuidelijk Afrika. Voorts is het zo dat de prijzen zich alleen richten op het genereren van optredens voor de winnende bands. Van geldprijzen en prijzen die een cd-opname mogelijk maken is in de loop van de tijd afgezien. De jongeren gaven zelf aan dat ze het belangrijker vonden om ergens op te treden dan om een studio in te duiken en een cd op te nemen. Dat was op zich wel leuk, maar een stapel cd’s wil niet zeggen dat ze ook verkocht worden of dat band bekend wordt. Bij de finale –de avond waarop de prijswinnaars bekend werden gemaakt- was een andere presentator ingeschakeld. Deze man is een gevestigde en bekende rockzanger die de presentatie van deze laatste avond sinds vier jaar voor zijn rekening neemt. Hij nam de jongeren ook even mee op reis naar de Tweede Wereldoorlog, naar Buchenwald. Hij vertelde over hoe de gevangenen (waaronder zijn oom) na bevrijding door de Russen, wapens ter hand mochten nemen en de Duitse bezetters doden. Zijn oom wilde dat niet. Toen de Russische commandant vroeg waarom niet zei hij: “Ik ben geen moordenaar, ik ben musicus.” Tijdens dit verhaal, waarvan je je kunt afvragen of het op zo’n feestelijke finale thuishoort, was het doodstil in de zaal. Met dit verhaal wil ik illustreren dat er tijdens dit festival tijd en ruimte werd gemaakt voor sociale en politieke bewustwording. Hij nam daarna ook de tijd voor reacties uit het publiek en legde tevens uit waarom hij het belangrijk vond om dit verhaal te vertellen. Ook de eerder genoemde lezing van Stig Asp sluit goed aan bij dit doel. (enhancing political dialogue, debate and opinionmaking among young people in Europe) Uit Noorwegen was er ook een afgezant, zij organiseren daar ook een festival. De opzet is er echter iets anders. Het is een cultuurfestival waarbij muziek een onderdeel is. Zij wilde kijken hoe het in Zweden werd georganiseerd, maar ook kijken of er een band was die een gastoptreden zou kunnen verzorgen op het festival daar. Er werd dus een band uitgekozen die in de vorm van een extra prijs naar Noorwegen zou gaan. Het werd de band Alien She, deze band bestond uit voornamelijk meisjes die hele diepzinnige teksten hadden. Perfect voor dat festival. De Deense organisator van Jeunesse Musicales is ook geweest op het festival. Hij wilde ideeën opdoen voor hun organisatie aldaar. Het lag in de planning om hem ook te interviewen, maar op het moment dat daar tijd voor was (op dag 2) was hij alweer weg. Het gesprekje dat we hadden was slechts ter kennismaking en erg informeel. Ook uit Vlaanderen waren er afgevaardigden. De secretaris generaal van het Vlaamse Muziekonderwijs kwam naar Zweden om te ideeën op te doen voor het festival wat hij weer wilde gaan organiseren in Vlaanderen. Hij was voormalig directeur van het conservatorium in Antwerpen. Hij had een conservatorium student meegenomen om een extra paar ogen te hebben. In Wallonië wordt er ook iets soortgelijks georganiseerd, maar daar is klassiek/populair meer gescheiden. Stig Asp van Music Crossroads vertelde dat ze in Afrika het festival echt gebruiken om de jongere generatie in de workshops, waarbij muziek het medium is, meer bewustzijn bij te brengen over aids en hiv, maar hun zeker ook meer bewust te maken van het belang van samenwerking tussen de verschillende stammen die elkaar beconcurreren. Wij ontvingen het verslag van Music Crossroads van het afgelopen jaar. (ZE ZIJN DRUK BEZIG MET FONDSEN WERVEN DUS ALS DE EU NOG EEN POTJE HEEFT!) In alle gesprekken die we met stafleden hadden kwam telkens het woord respect naar voren als belangrijkste begrip voor het succes van Musik Direkt. Dit kregen we ook terug in gesprekjes met bandleden. De jongeren vonden dat het succes van M.D. ook te maken had met het feit dat M.D. een “wild festival” is, waarmee bedoeld wordt dat het niet geïnstitutionaliseerd is. Hoe minder bureaucratie hoe beter. Van de meisjes met wie we spraken kwam duidelijk naar voren dat ze vonden dat er te weinig meisjes deelnamen. Volgens sommigen van hen mocht M.D. wel wat meer aandacht besteden aan de deelname van meisjes. Organisatie (Per Ekedahl) zou graag zien dat er meer deelname zou zijn van klassieke musici. Op dit moment is er volgens hem in Zweden een tendens dat er door de jeugd minder klassiek gemusiceerd wordt. Volgens hem is dit vooral te wijten aan het heersende concept voor het klassieke concert (geen wisselwerking tussen musici en publiek). Dat spreekt jongeren niet aan. De muziek op zich wel. Dit komt zeker voor een groot deel door de filmmuziek. Klassieke musici die deelnemen aan het festival krijgen van hun “pop” collega’s juist enorm veel waardering en steun. Per is duidelijk voor zo min mogelijk bureaucratische inmenging van allerlei instanties. De organisatie gaat volgens hem dan over veel te veel schijven en dit kost veel tijd en geld. Hij is van mening dat deze tijd en dat geld veel beter gestopt kunnen worden in de directe belanghebbenden van het festival, namelijk de jongeren. Mede in het belang van de jongeren wordt de locatie van de finale elk jaar georganiseerd in een andere stad. Er wordt bewust gekozen voor een kleine stad. Op deze manier is alle aandacht van de lokale media gericht op de jongeren die deelnemen aan het festival. De activiteiten rondom het festival verdwijnen niet in de vele evenementen die een grote stad te bieden heeft. En natuurlijk is er in een kleine stad vaak weinig te doen voor de jeugd, dus de deelnemers zullen veel minder snel naar plaatselijke discotheken en dergelijken verdwijnen en dus vaker fulltime aanwezig zijn op het festival. Verder wil ik graag nog opmerken dat de organisatie twee extra podia in de stad had neergezet waar de deelnemende jongeren overdag konden optreden. Deze podia werden s’avonds wanneer de deelnemers in het Folkshus (waar de finale plaatsvond) moesten spelen, beschikbaar gesteld aan de plaatselijke bands inclusief licht, geluid en technici. Commentaar gevend op de EU-Aims kan ik met betrekking tot M.D. in Zweden het volgende zeggen: -“Creating and reinforcing of European Awareness among young people”: Hierop ligt geen nadruk. Nadruk ligt op het maken van muziek en voorts op de communicatie van de jongeren door middel van muziek met het publiek. - “Reaching large numbers of young people in Europe”en – “Reaching special targetgroups among young people in Europe” Hierop ligt geen nadruk. Het is met name een nationaal festival, waarbij de Zweedse jongeren wel de mogelijkheid geboden wordt naar het buitenland (meestal in Europa) te gaan om andere jonge musici te ontmoeten en ervaringen op te doen door in contact met anderen muziek te maken. (Vandaar mijns inziens ook het belang van jamsessies) - “Enhancing political dialogue, debate and opinion making among young people in Europe” Ook dit is geen hoofddoel van de organisatie. Met enige voorbeelden heb ik geïllustreerd dat er wel degelijk aandacht aan wordt besteed, maar het is niet het hoofddoel van M.D. Zoals gezegd, dat is het maken van muziek en het geven van kansen aan jonge mensen om zich met hun eigengeschreven muziek als musicus te profileren. En relevante ervaring op te doen voor een eventuele toekomst in de muziekwereld. - “Ascertaining that EU money sorts highest adde value and multplyer effects from the side of European youth organisations, and that these organisation operate most efficient and effective” Voor zover ik kan beoordelen in de korte tijd dat ik M.D. heb meegemaakt en beleefd heb ik een bijzonder positieve indruk van de organisatie gekregen. M.D. heeft een bijzonder degelijke uitstraling. Alles wat er moest zijn was er, maar er waren geen onnodige dingen. Het eten was uitstekend, maar niet overdadig, de hotels waren prima, maar niet overdreven luxe. De apparatuur was professioneel en in zeer goede staat, het personeel was uiterst betrokken en enthousiast. M.D. is mijns inziens een hele betrouwbare organisatie, die de EU-gelden rechtstreeks ten goede laat komen aan diegenen voor wie ze bedoeld waren, namelijk de jongeren. -“Are the subsidies really justified in relation to the organisation’s activities?” Voor zover ik kan beoordelen zijn de subsidies gerechtvaardigd. Deze worden gebruikt om voor drie van de winnende bands een tour door Zweden te organiseren, om de reiskosten van winnende bands naar internationale festivals te betalen en soms om een prijs voor speciale muziekstromingen te ondersteunen. -“Does it provide real Community added value?” Kan ik niet zo goed beoordelen omdat ik de vraag niet helemaal begrijp. Ik denk dat de waarde van organisaties en festivals als deze groot is en van belang is voor de ontwikkeling en blikverruiming van jongeren. Hoe meer landen op zo’n manier bezig zijn hoe groter ook de uitwerking is en hoe meer mogelijkheden er zijn voor internationale samenwerking en uitwisseling tussen jongeren. -“Would other types of activities be more effective?” Andere types activiteiten zouden óók werken, maar niet persé beter zijn of meer effect sorteren. Muziek is een internationale taal die door iedereen gesproken en verstaan wordt. Het is een bijzonder effectief medium om jonge mensen op nationaal en Europees niveau te bereiken. -“Are the overall objectives still relevant?” Ja, absoluut -“Have the optimum partners been found?” Weet niet goed wat daarmee bedoeld wordt. Ik denk dat de organisatie erg goed werkt. Het enige dat ik van Per begreep wat op organisatorisch vlak nog beter zou kunnen is de organisatie in enkele regio’s. Hij vertelde dat de organisatie in sommige regio’s iets beter zou kunnen. Hij vond het opvallend dat de deelnemers uit die regio’s over het algemeen ook een minder hoog muzikaal niveau hadden. Aan een internationaal netwerk wordt gewerkt. -“Are the implementation mechanisms effective?” Ja. De organisatie van het festival liep op rolletjes. Tussentijds werd er geëvalueerd in een goed geleide maar toch informele vergadering van de stafleden en regionale vertegenwoordigers. (hier waren we bij aanwezig, we konden het alleen slecht verstaan omdat het in het Zweeds was) Door de staf aangedragen aandachtspunten werden direct meegenomen in de planning voor de rest van de dagen.

