[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 5.10.2005

SEC(2005) 1202

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Annex to the Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (2008) Impact assessment {COM(2005) 467 final}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 4

2. What problem is the proposed Year designed to tackle? 5

2.1. Principles 5

2.2. The problems in societal terms 5

2.3. Stakeholder consultation and lessons learned 8

2.3.1 Building on recent consultations 8

2.3.2 Lessons learned from the evaluation of previous European Years 10

2.4. The target group and its needs 10

3. What are the objectives that the Year is expected to achieve? 11

3.1. General objectives 11

3.2. Specific objectives 12

3.3. Operational objectives 13

3.3.1 Actions at Community level 13

3.3.2 Support of actions at Community level 13

3.3.3 Co-financing of actions at national level 14

3.3.4 Actions for which non financial aid is available 14

3.4. Objectives and related indicative indicators 14

4. What are the main policy options and alternative delivery mechanisms? 16

4.1 What is the basic approach chosen to reach the overall policy objective? 16

4.2 What other policy instruments, besides a "European Year", were considered? 16

4.2.1. No action 16

4.2.2 Regulatory Action 16

4.2.3 Mainstreaming 17

4.2.4 Multi-annual programme and/or an Action Plan for Intercultural Dialogue 17

4.2.5 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 17

4.3 What modes of intervention for the Year were considered? 17

4.3.1 Geographical coverage 19

5. Risks and assumptions 20

6. What positive and negative impacts are expected from the option selected ? 21

6.1. Social impact 21

6.2. Economic impact 21

6.3. Environmental impact 21

6.4. Intense impacts on particular social groups, economic sectors or regions 21

6.5. Impact outside the EU on candidate and/or other countries 22

6.6. Manifestation of impacts over time 22

7. Added value of EU involvement 22

7.1. Complementarity and synergies 22

7.2. Subsidiarity 25

7.3. Proportionality 25

8. Helping to achieve cost-effectiveness 26

8.1 Cost implications of the action: 10 € million 26

8.2 Could the same results be achieved at lower costs? 26

9. Monitoring and evaluation 26

9.1. Monitoring 26

9.2. Evaluation 27

10. References 27

1. INTRODUCTION

There is clear and growing recognition as well as awareness in Europe of the need for deeper and more structured intercultural dialogue, involving not only public authorities but also civil society as a whole.

The diversity of the Union has increased with the accession of 10 new Member States on 1 May 2004, and by 2007 the total population will approach 500 million, representing an immense richness of cultural, social and linguistic diversity. This diversity already existed in Europe, whether within the Union or not, but enlargement of the Union has brought increased interaction through trade, education, leisure and many other fields. This coincides with major demographic changes resulting in an ageing population, as well as from old and new immigration flows[1]. Diversity – cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious in particular – is becoming ever greater. Moreover, globalisation, whether perceived negatively or positively, has also increased the diversity of cultures and languages with which European citizens and all those living in the European Union permanently or temporarily deal, either abroad or at home.

The recent Commission Communication " Building our Common Future: Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013 "[2], proposes developing European citizenship as a main priority for EU action, including the objective of making citizenship a reality by fostering European culture and diversity. In such a context, the shared values of freedom, fairness, tolerance and solidarity that hold our societies together can be sustained and fostered by intercultural dialogue.

The progressive affirmation of cultural diversity at international level since 1998 is a contributory response to the growing concerns of civil society and governments regarding the preservation of the constitutive elements of cultural identities as well as the promotion of living cultures and creative capacity challenged by the globalisation process. The protection and promotion of cultural diversity are part of the founding principles of the EU and should be incorporated into the global governance system soon[3].

At the same time, it is essential that the EU upholds and promotes its values, both internally and in its relations with the outside world. Intercultural dialogue shall therefore be clearly based on respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, non-discrimination, the rule of law as well as respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. In light of these factors and developments, the Commission proposes that 2008 be designated as the “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue”. It will promote a deeper and more structured dialogue within civil society during the actual Year and thereafter. It will help provide citizens with the knowledge and skills needed to successfully master a more open, but also more complex environment, and enable them to take advantage of its opportunities whilst managing the potential difficulties.

This impact assessment report presents the context of the proposed Year, the different elements that have led to this proposal, and the expected results of the Year itself. The structure of the report is as follows: the problems that the proposal is expected to tackle (2), the Year's objectives (3), the main policy options and alternative delivery mechanisms (4), risks and assumptions (5), the expected positive and negative impacts of the chosen option (6), the added value of Community involvement (7), helping to achieve cost-effectiveness (8), monitoring and evaluation (9), and references (10).

2. WHAT PROBLEM IS THE PROPOSED YEAR DESIGNED TO TACKLE?

2.1. Principles

The proposed European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 will articulate and give concrete form to several fundamental principles of the European Union:

- The treaty establishing the European Community mandates the latter to create an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe and to contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States while respecting their national and regional diversity and, at the same time, bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. It stipulates moreover that « the Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures [4] ».

- According to the Preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union, "the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union [...]. The Union contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as the national identities of the Member States". The Charter establishes among others the principle of non-discrimination[5], as well as the respect for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity[6].

2.2. The problems in societal terms

The combined effect of the successive enlargements of the Union, the increased mobility resulting from the Single market, old and new migratory flows, the broader exchanges with the rest of the world, through trade, education, leisure and globalisation in general, increase the interactions between the European citizens and the various cultures, languages, ethnic groups and religions in Europe and elsewhere.

Therefore, European citizens and all those who live in the Union temporarily or permanently, need to acquire the knowledge, skills and abilities that will allow them to successfully master a more open, but also more complex environment, to manage its difficulties and tensions in order to take advantage of the opportunities such a society offers, not only in Europe, but also in the world.

Intercultural dialogue appears to be the favoured means for engaging citizens into the management of the complex reality of our societies and to instigate active and opened European citizenship based on common values. Intercultural dialogue can thus contribute to achieving several of the Unions strategic priorities, including:

- respecting and promoting cultural diversity in Europe, in a world where globalisation pushes towards homogeneity; and establishing an active European citizenship based on common values in the European Union;

- the reinvigorated Lisbon strategy, where the knowledge economy needs people who can embrace change and can draw on all possible sources of innovation to improve prosperity;

- the Union’s commitment to solidarity, social justice and strengthening of cohesion in the respect of common values in the European Union;

- allowing Europe to have a stronger voice in the world and establish effective partnerships with neighbouring countries, extending the zone of stability and democracy beyond the Union itself, and thus influence the well-being and security of European citizens and all those living in the European Union.

