Opinion on the proposal for a European Parliament and a Council Decision adopting the Youth for Europe programme (3rd phase) designed to promote the development of exchanges among young people and of youth activities in the European Community (94/C 148/04)

On 17 February 1994, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee under Article 126 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject adopted its Opinion on 3 March 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr van Dijk.

At its 314th Plenary Session (meeting of 23 March 1994) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Proposal [COM(93) 523 final - COD 474] is the third phase of the Youth for Europe programme, already twice endorsed by the Economic and Social Committee (1) and now encouraged by Article 126 of the Treaty on the European Union which aims to promote the development of youth exchanges.

1.2. This Youth for Europe III programme should run from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1999. The programme is unique in that it is the only EC exchange programme which is neither related to labour nor to educational aspects.

1.3. The contents of the programme consists of five action-priorities:

Action A: Intra-Community activities directly involving young people

Action : Youth Workers

Action C: Cooperation between Member States' structures

Action D: Exchanges with non-member countries

Action : Information for young people and youth research.

1.4. The actual proposal is a combination of guidelines, which are developed at a central level and executed at a decentralized level. This is a good example of correctly applying the notion of subsidiarity.

2. General remarks

The Committee welcomes the actual contents of the programme. The integration of several programmes, like the Youth Priorities, Petra and Tempus, is a major improvement of the proposal.

2.1. The Committee wonders if coordination could not be improved between the exchange programmes of the European Union. It refers in this case to Erasmus, Petra, Comett and Lingua and so on.

2.2. Whilst, as already said, the Committee approves the contents of the programme, it has, however, some remarks about the introduction of the proposal.

2.2.1. The ECU 157 million envisaged for the programme in actual fact works out at less than ECU 3 per person aged between 15 and 25 (2), over the period 1995-1999.

2.2.2. In addition, project funding must make provision for the costs involved in effective preparation and subsequent assessment of the actual operations.

2.2.3. Around 75 000 young people took part in the first phase of this programme. The number of participants in the first year of the second phase was around 25 000: a clear increase.

2.3. The aim of the 'Youth for Europe' programme is to promote intercultural learning by young people. It would therefore be wrong to concentrate solely on the major differences in periods spent abroad by young people from different Member States.

2.3.1. There is no doubt that these differences exist. It transpires from the 'Young European in 1990' report that 71 % of young people in Greece have never been abroad. By way of comparison: only 4 % of Dutch young people have never been out of the country (3).

3. Specific remarks

3.1. In the proposal for decision of the Commission, one third of the money has been earmarked for disadvantaged people.

3.1.1. In the document no precise definition of the term 'disadvantaged' has been given by the Commission.

3.1.2. The Committee feels that this is appropriate. There are different disadvantaged groups in each country, and each country has a different interpretation of the term. One country may give greater emphasis to immigrants, the handicapped and the under-qualified while others focus attention on backward regions.

3.1.3. At all events, the Committee would ask national agencies to do their best to involve as many of the most disadvantaged young people in this programme as possible.

3.2. Differences exist in the European Union between the various countries in respect of young people who are involved in exchange programmes. The Committee therefore asks national agencies to be flexible with the application of the maximum age of 25.

3.3. One of the main problems which arose in previous phases of the Youth for Europe programme was the lack of adequate information. It is therefore to be hoped that increased funding will be made available for information during the third phase.

3.3.1. Here it would seem useful to mobilize more information channels: one - from the Brussels Centre - directly aimed at young people (e.g. via a computerized data system than can be accessed on suitable computer terminals to be installed in places frequented by young people) and at the mass media. In this connection, widespread mobilization of interest among TV, radio and press journalists is more important than advertising space.

3.3.2. The Committee considers that the specific information activities of the National Agencies are not always successful. All the National Agencies should operate in an open and accessible way, and should be better inter-linked in order to establish a comprehensive data-base and reference service for EC youth exchanges.

In view of the current structural and operational differences between the twelve National Agencies, all national bodies should be required to observe a minimum information policy. Funding of the Agencies should also be dependent on circulating this minimum information in the individual Member States.

3.3.3. Information on the various procedures for access to the youth programmes promoted by the Commission should also be more readily available. 'Youth-friendly' information packs, promotional gadgets, videos etc., presenting 'Youth for Europe', should be budgeted for by the appropriate DG X services. In addition, a comprehensive annual report on 'Youth for Europe' should be drawn up to include:

- reports from participants themselves (with the view to establishing a direct 'multiplication' effect);

- an overall assessment of the programme presented in an attractive, 'recyclable' form for young people;

- a future 'application' package useful for further promotional activities.

3.4. In addition, it is difficult for some organizations, and especially young people who are not in an organization, to find partners with whom to arrange exchange schemes.

3.4.1. It is therefore to be hoped that a solution can be found to this problem which in practice bars thousands of young people. One option would be the setting-up of suitable data banks. Here particular attention needs to be given to young people who are 'less-privileged' on economic, social, cultural or geographical grounds.

3.5. The 'Youth for Europe' programme has so far included exchanges with third countries from Central and Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean and Latin America.

3.5.1. In the context of previous EP spending priorities, exchanges have so far been limited to these three regions. This apparent selection is not adequately explained or accounted for in the current proposal. The Committee would request the Commission to set out its own approach in this respect, based on objective criteria.

3.6. Due to the continuing language problems of young people in a number of European countries, the majority of exchanges have concentrated to date on countries with the same language structure.

Obviously an action programme introducing an exchange programme such as the one in question cannot solve these problems. However, it would seem expedient to lay down certain criteria. For instance, priority could be given, when selecting projects, to those where the young exchange partners come from countries of a different language 'family'.

3.7. It ought to be made clear to all the national agencies that 'residents' in this proposal means people in the European Union. There should be no difference between resident and citizen in the application of youth for Europe.

3.7.1. Border authorities must also be made aware of this difference so that both groups are free to cross borders. Experience shows that many problems (for example, visa requirements) still arise in certain Member States.

3.8. The evaluation carried out for the Commission presents certain recommendations for a new programme. The Committee feels that not all of these recommendations have been taken up.

3.8.1. Thus, there appears to have been no extra budget increase to cater for the accession of the EFTA countries.

3.8.2. The Committee has noticed a lack of Commission initiatives aimed at strengthening cooperation between national agencies.

3.9. In the previous Economic and Social Committee Opinion, it was recommended not to limit voluntary service activities to educational, social and cultural activities. 'The Committee does not rule out any activities in either the public - or private - sector: it urges a balanced spread across the two sectors' (1).

Done at Brussels, 23 March 1994.

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Susanne TIEMANN

(1) OJ No C 159, 17. 6. 1991, p. 5.

(2) 157 million divided by 55 million youngsters aged between 15 and 25.

(3) Young European in 1990, Commission of the European Communities, p. 55.

(4) OJ No C 159, 17. 6. 1991, p. 5, point 2.1.3.