111

SCI Observer: Els Muskens-Cohen, George Muskens 1. Record of the organisation 45.

File number

46. 47. 48.


49. 50.


51.


52.


53.


54.

55. 56. 57.

1999 1999-74 2000 2000-84 SCI Service Civil International Y 1999 2000 Total 33 31 EU-countries 13 13 Third countries 20 18 EU-youth 7500 7518 VOLUNTARY SERVICE Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 3 2000 4


60. 61.


62.

A-3029 grants for your organisation since

63.

Past EU grants for international youth NGOs

59.

64.

A-3029 allocation

1999 2000 1999 2000

Y €14.000,00

1991

€14.000,00

1992

€13.500,00

1993

€14.000,00

1994

€15.000,00

1995

€26.000,00

1996

€22.000,00

1997

€22.000,00

1998

€17.000,00

1990

1999

€17.000,00

1999

€17.000,00

8%

2000

€19.000,00

8%

112

4 3

1999

2000

Y

Y Y Y Y

Y

Y Y Y

1990

4 3

Y Y



Y Y Y

Y


Y Y Y Y Y Y


Total

13.


All

SCI 11 52,4 8 38,1 6 28,6 3 14,3 16 76,2 7 33,3 21

SCI


152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251


All

Electronic media


Directly 8.

4,4

3,8

3,8

3,6

4,2

4,4

4,2

4,4

3,8

4,4


14.




16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

1 5,6 6 33,3 11 61,1 18




204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

SCI

9.

All

SCI


All

Total 3.

20 95,2 2 9,5 0 0,0 0 0,0 21

15.


Directly Indirectly


10.




206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

16 84,2 3 15,8 0 0,0 19



187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

SCI


All

6.

14 66,7 14 66,7 4 19,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 21


35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

16. 1 10

Are you

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

Male Female Total

113


Directly Indirectly 2 6

1

20

Table 235 Gender

11.

1 5,3 13 68,4 5 26,3 19

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

4 20,0 9 45,0 7 35,0 20


All


SCI

5.

All

Youth work

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

SCI

SCI 16 84,1 3 15,8 0 0,0 19

SCI

Rather important

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

All

Very important

All


4 20,0 9 45,0 7 35,0 20


Not

Table 234 Sector

4.

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256


Table 233 Country

Table 227 Web-site

SCI

SCI


All


Table 226 Media

2.

31,3 21

SCI

Not (so) important

32,0 256

SCI

Rather important


7 35,0 13 65,0 20

Not Total

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

SCI

Very important

18 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 18

SCI

235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251

All

Total


All

Not (so) familiar

7.

All

Rather familiar

13 68,4 6 31,6 0 0,0 19

Table 236 Age

All

Very familiar

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


SCI

1.

All


14 73,7 4 21,0 1 5,3 19

3. Open answers of stakeholders SCI is an international organisation with a high level of structures to ensure democratic decision taking process, grass root co-operation on projects, involvement of volunteers with different background and transparency. This needs a lot of resources, training, meetings, know how and technical equipment. A big part of the necessary costs are born by the national branches as members of SCI and by individuals as volunteers/delegates/participants themselves. The subsidy of EU helps not to over-stretch this contribution. It helps to give full participation in all international activities also of the more „weak“ SCI branches and those e.g. in Poland, Hungary or Romania. It helps as well to involve (young) people with different social backgrounds to participate in activities not only on local level but also on international level. International co-ordination of SCI opens opportunity to a huge number of young people to be active members of an international organisation by organising seminars and other possibilities to prepare, manage, realise and evaluate common projects. People learn to get a „European“ or an „International“ view on their reality and participate in building up a common Europe. In the future such structures and possibilities will be more and more important. International Co-ordination shouldn’t become a „far away office“ or meetings of functionaries but should remain a living association with structures, which have a direct value for volunteers and activists. It means to have resources and platforms for direct communication, personal exchange and common development of ideas and projects. The improvement should focus on international involvement, participation of volunteers, common activities and projects and development of European/international co-operation. This budget line is so far without any legal basis and therefore it doesn’t give supported organisations enough security in a sense of being able to strategically develop their activities (and not maintain them only low scale), as it might be a subject of change almost any time. Although the grant doesn’t exceed 20% of the total organisational running costs, it might with sudden change of EU policy towards measures and regulations concerning this budget line, cause a severe damage in terms of drastic quantitative and qualitative drop of activities organised by organisations that otherwise have a vital role but couldn’t be funded otherwise. That might lead to a major drop down of activities, carried out by civil society, that play a very important complementary and supportive role towards local, regional, national and intergovernmental institutions. International secretariats/offices have a special role within international networks/associations/umbrella organisations, as their main roles of co-ordinating, representing and disseminating information don't fit into 'usual' project funded grants. What we face now already is that the international secretariats apply for the 'project' money – working on projects that would not be otherwise carried out by them but rather by national branches/partner organisations – in a need to survive. That leads to the feeling of concurrence. I would suggest taking into consideration the results of this evaluation and act according to the needs of the organisations- I believe that in this case what would come out would be the urgent need to make this budget line legal. I would also suggest not changing the regulations unless there are very good reasons to do it. SCI International Co-ordination and the A-3029 grant The A-3029- grants have been a substantial part of our overall core income during the last years (circa 8% of the running costs of the secretariat). An amount of 19.000 Euro’s is not easily replaced and I certainly wouldn’t know where to find it, especially since the international secretariat is quite dependent on voluntary contributions from SCI national branches. Moreover, it is very important for us that this grant is not directly project-related. This means that we do get money for what we normally do (keeping the (growing) network intact and on a quality level by our overall co-ordination of the movement, preparing TEM and ICM, overall communication with IEC, branches and WGs, etc) and is not adding up to extra work for the staff here. Given the fact that in a lot of countries, governments are cutting down on subsidies for national youth organisations, it is harder for the national branches to survive and thus they are less able to cover the costs of the international co-ordination of SCI through their voluntary contributions. Given the fact that we want to work in a qualitative way, it is important for SCI to develop and maintain a good international network. Exactly this costs a lot of money, as in international and European networks next to the intensive work to be done, there is always a lot of international travel involved. However, it should be also in the interest of the European institutions to have democratic and well run European networks alive as they are in a lot of projects effective partners for the European Commission. Given the fact that we are a youth and an inclusive organisation, our target group does not have much financial resources. In this sense, the A-3029 help us to keep the price of the programmes at a reasonable level (as otherwise we might have to charge the volunteers more in order to be able to make a bigger contribution to the international coordination in order to sustain the European co-ordination). Given the fact that we are encouraged by the European institutions to make special efforts to include disadvantaged young people as a matter of priority, we have less time to « market » our programmes or to orient our programmes towards a target group who is financially better off (and who we could charge more). Given the fact that as a youth organisation, there is a lot of coming-and-going of activists, this has as a result that basic training as e.g. project management, financial management, fundraising, training for trainers… have to be provided totally anew circa every three years. This is expensive because in these training’s for which we usually obtain grants from the EC, there is always a part which you need to co-finance and these are costs of the organisation itself. Given the reality that in fact we ARE offering a big variety of informal learning opportunities, but since this work done is not recognised as such by the European institutions or other funders, it is also putting pressure on our budget. For instance, from all the staff at the national agency of the EC in Belgium (JINT), several people have been ex-SCI members for several years. They have learned a lot with us but they go on to other challenges, which is normal. It is only frustrating for us to see that there is no recognition of the fact that we are in fact an organisation which offers « lifelong informal learning » for its members. SCI International Co-ordination and other EC-grants SCI is receiving a lot of funding for its project of the European Commission. We are very grateful for that and it has to be said that only because of this funding, we are able to carry out certain projects. In this way, the EC is an essential donor for our work and we are quite dependent on the Cupertino with them. However, there are also some disadvantages to the grants received with projects. One of the problems is the late arrival of the contracts, which often makes it necessary to delay the start of the project. This is not efficient for us and in fact, often costs money, because we have to put in staff time to co-ordinate all factors related to the delay of such a project (accommodation bookings, travel arrangements, etc, etc). It is not only efficient; it is also often not the right thing to do for the project. When we apply for a project, then often the dates have an educational or practical relevance which might be lost in case of need to delay the operation and this again, would affect the quality of the project or affect our capacity to carry out the project as contracted according the original application. Another problem is that in a lot of cases only 6% of the total cost might be applied for as administrative and co-ordination costs. Since last year, we are keeping a record of staff time dedicated to each project and this shows clearly that we need much more staff time (cost) than would be covered by the project grant. All in all, it would be very helpful for European youth NGO’s if instead of making the administrative grants smaller, to make them bigger. A good running international network is at the basis of efficiently and successfully running European projects. In this way, it would be in our opinion of major importance, to support the existing running networks (who are still growing also, so this is not a “fixed” network) rather than starting up many new ones. I would suggest that the funding would not be targeting new organisations in a priority manner. Why set up new networks if there already are networks that are well known and appreciated? I see the work SCI is doing as a long-term work and as something that benefit Europe as a whole. We try to build bridges between nations and remove prejudices etc. By eliminating the subsidies much of the work would not be possible. We already carry out voluntary work as our basic activity; therefore some financial help is needed. I also think that to youth work belongs activities that involve other parts of the world than Europe. I would like to see that it would be easier to get funding for cross continental activities. It would be a good thing for European youth to meet other types of people and reflect over their European identity. For a future without conflicts I see this as crucial Importance of the grant -