Growing diversity may also lead to tension. A recent survey[7] shows that the majority of citizens in the EU are open to diversity. According to the 2003 European Social Survey, 79 % of the respondents had no problem interacting with cultural, religious or ethnic minorities but, almost half of the respondents displayed a critical attitude towards cultural and religious diversity. According to the 2003 Eurobarometer survey, 60 % of the respondents in the EU-15 expressed the view that multiculturalism had certain limits. According to a 2002 Eurobarometer survey on "Discrimination in Europe", a striking majority of European citizens acknowledged the existence of discrimination and condemn it[8]. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia also drew up a series of reports[9] on the rise of intolerance with respect to Islam after the attacks of 11 September 2001, noting a considerable increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents in recent years in several Member States[10]. In addition, the Observatory notices in a recent study[11] that the new Member States are confronted with challenges with regard to the participation of cultural, religious or ethnic minorities in the labour market and in social life.

Intercultural dialogue must therefore not end with European citizens and all those living in the European Union. A common approach concerning rights and obligations of immigrants should be developed, and migrants from inside and outside the Union require support with integration into their new societies. Intercultural dialogue should enable them to explore ways of integrating our common values in the European Union into an active citizenship. Such a policy needs to be long-term.

In this overall context, the Union's key institutions have expressed their support for intercultural dialogue as an instrument to address several policy priorities of the Union:

- The European Council stressed the importance of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue and in particular pointed out that it is essential to « encourage a dialogue of equals between our civilisations [12]». The European Council asked that priority be given to the dialogue between cultures and incorporated into its declaration on the guidelines of sustainable development, under social equity and cohesion with the objective of « promoting a democratic, socially inclusive, cohesive, healthy, safe and just society with respect for fundamental rights and cultural diversity that creates equal opportunities and combats discrimination in all its forms [13]». To conclude, it stated that « integration relies on frequent interaction and intercultural dialogue between all members of society within common forums and activities in order to improve mutual understanding [14] ».

- The “Education, Youth and Culture” Council also marked « the increasing importance of intercultural dialogue» and noted that « the improvement of transborder cultural mobility and the cultural dialogue support European citizenship[15]».

- The European Parliament considered that « the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity are among the founding principles of the European model » and that « cultural dialogue fosters mutual understanding between peoples in the interests of peace, whereas intercultural dialogue is an appropriate method for effectively counteracting racism and xenophobia»[16]. In this context, the EP invited the Commission to « foster cultural dialogue with national, federal and regional Ministers of culture and education, associating civil society and civil servants » and recalled that the EP « reaffirms its vigilance concerning the treatment of minority populations and minority languages, including indigenous languages, in the context of the enlarged Europe»[17]. The reports of the European Parliament, in particular through its Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sports Committee, are also eloquent. Indeed, it is considered that « culture is an essential element of European integration and constitutes an indispensable part of historical, economic and social development, contributing to the mutual understanding of people, social inclusion, citizenship and mutual enrichment in cultural terms and can thereby help to overcome racism and xenophobia[18]», and that «intercultural dialogue is an appropriate method for effectively counteracting racism and xenophobia [19] ».

- Regional and international organisations such as the Council of Europe and UNESCO have already recognised the priority that the intercultural dialogue represents in a prominent way[20].

The political debate emerging from these realities is contrasted and important. In many respects, intercultural dialogue is a cross-cutting issue in all these debates. At the heart of the European project, the priority is on a reinforced and more structured intercultural dialogue, to involve the European citizens and all people living in the EU, in particular the young people, in coherence with the new approach of dialogue desired by the Commission.

2.3. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND LESSONS LEARNED

2.3.1 Building on recent consultations

As intercultural dialogue is a cross-cutting issue concerning all sectors of society, there is no specialised sector or actors dedicated to it. There is no ready-made formula or privileged environment for intercultural dialogue. All citizens are interested and shall be invited to participate in this dialogue.

A number of recent relevant consultation processes have however substantively covered different segments of the society at European level:

- public consultations relating to the impact assessments of the Commission's proposals for new programmes in the active citizenship, youth, culture and lifelong learning (education and training) domains[21],

- a series of recent EU intercultural dialogue conferences held under the aegis of the Jean Monnet Action[22],

- the consultation process held on the basis of the Green Paper ‘ Equality and non-discrimination in an enlarged European Union’ adopted by the Commission in May 2004[23].

Given the existence and recent provenance of the above, no additional, specific consultation exercise was felt necessary for the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

The wide consultations undertaken within the framework of the preparation of the new generation of Community programmes in the fields of active citizenship, youth, culture and lifelong learning generally show, that a large number of people consulted consider that:

- Intercultural dialogue has a real role to play, at local level, to help citizens mastering increasingly multicultural life and work spaces;

- It has an important place, at European level, to encourage the emergence of the common values celebrated in the diversity of the cultural expressions;

- A large number of initiatives exist, but they are scattered and lack consistency and visibility;

- It is necessary to evolve from a dialogue between already-convinced elites to a dialogue involving the man or woman in the street;

- While it is true that all age-groups and all social groups are concerned, youth is a priority for intercultural dialogue;

- The media plays an important role in the reproduction of stereotypes or, on the contrary, in the development of positive images of diversity.

In the specific case of the active citizenship domain, the following points emerged:

- The actions proposed included the development of innovative partnerships/cooperation with new partners and major events mobilizing people at EU level, notably in the context of intercultural dialogue. The intercultural dimension was underlined. It was suggested that there should be more scope for events with a certain visibility and to celebrate together certain achievements and key moments of our history.

- Those consulted stressed the essential importance of promoting mutual understanding and intercultural dialogue; they also underlined the necessary focus on European values, culture and history as building elements of our European identity and the wish to develop opportunities for celebrating, exchanging experiences and debating at European level.

With respect to the Jean Monnet conferences referred to, the following points emerged:

- The Conference on Intercultural Dialogue of February 2005 entitled “ Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures: the Artists and the Cultural Actors ” brought together many prominent artistic, cultural, academic and political personalities. Prominent personalities in arts and culture took an active part in the plenary sessions as well as the conference’s various workshops. This conference recalled the importance of intercultural dialogue in a Union which has a multitude of cultures, languages, beliefs and wants to be open to other extra-European cultures. The meeting also demonstrated the important role of the EU to facilitate intercultural dialogue at grass roots level and the sincere will within the cultural community to take an active part in the promotion of intercultural dialogue.

- The Conference on Intercultural Dialogue of March 2002 considered that " a policy of intercultural dialogue, next to traditional economic and diplomatic relations ought to play a vital role ". Intercultural dialogue constitutes an exchange based on openness and equality between cultures which is designed to lead to mutual understanding and a concerted effort to seek shared values and interpretations, whilst respecting fundamental human rights and the principle of cultural diversity. Intercultural dialogue must take place both with third countries (cultural diplomacy and dialogue between world cultures) and within the borders of the European Union.

Overall, what emerges from these different consultation processes is that the fostering of intercultural dialogue is perceived by the vast majority of stakeholders as a priority, in particular in terms of raising the awareness of young people about the importance of developing mutual knowledge and understanding founded on common values.