It’s very important that European youth NGO’s don’t depend exclusively on project funding for their European co-operation work. The lack of an annual grant for their coordination work will lead to the perverse effect of developing projects and applying for project grants (e.g. Youth programme) not because of a thematic need but to cover the standard costs of running an international network. This evolution would be nor in the NGO’s nor in the EC interests.

-

A European organisation needs professional co-ordination and own activities and initiatives likes publications, meetings, etc to be able to assure continuity and quality, especially in an voluntary organisation.

-

Such a grant gives the organisation the opportunity o develop a long term vision and planning

Such a support means recognition of voluntary work as such but also as an informal learning experiences and the contribution it gives to social organisations in Europe. (*) Youth and voluntary service organisations are very valuable in conducting EU programmes, such as YOUTH but these project funds do not cover the costs of running such programmes nor the co-financing part. Therefore, other types of funding are needed. Project funding can be problematic for an organisation that seeks continuity and good quality in its work. Good communication and frequent face-to-face meetings are essential in the work of international networks, and they remain to be so even if the organisation has passed its early stages. Nobody stays in the youth sector forever so it takes a lot of effort to train and “energise” new activists. We need staff and other longterm activists to help the youngsters and this is not possible without public financial support. Young people are not often able to finance their activities, which is why youth organisations can not count on the funding by their members. Youth NGOs and their networks provide a good channel to reach different youth and I believe that financing the work of youth NGOs gives the Union good value for their money especially in terms of creating European awareness. The work of NGOs is also very valuable in possible new EU member states where the tradition of civil society is not so strong. The future of the Union depends on its youth! For SCI and for a lot of youth organisations in general the number of participants is not the most important issue. A lot of the activities they do are more focussed on the process the participants go through f.e. the group dynamics and the self development of each individual. This makes it sometimes very difficult to measure the result of these processes. When you organise international activities, especially with special target groups, it's very important to have a good and reliable international network. This network gives also the opportunity to young people to experience international co-operation day to day and to function in a multicultural environment. To maintain such a network a minimum of co-ordination is needed. Especially for youth organisations there are a lot of obstacles: young activists that change very often; few professional staff; many volunteers that also need training, management, no national funding for international co-ordination, few financial resources. ... This also makes it hard for international youth organisations to go through complicated administrative procedures, take financial risks or invest a lot before project funding is secured, EU subsidies are very important for SCI, as they do fund quite an essential part of our activities. The A-3029 grant is maybe even more important for several reasons. Firstly both on SCI international level as on national level for the different branches, it is difficult to get funding for core costs. Most funding organisations prefer to finance concrete