2.3.2 Lessons learned from the evaluation of previous European Years

The evaluations of the European Year of Languages, of People with Disabilities and of Education through Sport have been analysed. The main results of these evaluations are reported in annex 1. The main conclusions can be summarised as follows:

- European Years have proved to be effective in raising political issues to the top of the policy agenda and in ensuring the political commitment and buy-in of EU actors (EU institutions, Member States, regional and local bodies, social partners, civil society, etc.). European Years appear to be efficient instruments for creating synergies between different areas of intervention at EU, Member State and regional/local levels.

- European Years are typically conceived as a way of involving a wide range of stakeholders with the view to publicising and raising awareness on a specific theme. The broad level of participation within a limited time-frame has successfully contributed to harnessing political support and paving the way for broader political commitments and policy development.

2.4. The target group and its needs

The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue puts the citizen at the centre of its activities, with a particular focus on youth. One can indeed rightly assume that youth constitutes the privilege group to be involved in the actions to be carried out during the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

Even if a well-conceived action could reach a significant proportion of citizens, it is the case that in order to reach such a wide target group efficiently, and given the scale of the available resources, the Year will need to closely involve Member States and to establish strong partnerships with civil society.

On this basis, the Year will need to work through intermediaries and multipliers within the whole civil society at European, national, regional and local levels.

The strengthening of mainstreaming of intercultural dialogue in the relevant Community programmes[24] will make it possible not only to have a critical mass of projects and initiatives on intercultural dialogue on a European scale, but will also provide a series of networks for the involvement of the general public: the European networks which are active in numerous sectors (school, higher education, companies, youth, culture, sport etc) and the national and agencies’ contact point networks of the relevant Community programmes should play a key role.

The media, and in particular audio-visual media and community media, will be major partners in reaching citizens and young people in particular. Also, particular attention will be given to the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) for the purpose of the European Year, including the Internet.

Other partners will include NGOs, foundations, unions, and any other type of institution that can contribute to the involvement of citizens and young people in particular in the dialogue.

3. WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES THAT THE YEAR IS EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE?

3.1. General objectives

The general objectives of the European Year of inter-cultural dialogue are:

- To promote intercultural dialogue as an instrument to help European citizens and all people living in the EU, temporarily or permanently, to acquire knowledge, skills and abilities that will allow them to master a more open, but also more complex environment and to manage its potential difficulties in order to take advantage of the opportunities such a diverse and dynamic society offers, not only in Europe, but also in the world;

- Raising awareness of European citizens and all people living in the EU on the importance of developing an active European citizenship, with an open attitude to the world, respecting cultural diversity and based on common values in the European Union of respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, non-discrimination, solidarity and principles of democracy and rule of law as well as respect for human rights of persons belonging to minorities.

These objectives are linked to article 151 of the Treaty, which states that “action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action in (…) improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European (…)”.

The reference to this legal basis is therefore appropriate.

3.2. Specific objectives

Taking account of the current situation and the needs identified, the most appropriate specific objectives that will be implemented are to:

- To increase the visibility and consistency of all Community programmes and actions contributing to the promotion of intercultural dialogue

The Commission already has a wide range of instruments (programmes and actions) at its disposal in the field of intercultural dialogue, described in section 7 below. Generally speaking, in 2008, intercultural dialogue can be given attention in each relevant programme, provided that this is compatible with the design and the management of the programme concerned. Such strengthening of mainstreaming of intercultural dialogue within the programmes and their relevant networks should particularly concern programmes in the following sectors: education, citizenship, youth, culture, audio-visual, fight against discrimination and social exclusion, fight against racism and xenophobia, immigration and research.

The Year will facilitate the identification of the relevant Community actions for promoters of projects on intercultural dialogue, as well as the development of synergies between these Community actions. The Year will strengthen the visibility of Community intervention in this field as well as provide opportunities to strengthen its consistency and effectiveness.

- To underline the contribution of different cultures to our heritage and lifestyles ; raising awareness of European citizens and all people living in the EU, in particular young people, on the importance of exploring the means to be implemented to develop, through intercultural dialogue, an active European citizenship, with an open attitude to the world, respecting cultural diversity and based on common values in the European Union.

- To encourage the development of innovative types of initiatives, in particular those promoting trans-sectoral and horizontal approaches to intercultural dialogue and/or targeting young people

The Year will stress the promotion and the development of initiatives that bring together different communities and social groups, and approach intercultural dialogue from multiple perspectives. In promoting cross-sectoral cooperation, the Year will also contribute indirectly to the exchange of good practices and experimental initiatives regarding the promotion of intercultural dialogue.

In line with these operational objectives, the European Year will contribute in the longer term towards:

- Ensuring that the wider public is aware of cultural dialogue. This implies a continued effort to establish, share and compare facts and trends (work on methodology, networking of existing Observatories). It is important to continue the reflection beyond 2008 and to make use of the new ideas which have been developed with the support of the Year;

- Developing critical mass of recurring events (e.g. European day of Intercultural Dialogue) or emblematic places (“espaces de dialogue”);

- Focusing policy priorities and encouraging a more coordinated action at EC level. The European Year should also be a stepping stone for strengthened action at national, regional and local levels;

- Developing a collaborative framework with the media.

3.3. Operational objectives

These specific objectives will be realised by three sets of actions, which constitute the operational objectives.

3.3.1 Actions at Community level

1) Information and promotion c ampaigns including:

a) the design of a logo and slogans for the European Year of intercultural dialogue, which will be associated with all the activities connected with it;

b) an information campaign on a Community scale and its localisation at the national level paying particular attention to young people;

c) cooperation with the private sector, broadcasting companies and other media as partners to disseminate information concerning the European Year;

d) production of tools and supports intended to stimulate the interest of the public, and in particular of the young people, which will be available throughout the Community;

e) appropriate measures to disseminate the results and reinforce the visibility of the Community programmes, actions and initiatives contributing to the objectives of the European Year;

f) appropriate initiatives of educational institutions and the general public in order to disseminate information on the European Year of intercultural dialogue in particular to young people;

g) the set-up of an information website on the Internet, on the Europa server, including a portal for the promoters of projects relating to intercultural dialogue, in order to guide them through the various relevant Community programmes and actions.

2) Other actions:

- surveys and studies on a Community scale, with a view to evaluating the effectiveness and the impact of the European Year of intercultural dialogue, its preparation and its long term follow up.

Funding will generally take the form of direct purchasing of goods and services by means of open and/or restricted calls for tenders. It may also take the form of subsidies.

3.3.2 Support of actions at Community level

A limited number of emblematical actions of European scale aiming at awareness-raising, in particular of young people, vis-à-vis the objectives of the European Year can benefit from Community support. Such funding shall not exceed 80% of the total costs.

These actions may for instance include events, including opening and closing events of the Year.