114

projects instead. Even though co refunding is very essential as a basis for being able to implement your activities. Moreover as SCI is such a big organisation, regular meetings (part of the core costs) are needed to keep a qualitatively good communication within SCI and with its partners. Additionally the A-3029 helps us to keep the price of the programmes at a reasonable level and enables us to charge less participation fees for youngsters, which is especially important when we look at the target group of disadvantage youth. Next to that this grant enables us to guarantee continuity of our organisation and our peace youth work. The support of the EU is vitally important for SCI to continue to maintain a European wide network. The supports enables SCI • To link with over 100 youth organisations in the EU, Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America which helps to bring a wider perspective of the world to young people from all over the EU through our programmes • To involve a growing number of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds in our programmes • To organise a wide range of training events and seminars which has led to an increasing number of young people taking part Without this subsidy SCI would find it difficult to continue to offer the wide variety of informal learning opportunities to young people that it does today. Service Civil International (SCI) is an international network of 34 branches world-wide. All the international grant applications are submitted by the International Secretariat of SCI based in Antwerp, Belgium. The administration costs of the office in Antwerp are not cover in the International Secretariat project budgets and that’s why I think is important for us to continue receiving these subsidies. As the main problem in EU’s subsidy to our work I see the project-relatedness of funding. The whole structure of SCI is based on voluntary work; both on national and international levels the number of staff is minimal compared with the amount of work done by volunteers. Besides the positive effects - like constant refreshing of ideas -, this also causes a heavy overload on the few members of staff we can afford. Although the main part of our activities, i.e. workcamps and long term volunteering, have been going on for decades already, and the responsibility for organising these is mainly on national branches and project partners, it requires a substantial part of international staff’s work to provide the annual framework and follow-up of this exchange. On top of this SCI constantly evaluates its work and focuses on special target groups and regions. For realising this, many specialised projects are organised every year, so staff time is also needed for applying for funding for these. Thus there is a constant request for more staff in the International Secretariat of SCI, but because the structures of national branches are very similar to that of whole SCI, and the principle idea of SCI is to do work nobody is willing or able to pay for, we simply cannot afford employing more people. My opinion is, that we already now „exploit” the good will of those few working in the International Secretariat, and the overall trend doesn’t indicate much hope for better possibilities in the near future. I myself have been motivated to commit myself more and more to the work of SCI as a volunteer because I’m impressed by its capacity to strengthen solidarity and mutual understanding, and thus improve democracy both within EU and in the pre-accession and third countries. Bringing thousands of young people from different cultural backgrounds together to work voluntarily and spend time together is a very efficient way to share experiences of common and special problems and also knowledge of wellproven means to solve these problems. From my standpoint as a member of the steering group of SCI East-West Working Group (EWWG) I also have seen the value of our work in building democratic structures in the countries that will sooner or later join the EU. The main principle of EWWG is mutual learning and exchange, and thus our projects tend to have more sustainable effects in these areas than work done in a one-way teaching attitude. I sincerely hope this work with long a perspective doesn’t lose EU’s subsidy in favour of short-term projects, which usually mean weaker planning and double work in the sense of "inventing the wheel anew”. I would like to make some general comments about youth exchange organisations. To my experience, SCI is one of the rare and still rather unique organisations working actively with grassroots organisations in Central and Eastern Europe. Many international organisations have contacts and sometimes partners in Eastern Europe, but usually do not have a large network for co-operating partners. Youth work, building democratic society and international volunteering are strong tools for organisational capacity building for NGOs, promotion of democratic principles, awareness raising (on youth issues, environment, social issues, whatsoever). The grant is a useful tool that helps youth organisations with a small office - but which are in size and number of members not small at all! - To give certain continuity and stability. It is a fact that organising activities in other countries, outside the EU, international youth work in Eastern Europe is often underestimated. With regard to design, preparation and organisation of activities, more efforts, and resources are needed to develop partnerships. International youth exchange and voluntary service, and youth activities are useful tools to promote values such as democratic decisionmaking, self-organisation, conflict resolution, problem solving, etc. After more then 10 years of the fall of the wall, it is somewhat strange to realise that so many regions in Eastern Europe, like Russia, Belarus, Ukraine (2nd country of Europe in size!) may have some "contacts" (possibly some internet access, e-mail news) but hardly any forms of sustainable Cupertino and partnership with international networks and Western European organisations. The possibilities for Cupertino with far-off regions in NIS countries are there, but the difficulties are often underestimated. In my opinion the grant should NOT be used for national organisations. Focussing on international organisations, one should nevertheless, develop clear criteria which organisations can make use of the grant. In my opinion, it would be not supportive towards the aims of the EU youth programmes, to concentrate on a selected group of organisations or only the large ones. What is important is to see which organisations are working on the outreach of the programme, which organisations is targeting at new regions in Europe, involving young people in their work. I would like to make some comments on another EU programme which is often used by international youth organisations, the so-called EU YOUTH programme. Beside the grant A3029 that plays an important role for international youth organisations, the YOUTH programme is another important sources for those organisations. The YOUTH programme of the EU leads to fragmentation, and does not encourage allow long-term planning. For each seminar or training of a few days, one needs to develop a new project application. This is really destroying any sense of strategy development and long term planning. The grant A-3029 gives some possibility to include some more guarantees for continuation. The grant A-3029 could try to reserve space Looking at the developments in the youth sector at European level, one can see that the National Agencies of the YOUTH programmes start to take over more and more tasks with regard to the implementation of the YOUTH activities. I never understood why this development has started! It seems as if the funders eat their own money for the target group. To my understanding, this was never defined as the original task of the Support structure and the National agencies were meant to execute. Now the national agencies in Cupertino with a group of 3-4 national agencies organise series of trainings, and seminars for which they invite there target group. The YOUTH NA has become the competitors with their own target group, i.e. national, regional and international youth organisations. Rather than administering the funds, providing support and disseminating information! Financial support for development, design and organisation of training courses should be open for the real target group. Now National Agencies and external professional organisations without youth take over the tasks from the international youth organisations following unclear and non-transparent procedures. In order to have an overall picture of the use of EU programmes, by international youth organisations, it would be appropriate if the European Union would evaluate the budget line A-3029 jointly with the use of use of the financial resources of the YOUTH programme. International Youth work is not very well resourced in Ireland from National funding sources. Its development primarily relies on the funding coming from the EU. SCI’s YUWG Group work with young people coming from areas of social exclusion and we try to do quality work with small numbers. These young people cannot pay high participation fees to support an International Secretariat. International youth work is a specialist area in it’s own right and the support given by the International Secretariat to the work being done on the ground in Ireland is of primary importance, as this training and support cannot be accessed locally and needs to be done by a central co-ordination. It’s not often easy for SCI branches to find money to fund international co-ordination. SCI is depending on external funding. On the national level many branches receive money from their governments to make their work possible, as a European based NGO I believe SCI has a right to receive core funding for the co-ordination of its activities from the EU. The activities of SCI are hardly possible without a professional co-ordination office, at least this makes our work much more efficient and worthwhile. I believe many activities can be done without paid staff or an office, but one co-ordination office is very important. It is also important that this office has the financial and personnel capacity of spreading information, make sure jobs are not done twice, make sure that our activities in different working groups get connected and we learn from each others work. Another task is to make sure we work democratically and the board is informed of the activities of the overall organisation. One of the problems with core money is that an organisation like SCI gets easily dependent on it, while we never know for sure weather such grants are continuous. A solution for this would be to plan ahead, so in 2002 decide if and how much money we will receive in 2004. Another problem with EU grants in general, but have no clue if that's the case with this one, is the enormous administration it takes to report back. I think you need to be a professional bookkeeper to do this properly and in an NGO like ours such people are hard to find. One other problem I would like to mention is that projects sometimes cannot happen because the commission decides only a few weeks before the activity to allocate the grant. Then it is too late to find participants and especially visa for participants and all the preparation work and time has been spilled. International youth organisations with their local and national sections play an important role in mobilising and awareness raising among young people. Most organisations have to undertake their activities with very modest budgets. Even though the salaries in most organisations are very modest and the general (Secretariat) costs are quite low, many organisations find it hard to make ends meet. Subventions for projects only allow for a limited percentage of overhead costs, and membership and participation fees only make up part of the income, also because the "target group" has only modest financial resources. In order to be able to make the contribution which young people and also their governments and the EU expect of them, international youth organisations (as well as their local and national sections) require core funding to cover their general costs. Special efforts should be made by the organisations and their donors to engage disadvantaged youth Having being involved both in the general co-ordination of SCI and in various bodies and umbrella organisations that groups a lot of other similar organisations, I have quite a strong and, I believe, informed opinion on this. National governments have increasingly, albeit to a different extent from country to country, reduced funding for the national branches of SCI (and other organisations). National branches are increasingly less capable of supporting their own structure and even more the international structure. Although it is true that this has brought SCI and other organisations to increase their efficiency, it has gone beyond that affecting the quantity and, most importantly, the quality of their activities. Almost all youth organisations I know of, are facing problems of, usually underpaid, overloaded staff continuously engaged in writing grant applications and running several projects at the same time, receiving little support from committees that have been forced to reduced their meetings or general travel possibilities. Faced with continuous difficulties in receiving no-project grants, offices are often not able to buy more modern equipment, which would allow increased efficiency. It is my strong opinion, that national and international institutions (above all, for European organisations, the EU) offer plenty of possibilities to grant projects, but not enough grants to finance the administrative costs of youth organisations, which is at the basis of their very existence (especially intended with a functioning democratic structure) and the capability offer high quality projects. I believe that, if the EU intends to support youth organisations in running projects of high standards, reaching also those disadvantaged youth that require more attention and cannot easily pay high fees to participate in activities, than it should provide for even higher administrative grant. Perhaps there could be a minimum related to the size of the organisation (countries of presence, number of members, etc,), and the rest of the grant related to an "efficiency/effectiveness" premium, for those organisations that, according to given criteria, manage to run many good projects Youth and voluntary service organisations are very valuable in conducting EU programmes, such as YOUTH but these project funds do not cover the costs of running such programmes nor the co-financing part. Therefore, other types of funding are needed. Project funding can be problematic for an organisation that seeks continuity and good quality in its work. Good communication and frequent face-to-face meetings are essential in the work of international networks, and they remain to be so even if the organisation has passed its early stages. Nobody stays in the youth sector forever so it takes a lot of effort to train and “energise” new activists. We need staff and other longterm activists to help the youngsters and this is not possible without public financial support. Young people are not often able to finance their activities, which is why youth

115

organisations can not count on the funding by their members. Youth NGOs and their networks provide a good channel to reach different youth and I believe that financing the work of youth NGOs gives the Union good value for their money especially in terms of creating European awareness. The work of NGOs is also very valuable in possible new EU member states where the tradition of civil society is not so strong. The future of the Union depends on its youth! SCI is an organisation that manage to realise so many important things – through creating possibilities for international voluntary service in a framework of peace, supporting local initiatives for a sustainable and peaceful society with active citizenship, creating an arena for constructive political dialogue between grass root people from different countries and with different backgrounds – and possibilities for young people to put into action their ideas and visions. All this is done with a very small budget and with a constant fight for keeping this movement economically over the surface. It is possible to go on mainly because of all the voluntary work put into the movement, because of a spirit of doing things even if it seems impossible... The budget-line A-3029 is essential for SCI-International as a way to fund our core-work, keep the lungs breathing. A noprofit organisation like SCI can’t live just on project-funding – not in the reality of today when you need to work more and more with long applications and reports for each Euro. SCI strives and stands for so many things that the EU finds very essential – I don’t understand why our kinds of organisations must be hunted in this way, defending their existence when, speaking about what you get for the money, SCI manages to do seminars with budgets that the EC probably would spend on one dinner. It feels a bit humiliating to have to spend energy on defending this budget-line and the possibility for youth organisations to have European support for their core-funding, when it really should be in the EU and the European governments interest that this work goes on. The proposal that A-3029 should only be for the three first years of an organisations existence would be a clear signal that EU doesn’t appreciate continuity or experience. SCI was founded in 1920 and we have a history that gives us a strength and identity something to relay upon and draw conclusions from. I really urge the EU to keep this support for European youth organisation and also to recognise the importance of the work we do by showing trust instead of hunting us! Helps to give us a participation in all international activities also for the more “weak” SCI branches and those e.g. in Poland, Hungary or Romania. Helps to involve young people with different social backgrounds to participate in activities not only on local level, but also int. Younger people active in int. seminars, project. Such structures and possibilities will be more and more important. Int. Co -ord. should not become a far away office. Number of participants is not the most important issue.. More focussed on the process the participants are going through, group dynamics and self-development. Difficult to measure the result of the processes good and reliable net work is very important, young people experiment international operation day by day in a multi-culti environment. We need staff, volunteers, training, management, and financial recourses. Administrative procedures too complicated have to take a financial risk or invest before the project funding is secured.

116

SYNDESMOS 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2.

Organisation's name

3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


8.


9.


10.

11. 12. 13.

14.


16.


17.


18. 19.


15.

20.

A-3029 allocation

1999 2000

1999-76 2000-88

SYNDESMOS The World Fellowship of Orthodox Youth N 1999 2000 Total 41 42 EU-countries 7 7 Third countries 34 35 EU-Youth 10750 27300 RELIGION Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 6 2000 6 Most of them are young people Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity Not all of it


3

3

YES YES

YES



YES


YES YES YES YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€6.000,00 €10.000,00 €10.000,00 €12.000,00 €12.000,00 €9.000,00 €10.000,00 €10.000,00 €14.000,00

1993

117

12% 15%

2000 YES YES YES

2. Open answers of the key organiser The EU has proved to be one of the few funding agencies which acknowledges the value of support for core activities of organizations. The subsidies help us most of all to fulfill our objectives of networking amongst our members. In recent years exchanges between member movements, originally initiated by SYNDESMOS, have now taken off independently. The office has been a link between these organizations, and has had a valuable role in the bilateral exchanges which exist between our member movements today. The subsidies also contribute to publicizing our events, and producing our annual publications (Brochure, Syndesmos News), as well as contributing to the day-to-day administrative costs. SYNDESMOS has developed significantly in the European context, partly as a result of receiving such subsidies which have facilitated the organization of activities of European interest involving young people. When it supports SYNDESMOS, the EU’s A-3029 subsidy also supports European values of tolerance, integration and the respect of the other in a pluralist society. I think that European grants to European Youth Organizations are well allocated, as the EU invests in the future of Europe by investing in the youth. The wider the sponsorship of youth organizations such as SYNDESMOS, the stronger the potential for stability and unity in Europe. European values, which we share, find their best means for positive dissemination at the level of youth, in contexts (such as SYNDESMOS activities) in which these values can be implemented and seen to be valid. I see the strong points of the grants as 1) supporting core activities for which it is harder for organizations to find support 2) facilitating youth organizations to unite hundreds of European youth in annual shared activities, thus building on the cooperation necessary for a stable future in Europe 3) giving youth organizations the freedom to remain independent and autonomous. Concerning weak points: it is difficult for the receiver of the grant, however much it appreciates the support, not to consider as a weak point the fact that the grants are not higher in value. Finally, regarding improvement: improvement is usually aligned with tighter measures and more demanding criteria. Such measures may be what are required for the EU to be sure that its selection process is sufficiently rigorous, and I would hope that if such measures are put in place, they would not put strain on the administration of the receiving organization.

118




235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


11 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 11

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

SYNDES MOS

7.

All

8 66,7 4 33,3 0 0,0 12

Table 251 Gender

SYNDES MOS

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


SYNDES MOS

1.

All


4 33,3 8 66,7 12

Table 252 Age


16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

SYNDES MOS 3 25,0 5 41,7 4 33,3 12

9.

Directly

3,8

3,5

Indirectly

Total



204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

9 69,2 1 7,7 3 23,1 0 0,0 13


11 91,7 1 8,3 0 0,0 12



206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

SYNDES MOS


10 83,3 2 16,7 0 0,0 12


All

6.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

SYNDES MOS





All

5.

10.

10 76,9 2 15,4 3 23,1 2 15,4 0 0,0 13


119

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

SYNDES MOS

196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

All

Very important

SYNDES MOS


All

4.

14.



1 2 3

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

0 0,0 4 33,3 8 66,7 12

Table 255 Involvement in local or regional youth policies 15.

1 2

0 0,0 1 8,3 11 91,7 12


Total

Table 250 Sector

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

SYNDES MOS

4,2


Not

Total


All

4,2

13.

All

SYNDES MOS

All

3,8

SYNDES MOS


All


3,7

4,2

Table 249 Country

Table 243 Web-site

3.

3,8



72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

SYNDES MOS


4,3

4 33,3 2 16,7 6 50,0 12

Table 256 Involvement in youth work or practice 2 16.


Directly 1

Indirectly Not

1

13

Total

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

SYNDES MOS


29,9 13


4,4

All

Internal media

32,0 256

All

Magazines


All


3 23,1 6 46,2 6 46,2 2 15,4 10 76,9 2 15,4 12


SYNDES MOS

Electronic media

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

8.

All


SYNDES MOS

2.

All


SYNDES MOS

Table 242 Media

10 83,3 1 8,3 1 8,3 12

4. Open answers of stakeholders Compte tenu du fait que je me suis implique toujours dans les commissions programme , je ne possède pas les connaissances nécessaires pour répondre à cette question. Syndesmos is dealing with many special target groups such as orthodox minorities in many countries, Eastern European youth from many difficult economic, political and social situations (including war and violent conflicts) and has been able to widen many views and perspectives and given to many youth their first international contacts. It operates with very little staff and relies on voluntary work and active and committed members and compared to similar organisations is performing very well. To a funding agency it has been a reliable and efficient partner and giving example of good multiplication effects. We feel that this type of organisations are well suited to get EU subsidies, as they are creating networks of young people often in vulnerable situations but also supporting leadership of youth in their communities and thus make a real change. The European dimension is very important especially in areas of conflict and social unrest. The cost/outcome is good, because of the commitment of volunteers and a functioning network. Many international organisations such as SYNDESMOS who have many members in economically unstable countries rely heavily on EU grants for meeting the needs of members in these areas. Such grants have contribute to the strengthen of European identity of the past years. EU subsidy is of utmost importance to SYNDESMOS in order to carry on organising platforms for young Europeans to meet, discuss, share ideas, learn from the others, learn to respect differences and better understand our European identity. In my opinion the activities are really justified. Why? Because otherwise there would not be linking between the individuals, the contact would not take place. There would not be any learning experience, no widening your perspectives, not wider eye-opening situations. I think SYNDESMOS has offered a real Community added value, because by making it possible to have personal contact with other Europeans, even just 1 person can make a difference. For example there is a larger multiplying effect for dozens of people because of this 1 person. There has been discussion about modifying activities and actually SYNDESMOS has changed activities a little bit. Overall objectives are still relevant. The optimum partners were found for these projects, of course there might be partners S has not heard of who might be even more suitable. Implementation mechanisms are effective, but they could always be more effective. There is always something to be improved. Passing on information could be more effective. We could profit more the electronic ways of communicating (e-mail), but there are partners who do not have the same facilities (missing infrastructure). Resource persons have been good. But I think there might be even more suitable ones whom SYNDESMOS is not aware. Communication between partners is sometimes difficult due to the fact that there are cultural differences. It is amazing how big differences we have inside Europe e.g. Northern Europe vs. Eastern Europe/Southern Europe. How we function is sometimes like day and night. In direct numbers, SYNDESMOS reaches a limited number of youth through its activities (300-400 per annum). The impact of its work is therefore directly related to the involvement of participants in global, national or local youth structures, the ‘multiplier effect.’ Through strict selection procedures among applicants, maximum efficiency and impact is achieved. Although a world-wide organisation, the vast majority of SYNDESMOS member organisations are situated in Europe, for which reason every single event brings together youth from EU member, non-member and pre-entry states. Besides exchange of best practice in youth work, leadership training and cultural exchange, SYNDESMOS encounters represent a valuable platform for debate and research on European identity, communal and distinct values, the impact of the entry of predominantly Orthodox countries into the EU upon the EU and upon the countries concerned. SYNDESMOS has been established in 1953 in order to combat ‘Church nationalism’ among Orthodox communities in traditionally Orthodox countries and beyond. With the fall of Communism and the potential entry of such countries into the EU, this issue is still quite topical today. We notice great concern about the changing relation between national, cultural, religious and social identity in many post-Communist societies, where encounters with Orthodox peers from other countries help to put national aspirations in perspective, relatives ‘religious nationalism’ and search for a creative contribution to their societies in transformation. SYNDESMOS is the only independent, international youth Organisation of the Orthodox Church. It plays a unique role in building and sustaining Unity among Orthodox youth from different national origin and socio-cultural backgrounds. Being open to others it also plays a unique role for the dialogue of the Orthodox Youth with other Christian and non-Christian Youth. It is among the few European Youth organisations able to build bridges between Western and Eastern European youth, without being considered as suspicious. It brings together hundreds of youth and youth groups from all over Europe every year. It provides youth leadership training to young youth leaders. It allows the youth to realise better the importance of keeping their special identity and offer it to the new Europe that is built, without any fear that integration is necessarily related to the levelling of all particularities. Being totally independent and youth, SYNDESMOS always had during the 50 years of its history financial problems. I feel that when EU supports financially SYNDESMOS, it supports the existence of one of its historical parameters that is not so strong nowadays, but is extremely important for the formation of the values that Europe has to form and base its future on them, if it wants the current process towards European Unity to be the beginning of a long period of stability and Cupertino in Europe and not to be proved of opportunistic importance. It is obvious that by sponsoring international youth organisations EU sponsors its future. This support has to continue to be given carefully and after thorough investigation of the applications, but at the same time it has to increase in order to allow the strengthening of the independent role of Youth Organisations. Ces subventions sont très utiles, les critères (nombre de partenaires, nombres de pays participants) sont bons et permettent de garantir la dimension européenne du projet Plusieurs problèmes cependant : les objectifs des subventions ne sont pas toujours clairs, les explications insuffisantes pour remplir correctement le dossier de demande de subvention. On est parfois obligé d’employer dans les dossiers de demande une véritable « langue de bois » européenne, ce qui ne favorise pas la compréhension de objectifs ni de l’UE ni de l’organisation demandeuse. Quand on emploie un vocabulaire convenu, la réalité vivante du projet est très atténuée. I have not been dealing with EU sub. Yet so I cannot give any detailed opinion. EU. Sub. help in many ways, good material support and they motivate discussing of themes of identity, tolerance, war and peace, environmental problems etc. I think through these discussions the basic principles of EU are enhanced. It also enables us to produce publications, and to network amongst members. We are a very important org. nowadays. Very good in promoting Eur. Principles, high moral standards, bringing people from all over the world in contact. The coming project is a good example; the theme is helping young drug and alcohol addicts.