3.3.3 Co-financing of actions at national level

Actions at national level with a strong European dimension can meet the requirements to benefit from Community support – such funding shall not exceed 50% of the total cost:

These actions will cover in particular the co-financing of one national initiative per Member State;

3.3.4 Actions for which non financial aid is available

The Community will offer its non financial support, including written authorisation to use the logo and other materials associated with the European Year of intercultural dialogue, for initiatives undertaken by public or private organisations, where those organisations can satisfy the Commission that the initiatives involved are or will be in progress during the year 2008 and are likely to contribute significantly to achieving the objectives of the European Year of intercultural dialogue.

3.4. Objectives and related indicative indicators

The expected overall impact of the Year consists in raising awareness of the positive contribution that intercultural dialogue makes to society. The actual contribution of the Year to the achievement of the stated objectives will be measured by a series of indicators, as listed below:

Objectives | Indicators (indicative) |

General |

Promote intercultural dialogue as an instrument to help European citizens and all people living in the EU, temporarily or permanently, to acquire knowledge, skills and abilities that will allow them to master a more open, but also more complex environment and to manage the its potential difficulties in order to take advantage of the opportunities such a diverse and dynamic society offers, not only in Europe, but also in the world | Number and type of initiatives funded or sponsored by the Year Change in perceptions of people who have taken part in the activities of the Year |

Raising awareness of European citizens and all people living in the EU on the importance of developing an active European citizenship, with open attitude to the world, respecting cultural diversity and based on common values in the European Union of respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, non-discrimination, solidarity and principles of democracy and rule of law as well as respect for human rights of persons belonging to minorities. | Number of citizens taking part in the events related to the Year Change in perceptions of participants in the activities of the Year |

Specific | Indicators |

Increase the visibility and consistency of all Community programmes and actions contributing to the promotion of intercultural dialogue | Access to and use of information tools established and disseminated by the Year about relevant Community programmes; Awareness of participants in the activities of the Year about these programmes and actions. |

Underline the contribution of different cultures to our heritage and lifestyles; raising awareness of European citizens and all people living in the EU, in particular young people, on the importance of exploring the means to be implemented to develop, through intercultural dialogue, an active European citizenship, with an open attitude to the world, respecting cultural diversity and based on common values in the European Union. | Change in perceptions of participants (in particular young people) in the activities of the year; Extent and tone of press and media coverage of the events (qualitative and quantitative); |

Contribute to innovation and to the horizontal and trans-sectoral dimension of the approaches aiming at promoting the intercultural dialogue, in particular to young people | Number of projects involving promoters or networks from different sectors |

Operational : | Indicators |

Information and awareness raising campaigns at European level : | Number and type of information and promotion activities Improvement of the public’s awareness, in particular young people Media coverage of events supported by the Year; % of population reached Production of tools to stimulate the interest of the general public; |

Surveys and studies: | Coverage of the publication of the surveys and study on the theme of the Year |

Events and initiatives at Community level: | Number of organised events and share of the Community support; Media coverage of events; Number of participants in events supported by the Year (in particular young people) Improvement of the public’s awareness Proportion of the total budget used in order to support this operational objective (indicative target: 24 %). |

Events and initiatives at national level | Number of organised events and share of the Community support; Media coverage of national initiatives Multiplier effect (number of actions and initiatives at national, regional and local level sponsored but not financed by the Year) Proportion of the total budget used in order to support this operational objective (indicative target: 25%). |

Indicators will be assessed on the basis of data collected by different sources: data collected by surveys and focus groups, continuous evaluation of the Year, and data collected by national organisms and relevant EC programmes managers.

4. WHAT ARE THE MAIN POLICY OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY MECHANISMS?

4.1 What is the basic approach chosen to reach the overall policy objective?

A European Year centred around three actions which are voluntarily focussed on the fields of awareness-raising and communication, and resting on the richness and the diversity of a critical mass of concrete projects implemented in 2008 through DG EAC and other services’ programmes incorporating the intercultural dialogue dimension.

4.2 What other policy instruments, besides a "European Year", were considered?

Several options were carefully considered but had to be discarded given their negative or limited impact. Regulatory options (see point 4.2.2 below) were also discarded, given the absence of any relevant competencies at EC level.

4.2.1. No action

The absence of action beyond what is already implemented in specific and sectoral activities would deprive of visibility a political priority of the Union, and would especially cause opportunity costs:

Not allowing the mainstreaming actions implemented significantly in many fields to reach a critical mass and increase overall visibility. Limiting the field of the intercultural dialogue to the sectors where suitable programs exist and not allowing other fields to be explored as well as trans-sectoral approaches of the intercultural dialogue. Not allowing actions undertaken so far to reach an audience beyond the specific circles (e.g. educational circles, academics, cultural operators, etc.) to which they are often confined. Not allowing broader co-operation, coordination and synergies between them. Making it harder to involve the general public and the European society as a whole.

4.2.2 Regulatory Action

Article 151 of the Treaty excludes “any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States” . Therefore, any regulatory tools (Directive, Decision, and Regulation) are to be discarded. The Treaty however provides that “action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action”. This option is ruled out by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity.

4.2.3 Mainstreaming

Intercultural dialogue is largely mainstreamed throughout Community policies and instruments. It is particularly prominent in the fields of education, culture, youth and citizenship, immigration and asylum, the fight against discrimination and social exclusion, in audiovisual policy and in the research programmes. Community initiatives in these sectors have led to numerous projects approaching intercultural dialogue from different viewpoints and engaging with different sectors of society. They have also allowed the involvement of civil society in the development of forms of dialogue which are adapted to the realities experienced by citizens. However, Community action in intercultural dialogue sphere lacks overall coherence and visibility.

Although mainstreaming in many policy areas is already significantly implemented and should continue, this option alone would not be sufficient, as it would not be able to reach the necessary critical mass and raise visibility to achieve the goals pursued. Mainstreaming would also limit the scope of intercultural dialogue to sectors where adequate programmes exist and thus would not permit the exploration of other areas as well as trans-sectoral approaches to the intercultural dialogue.

Furthermore, actions undertaken in sectoral contexts are often confined to specialised circles (e.g. education circles, academics, cultural operators…) without cooperation among these sectors, when the real need is to involve citizens (in particular young people) and European society as a whole.

4.2.4 Multi-annual programme and/or an Action Plan for Intercultural Dialogue

A multi-annual programme and/or an Action Plan would increase the visibility of intercultural dialogue, would allow the possibility of multi-annual activities, and would create a strong European added value as well as a strong involvement of civil society.

However, experience so far has shown that such an option would be premature. As a first step, it is essential to test the reality on the ground. The suitability of a multi-annual programme and/or an action plan could be one of the outcomes of the European Year but should not be presumed at this stage.