120

UNITED Observer: Bart van Melik 1. Record of the organisation 30.

File number

31.

Organisation's name

32. 33.


34. 35.


36.


37.

8.

38.

9. How high is the involvement of young people among your professional staff and your volunteers? 10. Publications and publicity as coded from the application form(s)

39.

40. 41. 42.

43.


11. In how far could your organisation realise its publications and publicity plans for 1999? In how far could your organisation realise its publications and publicity plans for 2000? Planned activities as coded from the application form(s)

45.


46.


47. 48.


49.

A-3029 allocation

44.

1999 1999-77 2000 2000-89 UNITED United for Intercultural Action – European Network against Nationalism, Racism, Fascism and in support of Migrants and Refugees 1999 2000 Total 45 45 EU-countries 15 15 Third countries 30 30 EU-Youth ANTI-EXCLUSION Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 2000 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week 1999 300 2000 300 Most of them are young people Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity More than planned


YES YES YES YES 4

4 1 1

YES YES YES YES YES

More than planned


YES YES YES YES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€20.000,00 €23.000,00

1994

121

1999 YES YES

2000 YES YES

YES

YES

2. Open answers of the key organiser Yes. this is a very basic subvention Int. org. cannot receive national running cost grants and are dependent on European money. Most sponsors do not pay for administration or salaries. This administrative grant creates the basis to find other funding. This provides continuity in youth work. We appreciate EU funding very much. Weak: Max. amount is not raised according to inflation rates.-decision too late in the year -Payment too late in the year.(org. often do not have large buffers.) -Financial report has to be sent too early after the closing of the year. – -strong: see 26 Improvement: 1. Application deadline earlier, ± November for next year. 2. reporting not connected with application procedure. 3.Decision on amount granted in Jan. 4.Payment 80% after acceptance of report in Apr. 5.The total budget for this grant should be raised.

122




235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251


9 90,0 1 10,0 0 0,0 10

11.

Are you

Male Female Total

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

UNITED

7.

All

10 90,9 1 9,1 0 0,0 11

Table 267 Gender

UNITED

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258


All


UNITED

1.

All


6 54,6 5 45,4 11

Table 268 Age


Directly

3,8

4,7

Indirectly Not

UNITED 0 0,0 8 80,0 2 20,0 10

9.

Total




204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

8 72,7 2 18,2 1 9,1 0 0,0 11


196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

11 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 11



206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

UNITED


8 72,7 2 18,2 1 9,1 11


All

6.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

UNITED





All

5.

10.

9 81,8 1 9,1 0 0,0 0 0,0 6 54,6 11

UNITED

All





123

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

UNITED

Very important

1 9,1 5 45,4 5 45,4 11

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

0 0,0 8 72,7 3 27,3 11


All


UNITED

4.

All

Table 266 Sector

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

UNITED

16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

All

4,9


15.

1

Directly


Indirectly 1 4

Not Total

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

UNITED


4,2

13.

3 27,3 3 27,3 5 42,4 11


16.

2 1 1

10



200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

UNITED


All


4,3

Table 265 Country

Table 259 Web-site

3.

4,7

4,2

30,0 11


All


3,8

32,0 256

All


4,8


All

Internal media

UNITED

Magazines

4,4

UNITED


7 63,6 8 72,7 0 0,0 11 100,0 11 100,0 11 100,0 11


All

Electronic media

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

8.

All


UNITED

2.

All


UNITED

Table 258 Media

9 81,8 1 8,1 1 9,1 11

4. Open answers of stakeholders The info provided by United is essential for many org. all over Europe. With the address book and the calendar practical tools are offered for org. to co-operate. EU- subsidies are essential to keep this going, as the calendar needs to be updated-monthly and the address book all the time. The campaigns around 21/3, 20/6 and 9/11 also need to be co-ordinated from the secretariat and the subsidies are indispensable. Of course it would be great if United reaches a large number of young people, but they work mainly through supporting other org., to enable them to reach as many people as possible. And I think that’s an effective way of working. Subvention is sponsoring the basis: administration. Starting with this grant other project funding is found. It keeps the work stable and sustainable. It is important that this grant is pan-European and not restricted to European Union only. Improvements: raise the grant, at least indexed with inflation rates. Pay it in the beginning of the year. United has a very good task and goal to unite European youth; to involve them to build the society without prejudged and negative stereotypes. Through the org. of different campaigns, opportunity for youth org. to find partners from other countries; European conf., co-operation of youth etc. United is specialised in the provision of info to young people. All activities are not only reported to sponsors but also to network contacts and supporters. Essential for youth org., helps young people in decision and policy making from an earliest possible age and make sure their voice is heard all over Europe. We are a net work of org. from EU countries and from the non- EU- countries, including the EU candidate states. Because of its democratic and transparent structure it gives voice to divers groups working in important fields such as anti racism and migrants rights. Its voice on the European level is absolutely crucial