4.2.5 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008

The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 will seek to raise the visibility and importance of intercultural dialogue as a useful tool for addressing challenges and policy priorities. It will promote a deeper and more structured dialogue between the actors concerned during the year itself and also afterward.

The European Year of the Intercultural Dialogue will get a high visibility with a strong European added value. It will also encourage the involvement of civil society.

4.3 What modes of intervention for the Year were considered?

Two methods of intervention for a European year were considered:

1. Calls for proposal for intercultural dialogue projects at national/regional and local level:

A considerable number of previous European Years, while supporting a few major events, gave priority to this approach – launching calls for proposals for many different concrete projects. These calls, depending on the cases, were managed on a centralised basis or delegated to the Member States. On the basis of these experiences[25], this approach was ruled out for the following reasons:

- The launch of open calls for proposals in a field where various Community programmes intervene would have led to inconsistencies and duplication;

- The budgetary amount that it would have been possible to allocate to the specific projects within the framework of the Year would have been lower than that which can be mobilised within the framework of the existing programmes and actions ;

- Considering the field covered by intercultural dialogue, the number of projects likely to be proposed would be disproportionate in relation to the budgetary resources available, involving a very high disappointment level of project sponsors;

- The cost of management of the calls for proposal in terms of human resources would be also disproportionate.

2. Centralised action at Community level with association of the Member States:

An alternative option to centralised management is offered by a coordinated approach, whereby a set of core horizontal actions is managed at Commission level and funded with the operational budget for the Year while the implementation of concrete projects at national level takes place within the framework of the existing EC programmes concerned with the themes of inter-cultural dialogue. Financing of these projects comes in total or in part from the budget of the relevant programmes, in accordance with their specific rules and procedures.

At central level, the European Year would be centred around three actions focusing on communication and awareness-raising. In particular, it would support a limited number of high visibility Community events, with a specific focus on those targeting young people. The organisation of these events will take into account the need to ensure synergy with already scheduled major events at national level and to promote, when possible cross-sectoral partnerships. In some cases, the organisation of the initiatives will be assigned to promoters on the basis of a restricted call for proposals. In addition, Member States, which will be closely associated with the definition and implementation of the Year, will receive Community funding for the organisation of one initiative at national level of major visibility and importance.

This model of shared implementation seems the most appropriate to achieve the objectives of the year in a proportionate and efficient manner. The coordination with existing EC programmes ensures synergies and leverage effect. It allows for greater participation and active involvement of national authorities and stakeholders. It maximises the impact of the budget available for the Year, which can be directed towards a limited set of core actions necessary to ensure consistency and coherence. Finally, it imposes a reasonable and manageable administrative burden on Community and Member States administrations.

4.3.1 Geographical coverage

The question of the geographical coverage of the Year was also studied in the knowledge that different formulas have been retained for previous Years.

Intercultural dialogue is relevant not only within the European Union but also in its relations with third countries. This is particularly so with respect to candidate countries, but also in the relationship between the EU and EFTA countries Parties to the EEA agreement, the Western Balkans as well as third countries which are EU partners within the new European neighbourhood policy.

However, the basis for intercultural dialogue within the EU on the one hand, and between the EU and third countries on the other, is nevertheless distinct:

The priority of the Year is to raise the awareness of European citizens and all those living in the European Union, in particular young people, about intercultural dialogue. This dialogue is comprised of a high European citizenship dimension.

Intercultural dialogue between the EU and Candidate countries is already foreseen as a constitutive element of the pre-accession strategy. Intercultural dialogue between the EU and other third countries, based on different and very distinct realities and prospects varying from one country or one region to another, is also pursued within very varied institutional contexts and frameworks.

Combining these different dimensions of intercultural dialogue in a single instrument would generate confusion and could weaken and reduce the perception, messages and impact of the Year.

Therefore, the European Year is addressed to EU Member States. Candidate countries will be closely associated to the Year through their participation in the relevant Community programmes as well as other initiatives promoting intercultural dialogue that will be developed within the appropriate frameworks of cooperation and dialogue (in particular within the framework of the dialogue between civil societies of the European Union and Candidate countries[26]).

It will also be important to seek to optimise relationships between this Year and other initiatives of intercultural dialogue developed within appropriate frameworks with third countries, including those EFTA countries party to the EEA agreement, the Western Balkans, and the countries that are partners to the EU within the new European neighbourhood policy.

Close coordination with the Year will maximise the potential synergies, in particular as regards visibility and communication.

Any other initiative of cooperation with third countries, in particular developing countries, relevant for the objectives of intercultural dialogue of the Year, shall also be adequately coordinated.

5. RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Assumption | Risk | Assessment |

Interest of citizens and all those living in the European Union permanently or temporarily taking part in the events relating to intercultural dialogue will remain high or even increase | A lack of interest or outreach of citizens (no involvement) | Intercultural dialogue is a topic which relates to everyone because it touches on the identity of each individual. There is a real request to promote the dialogue with and between citizens |

Civil society, including religious and ethnic communities, will react positively to this Year and will actively take part in it | There is a risk of a negative reception of the activities of the Year | The positive tone of the Year, with its framework of shared values, should be widely accepted by the overwhelming majority of stakeholders |

Increased visibility of intercultural dialogue | Lack of visibility | The Commission already has a wide range of instruments (programmes and documents) at its disposal in the field of intercultural dialogue; all the projects (and programmes which support them) will profit from the additional visibility that the Year will bring. Significant part of the Year’s budget is allocated to the information and communication campaign |

EU Member States will react positively and will participate in the events; good cooperation between Member States | political refusal from the Member States | The risk that the Year is perceived as negative by the Member States is weak because there is a real desire to promote the dialogue with and between citizens at a political level |

Interest and involvement of the media | Negative degree of co-operation with the media | The risk that the media do not take part in the events of the Year is weak because it is an up to date topic which is citizen and youth oriented |

Actions are easy to implement and the Year can easily manage the volume of applications | Impossibility to manage the volume of applications proposed under the call for proposals | The Year does not want to finance mini projects but will concentrate on a limited number of major events and the support of one initiative at national level |

Strong European added value | Weak European added value | Many actions of the Commission are already involved in the wider field of intercultural dialogue. One aspect of the Year could be to develop critical mass of recurring events or emblematic places. Indeed, it seems that the impact could be to encourage a more coordinated action at EC level. |

6. WHAT POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS ARE EXPECTED FROM THE OPTION SELECTED ?

6.1. Social impact

Direct impact:

The Year aims to achieve a high participation of citizens and all those living in the European Union permanently or temporarily in intercultural dialogue and to build on what citizens will bring into the dialogue. The Year will contribute to the development of an active citizenship based on common values.

Indirect impact:

- The Year will foster social cohesion on a geographic basis through cooperation between regions or within a region between the different cultures.

- The Year will improve living and working conditions through better integration of intercultural dimensions which contribute to the overall strength of the economic environment.