124

5. Report of our observer Interview gehouden op 12-6-02, met Geert Ates, directeur en Saskia Daru, secretaris-generaal. 1) Wie is United? United is een onafhankelijke netwerk organisatie, die actief de samenwerking opzoekt met Europese initiatieven t.a.v. antidiscriminatie. United bekleedt voornamelijk een bemiddelingsrol tussen antidiscriminatie ngo's. De belangrijkste doelstelling van United is het samenbrengen en vermengen van ngo's om antidiscriminatie activiteiten zo efficiënt mogelijk te laten verlopen. Verder documenteert United Europees en mondiaal nieuws t.a.v. discriminatie, vluchtelingen, nieuwe wetgeving, etc, om lokale organisaties te voorzien van een zo breed mogelijk scala aan informatie. United produceert promotie materiaal waarop geen copyrights rusten, opdat lokale organisatie deze kosteloos kunnen integreren in activiteiten op lokaal niveau. United organiseert ook conferenties en trainingen, waarbij samenwerking tussen organisaties het hoofddoel vormt. 2) Betekenis van A-3029 voor United. United heeft veel kritiek op de wijze waarop de toekenning van de A-3029 en de communicatie met de EC verloopt. Toch onderschrijven zij expliciet de waarde van de A-3029 voor United. ¾ De A-3029 is van vitaal belang voor overhead van United. ¾ Overhead en andere administratiekosten worden voor een groot gedeelte gedekt door de A-3029. United ondervindt vaak moeilijkheden om overhead te claimen bij organisaties. Daarom wordt de zekerheid die de A-3029 biedt als prettig ervaren. ¾ Zonder deze subsidie zou United het vaste personeel niet kunnen bekostigen. ¾ Een verandering van de A3029 in een subsidie systeem waarbij voor elke activiteit apart subsidie aangevraagd moet worden zou voor United betekenen dat de keuzevrijheid voor een bepaalde activiteit in het geding komt. De EC krijgt dan teveel macht over de realisatie van United activiteiten. 3) Geschiktheid van United voor de A-3029. ¾ Creatie van Europees bewustzijn onder grote aantallen jongeren wordt bewerkstelligd door het onderhouden van een groot netwerk van gelijksoortige organisaties. Door het organiseren van conferenties met gelijksoortige organisaties biedt United steun en geeft een stem aan lokale jeugdorganisaties door onderlinge samenwerking te bevorderen. ¾ United bereikt specifieke doelgroepen d.m.v. toegepaste trainingen aan organisaties met dezelfde doelen. ¾ Alle activiteiten van United zijn doorspekt met de normen en waarden van antinationalisme, antirascisme, antifascisme en ondersteuning van migranten en vluchtelingen. De politieke dialoog en het debat op Europees niveau zijn nauw verbonden aan United activiteiten. ¾ United verschaft de basiskennis en organisatie voor activiteiten en trainingen, de inhoud echter wordt bepaald vanuit lokale organisaties die steun vragen aan United. ¾ United biedt nieuwe organisaties de mogelijk om gebruik te maken van hun expertise en netwerk. Zodoende hoeven nieuwe lokale organisaties niet opnieuw 'het wiel uit te vinden'. 4) Evaluatie van aanvraag procedure van de A-3029. United heeft al ruime tijd ervaring met de A-3029 aanvraag. Zowel Geert Ates, als Saskia Daru uitten veel kritiek omtrent hun ervaringen met de EC. ¾ De toekenning van de A-3029 vindt te laat plaats. In 2000 kreeg United de toekenning eind december. Bijkomstig nadeel is dat de subsidie gebruikt moet worden in het jaar van de toekenning. ¾ Vanwege de late toekenning is United genoodzaakt om geld te lenen, maar banken verschaffen geen lening zonder contract van subsidie toewijzing. Dit belangrijke contract wordt ook laat verschaft door de EC. ¾ Beoordeling van aanvraag A-3029 verloopt subjectief. In twee opeenvolgende jaren waren de richtlijnen voor geschiktheid onveranderd, de aanvraag van United was ook gelijk voor beide jaren, toch was de hoeveelheid toegewezen subsidie verschillend. ¾ Tempo personeelfluctuaties bij EC is groot en is niet bevorderend voor een objectieve beoordeling. ¾ De EC vraagt uitgebreide rapporten van activiteiten voor de aanvraag. Vervolgens krijgt United kritiek van de verantwoordelijke ambtenaar dat de hoeveelheid rapporten te groot is. ¾ Verantwoordelijke EC ambtenaar klaagt bij United over werkdruk en te weinig collega's. ¾ EC houdt geen rekening met het subsidieverleden van een organisatie. "Meedingen naar de A-3029 is een loterij". Door de grootte onzekerheid over de toewijzing komt het personeelssalaris in geding. Extra moeilijkheid is de flexwet; na drie arbeidsovereenkomstcontracten heeft een werknemer recht op een vast contract. Een werknemer kan niet ontslagen worden door een tekort aan inkomsten van een organisatie. Met deze nationale wetgeving wordt geen rekening gehouden op Europees niveau. ¾ Het uiten van kritiek op de EC is moeilijk vanwege de afhankelijkheid van United aan de EC voor eventuele toewijzing van de A-3029. ¾ United krijgt nooit feedback over onderzoeken van de EC, zoals deze van docabureaus. 5) Ideeën ter verbetering van de A-3029. ¾ Uitbreiding personeel EC. ¾ Vervroeging van de aanvraag procedure en commissie vergadering en versnelling beslissing. ¾ Meer feedback van de EC over de ingevulde aanvraag formulieren. ¾ Subsidieverleden van jeugdorganisatie meenemen in de beslissing. ¾ Puntensysteem van toewijzing gebaseerd op georganiseerde activiteiten zoals bij de Raad van Europa instellen. Idealiter zou dit puntensysteem opgesteld moeten worden door vertegenwoordigers van de jeugdorganisaties. De rol van de EC zou controle ervan zijn.

125

WAGGGS Observer: Bart van Melik 1. Record of the organisation 1.

File number

2. 3. 4.


5. 6.


7.


9.

Publications and publicity as coded from the application form(s)

10.


11. 12.

13.

15.


16.


17. 18.


19.

A-3029 allocation

14.

1999 1999-80 2000 2000-91 WAGGGS World Association of Girl Guides and Girls Scouts YES 1999 2000 Total 34 37 EU-countries 15 15 Third countries 19 22 EU-Youth 1050000 1134716 SCOUTING, OTHER KIDS Influencing specific policies Networking and co-operation between European Youth organisations Advancement of the idea of Europe, involvement in EU-policies Education Information, information services International standardisation, norms and values Youth exchange Student bodies and exchange Religion Targeting specific groups Targeting specific EU-countries Targeting specific ascending countries Targeting specific other third countries 1999 (Almost) full time (four days or more per week) Half time (2-3 days per week) Little time (less than 2 days per week Internet, web-site Newsletter(s) Magazine(s) Internal media for member organisations Reports and books Other publications and publicity Fully or almost fully


YES YES 8 1 YES YES YES YES YES YES



YES YES YES n

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

€14.000,00 €14.000,00 €15.000,00 €19.000,00 €24.000,00 €30.000,00 €23.000,00 €21.000,00 €18.000,00 €19.000,00 €19.000,00 €24.420,00

1990

126

YES YES


2000

4% 4%

2. Open answers of the key organiser The loss of A3029 would represent a huge blow to WAGGGS. Although it is not our only source of funding it is essentially in order to allow us to devote as much resources as possible to carrying out activities. As the largest international organisation for girls and young women we must ensure that we deliver programme that show the diversity in our membership and assist the building of understanding among young people in Europe. The availability of A-3029 allows to, on average, increase our activity budget by 1/4 s as we are given valuable support for administrative costs which allows us to add more money to our activity budget from proposed administrative budgets – therefore providing more opportunities of activities for young people. Questionnaire for the organisers of European youth organisations .

127



16 6,6 153 60,2 85 33,5 254

0 0,0 10 90,9 1 9,1 11



196 77,2 55 21,6 3 1,2 254

WAGGGS

9.

All


10 90,9 1 9,1 0 0,0 11



206 80,2 49 19,1 2 0,8 257

WAGGGS


10 90,9 1 9,1 0 0,0 11


All

11.

187 70,8 123 46,6 45 17,0 5 1,9 31 11,7 264

WAGGGS




10 90,9 7 63,6 2 18,2 0 0,0 1 9,1 11

4,6

4,2

4,2

4,2

4,3

3,8

4,1

18.


Directly Indirectly

Total

14.



204 77,5 29 11,0 18 6,8 12 4,6 263

8 72,7 0 0,0 3 27,3 0 0,0 11

34 13,3 113 44,1 109 42,6 256

2 18,2 7 63,6 2 18,2 11


19.



Table 282 Sector

33,7 10


Not

Table 281 Country

32,0 256

WAGGGS

3,8

All

4,6

WAGGGS

All

WAGGGS

All 4,4


WAGGGS

13.

48 18,9 117 46,1 89 35,0 254

1 10,0 9 90,0 0 0,0 10


15.



All

10.


WAGGGS


WAGGGS

8.

All

Table 275 Website

Table 284 Age

Information services, ICT Education, training Youth work Culture Health, welfare Agriculture and food Government, public sector Political function International relations, affairs Professional, staff, consultant Commercial, financial sector Environment Technician, industry Total

128

35 14,1 53 21,4 10 4,0 27 10,9 45 18,2 8 3,2 3 1,2 23 9,3 4 1,6 4 1,6 8 3,2 8 3,4 7 2,8 10 4,0 3 1,2 248

20.

1 6


Directly Indirectly

1 2

Not Total

72 28,7 96 38,2 83 33,1 244

WAGGGS


Total

1 9,1 10 90,1 11

2 20,0 5 50,0 3 30,0 10

Table 288 Involvement in youth work or practice 1 21.



11

200 80,3 35 14,1 14 5,6 249

WAGGGS


Female

158 60,8 102 39,2 260

All

Internal media

6 45,4 3 27,3 4 36,4 3 27,3 9 81,8 4 36,4 11

Are you

Male

All

Magazines

152 57,8 88 33,3 94 35,6 32 12,1 126 48,5 92 34,8 251

16.

All


Not (so) important

11 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 11

All

Electronic media

WAGGGS


Rather important

Total

All

7.

235 93,6 16 6,4 0 0,0 251

Very important

WAGGGS

Table 274 Media


WAGGGS

Total

12.

WAGGGS

Not (so) familiar

10 90,9 1 9,1 0 0,0 11

Table 283 Gender

All

Rather familiar

198 76,7 54 20,9 6 2,3 258

All

Very familiar


All


WAGGGS

6.