- The increased intercultural dialogue will contribute to the fostering of mutual understanding and solidarity.

6.2. Economic impact

The Year is not designed to pursue direct economic policy objectives and is not likely to have a direct measurable impact on business and the economy as a whole. However, as the development and support of an active civil society, especially its capacity to build shared values from the wealth of diversity at local and national levels, is one of the fundamental contributors to a dynamic and innovative society, the Year may have indirect positive economic effects in the long run.

6.3. Environmental impact

The Year does not have direct environmental objectives.

On a short-term basis as well as in the long term, there seem to be no potential conflicts between social, economic and environmental impacts for this programme. In accordance with the Lisbon strategy, the positive economic and social effects combined are likely to have a positive impact on growth and employment, as well as on social cohesion.

6.4. Intense impacts on particular social groups, economic sectors or regions

The Year is intended to have a particular impact on youth.

6.5. Impact outside the EU on candidate and/or other countries

The Year, even if addressed to EU Member States, should have a positive impact on the relation between the EU and third countries through appropriate association of candidate countries, and coordination with other initiatives with respect to other third countries[27].

6.6. Manifestation of impacts over time

The impact created through awareness and visibility should be delivered during the Year itself. Impact on perceptions, mutual understanding and behaviours will start during the Year and continue over time.

It is also important to continue the reflection beyond 2008 and to make use of the new ideas which will have been developed with the support of the Year. One aspect could be to develop a critical mass of recurring events (e.g. European day of Intercultural Dialogue) or emblematic places (“espaces de dialogue”).

The year could also impact on existing Community actions in this field, through better coordination. The European Year should also be a stepping stone for strengthened action at national level and for transnational exchange of experience and best practices.

7. ADDED VALUE OF EU INVOLVEMENT

7.1. Complementarity and synergies

The added value of the European Year of intercultural dialogue has to be looked at in the light of its articulation with the various Community initiatives which have a link or an impact on intercultural dialogue. A significant number of Community actions are concerned with the general theme of intercultural dialogue, but with different objectives and targets. Important initiatives as regards intercultural dialogue were launched or were planned, for example in the following fields:

- Culture

The Culture 2000 Programme[28] comprises of actions relating to intercultural dialogue. More fundamentally, ever since it began, the programme has been in fact centred on intercultural dialogue in the broadest sense, because of the type of subsidised actions and of the operators benefiting from the programme. Intercultural dialogue is one of the three objectives of the Culture Programme planed for 2007-2013. Two or three objectives will have to be present in a project to obtain financing in the new programme.

- Lifelong Learning

Intercultural dialogue has always been a priority under Community lifelong learning and education programmes[29]. This dimension is, for example, present in the Erasmus Programme[30], the Leonardo Da Vinci Programme (in particular in regard to intercultural dialogue in the workplace and the integration of immigrants or certain populations such as the Roma[31]) and in the Jean Monnet action[32]. It is also a constant priority of the Tempus[33] and Erasmus Mundus[34] Programmes. Furthermore, Community Mobility Programmes, i.e. Marie Curie Actions for researchers, also contribute to cultural exchanges, both on social and working levels.

- Youth

The future programme "Youth in action" (2007-2013) will aim in particular to encourage mutual comprehension through young people, and to develop exchanges and intercultural dialogue among young Europeans.

- Citizenship

The future "Citizens for Europe" (2007-2013) programme will aim in particular to improve the mutual comprehension of the European citizens by respecting and celebrating cultural diversity, while contributing to intercultural dialogue.

- Fight against discrimination and social exclusion

The Community Action Programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006)[35] is one of the two cornerstones of the “anti-discrimination package” that aims to combat all forms of discrimination, including on grounds of race or ethnic origin, religion or belief[36]. One of the purposes of the Programme Progress (covering the period 2007-2013) is to combat discrimination based on such motives and will, therefore, promote intercultural dialogue.

- Asylum and immigrants integration policies

Under the Hague Programme (2005-2010), the successful integration of third-country nationals, as legal residents, and of their descendants, is considered beneficial for the stability and the cohesion of our societies. Actions will aim to define a coherent European framework as regards integration, knowing that it rests on frequent exchanges and intercultural dialogue between all the members of the society, within the framework of bodies and common activities, in order to improve mutual comprehension.

- Audio-visual Policy

The new programme of support for the European audio-visual sector (MEDIA 2007)[37] will aim in particular to preserve and emphasise European cultural diversity and its cinematographic and audio-visual heritage, to guarantee its access to the European citizens and to encourage intercultural dialogue.

- Research

In the context of its research activities, the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development covers scientific research on the implications of European integration and enlargement; resolution of conflicts and new forms of citizenship and cultural identities.

The Framework Programme further explores ways to bridge the gap between science and society, by supporting research and the setting up of networks on participatory processes for civil society organisations, the pursuit on an international dialogue on ethics and sciences, connecting the media with the sources of knowledge and innovation, and turning human diversity into a competitive advantage in education and research.

- Fight against racism and xenophobia

The prime objective of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is to provide the Community and its Member States with data at the European level on the phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism in order to help them take measures or formulate courses of action within their respective spheres of competence. The EUMC also studies the extent and development of the phenomena and manifestations of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, analyse their causes, consequences and effects, and examine examples of good practice in dealing with them.

Conclusion

The European Year will constitute an opportunity for the strengthening of mainstreaming of intercultural dialogue in all relevant programmes and Community actions in 2008, in order to increase overall visibility and the impact of these actions under the Year. This will allow the promotion of a coherent image of the multiplicity of Community projects contributing to intercultural dialogue while developing synergies between programmes.

Communication and awareness-raising actions during the Year will thus be able to rest on a critical mass of concrete projects of intercultural dialogue in numerous sectors. All these projects (and the programmes which support them) will benefit from the additional visibility that the "European Year of the intercultural Dialogue" will bring them.

The preparation of the Year will have to be closely coordinated with the preparation and the implementation of the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All in 2007[38] in order to maximise the synergies and the complementarity of these two initiatives.

7.2. Subsidiarity

The promotion of the intercultural dialogue requires an action on a variety of dimensions and on many levels, in fields where national and local authorities have a very broad competence (in particular in cultural policies and education). The Community has a complementary role insofar as its action, while being concentrated on the individual citizen, would have more effects at community level than at Member State level. Indeed, an action at only national level would be likely to limit the scope of intercultural dialogue and not sufficiently take into account the dimension of European citizenship attached to this dialogue.

Due to its visibility, the Community action concerned (the European Year and the strengthening of mainstreaming of intercultural dialogue in Community programmes) has to be a factor of mobilisation of complementary measures at national, regional and local level. These actions will be able to benefit from the visibility of the Year.

Realities and priorities of intercultural dialogue are clearly different according to the country, taking into account the regional and the local aspects (rural area, cities...) considered. The information and communication campaign will really have to take into account this diversity and will have to have a strong « localisation ». Similarly, Member States will be able to benefit from a Community subsidy for a nationwide initiative reflecting their individual perspective, but with a strong European dimension. The partnership with a network of representatives from the Member States will be crucial to ensure the overall consistency of the Year.

7.3. Proportionality

The Year based on the critical mass of projects supported by the Community programs, aims to make a significant impact in terms of awareness-raising with a strong European Added Value. The year does in no way limit action at national level as it just aims at giving a Community impetus. In addition, the selected methods of intervention are simple and do not impose any disproportionate management constraints on the administrations responsible for implementing the Year.

Therefore, the actions foreseen here do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the goals, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

8. HELPING TO ACHIEVE COST-EFFECTIVENESS

8.1 Cost implications of the action: 10 € million

€ Millions

Actions | Type of output | Average cost | 2007 | 2008 | TOTAL |

| | |Number |Total cost |Number |Total cost |Number |Total cost | | Action A: Community measures |Information and communication campaign | 2.250 |1 |1.900 |1 |2.600 |2 |4.500 | | |Surveys and studies |0.200 |1 |0.100 |2 |0.500 |3 |0.600 | | Action B: Co-financing of actions at Community level |Emblematic actions, including opening and closing events |0.300 |2 |0.600 |6 |1.800 |8 |2.400 | | Action C: Co-financing of actions at national level |National initiatives |0.100 |4 |0.400 |21 |2.100 |25 |2.500 | | TOTAL COST | | |8 |3.000 |30 |7.000 |38 |10.000 | | 8.2 Could the same results be achieved at lower costs?

As the Year will build on the critical mass of projects supported by Community programmes, a significant awareness raising process can be achieved by the Year with a foreseen budget of € 10 million .

Financial leverage effect could be produced through the momentum created. The non financial support actions could be used to increase the number of actions using the communication tools of the Year therefore, strengthening its visibility.

In conclusion, the cost of the action is the lowest possible.

9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

9.1. Monitoring

The Commission and the Member States should ensure the consistency of the measures financed. Monitoring should facilitate the quality of financed initiatives and coherence with the objectives of the Year. The monitoring should therefore be implemented in order to ease the exchanges of experiences between Member States and capitalisation of results achieved at EU level. The design of the monitoring framework will be mainly the responsibility of the Commission in consultation with the Member States.

The monitoring system must be coherent with the data needed to satisfy with the indicators (point 3.4).

9.2. Evaluation

The approach adopted will be one of continuous evaluation followed by an assessment of the implementation and impact of the Year. An external evaluation exercise will be launched in 2007 in order to gather baseline data, monitor the implementation of the Year and provide interim results if needed. The evaluation results should be available by mid-2009. This arrangement will allow the Commission to report to the EU institutions by the end of 2009 on the results achieved (ex-post evaluation).

The objective of this report will be to assess the results achieved by the Year in the light of its objectives. Attention will be particularly focused on the following issues:

- the distribution of responsibility between Commission and Member States should be further underlined in order to ensure that the synergies are fulfilled;

- a budget should be taken into account in order to launch a call for proposals for the external evaluation;

- the implementation of the Year should be synchronised appropriately in order to finalise the implementation of activities within the tight one-year timeframe. This implies clear deadlines for establishing the Committee, the launching of the calls, including those linked to the external evaluation. Previous evaluations have shown that the preparation period and implementation deadlines are crucial issues for the success of an event such as a European Year.

10. REFERENCES

Studies and evaluations / Public and experts consultations:

(1) Experience of previous European Years

- Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions: “ The Implementation and Results of the European Year of Languages 2001 ” (COM (2002) 597 of 4.11.2002)

- Evaluation report of the European Year of Languages 2001 (final Report to the Directorate General Education and Culture, August 2002)

- Evaluation of the 2003 European Year of People with Disabilities – October 2004http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/doc/evaluation_report_final_en.pdf

- Ex-ante evaluation of the European Year of Education through Sport 2004 and Interim evaluation of the European Year of Education through Sport 2004

- Commission Disability Action Plan as a follow-up to the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003 http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2003/oct/en.pdf

- PV de la rencontre avec les responsables de l’Année Européenne de lutte contre le racisme (1997)

(2) Research and analysis on intercultural dialogue in different contexts

- European Commission Conference on “ Intercultural Dialogue ” (2002)http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/ajm/dialogue/index_fr.html

- European Commission Conference on « Dialogue between peoples and cultures : actors in the dialogue » (2004)http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/ajm/people_culture/dial2004_fr.html

- ECSA Conference on «Peace, Security and Stability, International Dialogue and the role of the European Union» (2002) http://www.ecsanet.org/ecsaworld6/

- European Commission Conference on “ The European Union and Emerging World Orders: Perceptions and Strategies ” (2004)http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/ajm/ecsa_world/index_en.html

- Report of the Committee of the Wise Men on “ Dialogue between cultures and peoples ”(2003) http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/policy_advisers/experts_groups/dei_saggi_group/index_fr.htm

- European Commission Conference "Dialogue between peoples and cultures: the role of artists and cultural actors “(February 2005)

- Nancy Metz Report, « Analyse des résultats de la consultation européenne sur le développement futur des programmes de l’Union européenne dans les domaines de l’Education, de la Formation et de la Jeunesse après 2006 », 18/02/2004

- Ex-ante evaluation and impact assessment of the European Year of equal opportunities for all 2007

- “ Attitude towards Migrants and Minorities in Europe ”, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Key findings from the Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey on 15 March 2005

- « Racist Violence in 15 EU Member States ». A Comparative Overview of Findings from the RAXEN National Focal Points Reports 2001-2004, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

- Rapports d’urgence sur l’islamophobie après le 11 septembre 2001, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

- “Manifestations de l’antisémitisme dans l’Union européenne en 2002-2003”, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

- Report on “ Attitudes towards Migrants and Minorities ”, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

- Rapport sur les industries culturelles (juillet 2003). Rapport sur la préservation et la promotion de la diversité culturelle: le rôle des régions européennes et d'organisations internationales telles que l'UNESCO et le Conseil de l'Europe (janvier 2004) - (2002/2269(INI)), Rapporteur: Mme Christa PRETS.

Other

- Communication from the Commission: “Building our common Future: Policy challenges and Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013” COM (2004) 101 of 10.02.2004.

- Communication from the Commission: “Making citizenship work: fostering European culture and diversity through programmes for Youth, Culture, Audiovisual and Civic Participation” - COM (2004) 154 of 9.03.2004 - Commission Staff Working Document on the Structural Funds and culture - SEC (2004) 237.

- Communication from the Commission: “Commission strategic objectives 2005-2009: A Partnership for European Renewal. Prosperity, Solidarity and Security” COM (2005) 12 final of 26.01.2005.