All


10 90,9 0 0,0 1 9,1 11

4. Open answers of stakeholders EU sub. to INGo’s recognise the unique role that org. like Waggs play in developing young people to be European citizens, particularly girls and young women, and become responsible committed individuals able to take an active role in society. The current system of sub. Means that waggs can use the grant flexible to respond to the changing needs of the members while still being accountable for the way in which the grant is used. Thought should be given to ensuring that smaller org., however have the capacity to benefit from the opportunity. It is very important for young farmers to get in contact and involved in decisions that will make tomorrows agriculture. A mon avis les associations de Jeunesse comme la notre sont essentielles pour l’éducation d’une nouvelle citoyen nette plus européenne, engage, participative et démocrate. La Région Europe de l’Ange soutient ces associations et essaye de mettre en place de nouvelles pour toucher encore d’avantage de jeunes. En Espagne nous avons reçu pendant ce triennat, la visite d’une Formatrice sur le Terrain pour anneliez notre programme Pédagogique. Et il y a encore plus de 40 associations en Europe a soutenir. The grant system has become much more user friendly in recent years and I think this is representative of the European Commission having a greater understanding of the role that INGYO’s play to building civil society. The information flow has been much improved recently and there has been clear dialogue between partners. One small point that WAGGGS has found is that the financial year used by the Commission and the one used by WAGGGS is different, therefore this can cause a little bit of confusion and extra work. However, we are used to this now and know how to give the correct information to the Commission. It can take a long time for information on the grant to be awarded to come back to the INGYO, which can be a concern for the budget. Sometimes it can seem as if all the information to be given is the same as last year with the exception of the activity report. Perhaps it could be interesting to add a paragraph to the application form on the development of the organisation since the previous grant was given – so a more overarching question in addition to the facts and figures of the activity report. I think that there is a need to continue to support all INGYOs and not just new ones. All INGY0’s have something to offer and it is essential that all be funded correctly. If we do not receive such funding we cannot operate. The European Commission is one of the few institutions that recognise that the administrative costs of INGYOS' must be supported in order to create dynamic and innovative European projects that further the aims in the field of youth policy, social inclusion and other priorities of the Youth unit. WAGGGS is grateful for that. Main support we received from EU. Differs from other funding we receive. General support like this is of particular value to us as it allows us to carry out work with our member Associations on general base. with an autonomy and flexibility that is essential to us. All in this support is part of the financial resources that gives us the opportunity to serve our Member Ass. In building European Awareness and Citizenship The subsidies are an important part of the income for the organisation’s activities. They allow a program which is open to a great number of persons from countries all over Europe, especially the „edges“ and the central and eastern parts – many of the participants from these places would never be able to participate in all European events without the support through these subsidies. The distinction of subsidies in the sense of a "management/administration fee“ and those for events and specific programmes is important. There should be clearly fixed criteria for the administration fee, including support for tasks, which are very important for an association (e.g. internal communication, publications), but usually can’t get outside funding. Subsidies/grants for meetings and seminars should on a high level be continued. Specific programmes/seminars on which there is a focus over a certain time (e.g. triennium) should be supported for the continuity and the fact that it allows to reach all levels and a big number of members of an organisation. Education, training and exchange of practice should be a main focus point for events receiving subsidies. Inclusion of participants from countries outside the EU should be possible. Especially from those countries in central and Eastern Europe. Since 1999 I have participated in the annual network meeting for Guides and Scouts who are active in youth councils, the European Youth Forum and other structures around Europe. In 2001 I was part of the organising team. I have been a member of a WAGGGS European working group on relationship to society, in order to help strengthening and co-ordinating the work done at the European and national level. I have taken part in the North/South and Ouvertures network where Guides and Scouts meet twice a year to discuss and develop their development co-operation work and the work for pluralism and a European society without racism and xenophobia. I have also participated at the European Guide and Scout Conference in 2001. Eu subsidies are extremely important for international Youth organisations. Without them Youth organisations would not be able to address current issues and offer activities that are truly international and raise the awareness among young people. National Youth organisations are not able to offer such opportunities for young people. European subsidies have a significant role in developing European citizenship and in providing equal opportunities for young people in European countries. The EU subsidies give flexibility and autonomy for NGO`s work. It is concerning that there is an ongoing debate on reducing the administrative grant, as it would affects especially the smaller organisations heavily. Subsidies are very important for the associations – especially if the offer the flexibility to be used, where it is essential at the time. NGOs are expected to take part in decision making process, in political dialogues and debates, which is important, but on the other hand very time and human resource consuming. and which are never supported financially. Today a lot of grants are tied to projects and do not cover e.g. the running costs of an office. So I think having more flexible subsidies would show the recognition of the work NGOs do. 10 in my view EU sub. Very difficult process. various issues.mostly reduced to difficulty of balancing the time, and recourses towards carrying out WAGGGS(and EU ) mission with the necessary time and resources to be allocated in order to be granted funds that help us fulfil our mission. Even for our large org. it is very demanding to apply accurate. It is a quite heavily burden. More flexibility could allow everybody to better suit the needs of members, activities and org. Bur subs. Are real vital for org. like Wagggs, but as important as funds, forms and paperwork, is receiving feedback on our activities. Might be nice to have feedback on “relationships” between us and EU in order to develop a true partnership for the development better Europe. It is important for members to meet across boarders, exchange views, experiences and develop politics and program, corresponding to the changes in society; and to support the understanding of similarities and differences across Europe .Therefore we need the subsidies. We have the working method and educational method and members committed to the European society. Increased support to int. youth org. essential for EU because this org. is capable of giving int. youth work the support needed to ensure programme development

129

5. Report of our observer Interview held on 19-6-02, with: ¾ Rosemary Hindle; Marketing and External Relations Executive ¾ Alison McDonagh; Accountant 1) Who is WAGGGS? WAGGGS is an international, non-political, non-profit, independent, voluntary and democratic organisation for girls and young women. WAGGGS provides a dynamic, flexible, values based programme, relevant to the needs of girls and young women. WAGGGS consists of 136 member countries, with 37 working towards membership. At first, national organisations are encouraged to form a federation in order to become an Associate Member of WAGGGS. To be recognised as a Full Member, a national federation must also have a well-developed organisation at national level, good training programmes, and sufficient resources to enable it to support the work of the World Association of WAGGGS. One of the main goals of WAGGGS is to involve young women at all levels of decision-making through dynamic educational programmes and leadership training. 2) Meaning of the A-3029 for WAGGGS WAGGGS is the largest organisation for young women with its European headquarters located in Brussels. The A-3029 is considered very important by WAGGGS. The grant is 5% of the total overhead income. This percentage seems small, nevertheless WAGGGS stresses the importance of the A-3029: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

¾

The administrative nature of the A-3029; not activity based. A-3029 provides financial security. A-3029 supports members of staff to be active in running seminars, acquisition of funding, visiting associations, providing advice, etc. Without the A-3029 it will be difficult to maintain the office at the same level. This would imply a decline of the 'day to day' support to the members. A shift from an administration based grant to an activity based grant will make the application procedure more labour intensive. In order to run a project properly, a financial administrative base is needed. Furthermore an activity based grant will change the nature of organised activities. Only activities that meet the criteria of the EC will receive funding, other important activities, not meeting the criteria, have to be excluded. At the European conference of WAGGGS a strategic plan of 3 years is presented, without the security of the A-3029, this plan can't be offered.

3) Eligibility of WAGGGS for the A-3029 ¾ Through organising many seminars on contemporary topics and by being the instigator and facilitator of activities, WAGGGS emphasises the importance of European awareness among young people. ¾ WAGGGS' emphasis on efficiency and efficacy is best illustrated by considering the number of 1 million European members in 41 countries and the number of 7 staff members. ¾ WAGGGS' special target group obviously contains of girls and young women. The main goal WAGGGS aims at, is the improvement of gender equality world wide. ¾ WAGGGS' politics are 'politics with a small p'. Although WAGGGS doesn't have a political stance it promotes political consciousness through seminars. WAGGGS also addresses topics like discrimination and AIDS. 4) Evaluation of the A-3029 application procedure. Miss Alison McDonagh has a 3 year experience with the A-3029. She stresses that her first remarks are from a pure administrative point of view: ¾ Communication with the EC has improved over the years. ¾ The EC has become more accessible than three years ago. ¾ Present EC official in charge of the allocation is more responsive. ¾ Compared with previous years the EC provides more information, e.g. WAGGGS was reminded to add extra documents. Nevertheless WAGGGS also has remarks from a professional, personal point of view: ¾ Allocation procedure is mostly focused on numbers. ¾ "You feel as if you're not evaluated on an individual, more personal point of view". The EC looks like a machine that can only analyse simple numbers and decides solely on these numbers. ¾ Every year the same information has to be filled in, again and again. ¾ International youth organisations can ask for feedback from the EC at the annual European Youth Forum, but nobody receives a clear answer from the EC. ¾ When an allocation is less than the previous year, there's no explanation why. ¾ Providing the EC with new ideas concerning the A-3029 seems useless because its never clear what new policies the EC is preparing. 5) Suggested ideas for improvement. ¾ The application procedure should take previous applications into account. Information provided a year ago should not be given by WAGGGS again, instead this information should be pre-printed on the application form. The EC should have an archive. ¾ It should also be possible to apply electronically for the A-3029. ¾ The EC should provide more feedback on how WAGGGS' activities are rated or valued by the EC. ¾ WAGGGS would like to see an extension of the one-year period of the A-3029 into a three-year period. This extension will provide a change to international organisations to produce a strategic plan for a longer period. Small organisations will benefit enormously from a three year grant because they lean quite heavily on the A-3029. A three-year grant provides more financial security. ¾ There should be a possibility to receive funding for innovational plans which fall out of the criteria.

130

Attachment 4. Case study files

Recommend Documents