- Charte des droits fondamentaux

- New Programme for the period 2007-2013 to promote active European citizenship “Citizens for Europe”

- Ex-ante evaluation and impact assessment European Year of equal opportunities for all 2007

- Nouveau programme de soutien au secteur audiovisuel européen (MEDIA 2007), COM (2004) 470 final, Evaluation d’impact

- Brochure Leonardo da Vinci/dialogue interculturel, Commission européenne, Direction Générale de l’Education et de la Culture

ANNEXE 1

Evaluation of the 2001 European Year of Languages – August 2002

The evaluation underlined the following recommendations to be taken into account for the preparation of other European years:

- Time and resources

A Year is a short period of time in which to achieve ambitious objectives and hitting the ground running is an important factor in future success. A European Year should be planned with a three-year timescale: one year for preparation, one year for implementation and monitoring and one year for consolidation and follow-up

- Information and communication campaign

The information and communication activities are an important aspect of the Year. The inclusion of a website should be maintained but its role and focus should be carefully considered, given the short timeframe of the Year. If a more long-term resource is envisaged, mechanisms for encouraging the development of a community of users should be considered, including mechanisms for improving knowledge and awareness of the issues involved in the Year’s topic area. The website should also be tested with and by users in order to ensure that needs are met and its compatibility with Europa should be a prerequisite.

The visual logo for a European Year is very useful. It provides an identity for the Year.

The need for a common slogan should be re-considered. Participating countries may be encouraged to adopt a slogan relevant to national circumstances.

The importance of good media coverage cannot be emphasized strongly enough. This should be aimed at both improving awareness of the European Year as well as stimulating the participation of independent projects.

The central production of promotional items was broadly successful and cost-effective

European Year framework

A strategy for the potential continuation of the objectives of the European Year should be foreseen. This may build upon existing funding opportunities and will offer pointers to those interested. Such an ongoing strategy would be assisted by ensuring that central information resources such as the European website are maintained after the end of the Year. This will need a strategy to be put in place at the point at which the website is first designed.

Evaluation of the 2003 European Year of People with Disabilities – October 2004

A European initiative was a prerequisite for the type of intervention undertaken. While national years for people with disabilities could have been organised by individual countries, the Europe-wide scale required some central co-ordination initiative.

The scale of the Year that derived from the fact that the EYPD was a European intervention added to the mobilisation and commitment of the stakeholders involved, and thus augmented the results. In several instances the European-level co-ordination fostered co-operation among stakeholders in the disability field and promoted the exchange of good practice.

Synergy activities at different levels, in particular between the Information and Promotional Campaign and the national actions, contributed considerably to achieving the aims of the intervention.

The Year generated considerable funding for disability-related projects and thereby also helped to strengthen the organisational capacity many operators.

Finally, the Year contributed European added value by raising awareness and laying the groundwork for sustainable impacts, in particular concerning the creation of sustainable networks and legal and policy initiatives that would be capable of influencing the lives of people with disabilities.

Evaluation ex ante of the 2004 European Year of Education through Sport

As to the justification for Community-level action, it has to be said that sport is undoubtedly the best organised social sector at this level. Hardly any other cultural or educational network has built up permanent European structures. Furthermore, its activities have a European dimension thus permitting the mobility of those practising sport. Taking action on education through sport thus virtually automatically means action at the Community level, given the organisational configuration of the various partners concerned.

The evaluation also highlights the need to act within a partnership:

- essentially a partnership between the education and sports organisations at the national and European levels,

- but also a partnership between the institutions, states and media in order to raise public awareness as to the educational values of sport,

- and, lastly, a partnership between the various tiers of public administration as a precondition for the year to be a success.

On the organisational front, the following points have to be underlined:

- ensuring that the funding procedure for the actions envisaged do not generate an excessive administrative workload with which the department responsible would be unable to cope and which would severely hamper the progress of the year;

- give priority to actions with a real communication dimension and capable of reaching very substantial tiers of the population and at the same time of testing the effectiveness of the practical arrangements for subsequent proposals

[1] COM (2003) 336 final of 3.6.2003 on immigration, integration and employment

[2] COM(2004) 101, 10/2/2004

[3] A Convention on the protection and the promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions is expected to be adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in October 2005.

[4] Article 151.4 of the treaty establishing the European Community.

[5] Article 21 of the Charter of fundamental rights.

[6] Article 22 of the Charter of fundamental rights.

[7] “Attitude towards Migrants and Minorities in Europe”, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Key findings from the Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey on 15 March 2005

[8] The majority of people throughout Europe were opposed to discrimination on each of these grounds, with the highest scores in Spain (89%); Luxembourg (88%) and the United Kingdom (87%).Ex-ante evaluation and impact assessment European Year of equal opportunities for all 2007

[9] Synthesis and country reports on Anti-Islamic reactions within the European Union after the acts of terror against the USA

[10] “Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the EU 2002–2003”, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

[11] “Attitudes towards Migrants and Minorities”, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

[12] Ghent European Council, 19.10.2001

[13] Brussels European Council, 16-17 June 2005

[14] Brussels European Council, 4-5 November 2004

[15] Council « Culture/Audiovisual » of 23.05.2002

[16] Resolution of the European Parliament on the preservation and the promotion of cultural diversity: the role of the European regions and the international 'organisations such as 'UNESCO and the Council of Europe - 2002/2269(INI)

[17] Idem supra

[18] Report on the cultural industries of the European Parliament (July 2003)

[19] Resolution of the European Parliament on the preservation and the promotion of cultural diversity: the role of the European regions and the international 'organisations such as 'UNESCO and the Council of Europe - 2002/2269(INI)

[20] UNESCO website :http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=11406&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

[21] For the education, training and youth domains, see: Analyse des résultats de la consultation européenne sur le développement futur des programmes de l'Union Européenne dans les domaines de l'Education, de la Formation et de la Jeunesse après 2006, Pôle Universitaire Européen de Lorraine , 2004, http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/newprogconsult/report.pdfand the stakeholder consultation sections of the following impact assessment reports:- lifelong learning: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm#LLL2007 (section 8.2)- youth: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm#YouthInAction (section 3)For the culture and active citizenship domains, see the following impact assessment reports:- culture: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm#Culture2007 (section 8)- citizenship: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm#ActiveCitP (section 3)

[22] Notably several of the Jean Monnet Conferences, including most recently in February 2005:http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/ajm/organisation/overview_en.html

[23] Brussels, 28.05.2004 COM (2004) 379 final. The Green Paper was the subject of a consultation process from 1 June until 31 August 2004. In total, 1443 responses were submitted to the questionnaire. The results of the consultation process were presented and discussed at the Dutch Presidency Conference ‘Equality in a future Europe’ on 22-23 November 2004 in Scheveningen, the Netherlands.

[24] See point 7.1

[25] See Annex 1

[26] See The Communication of the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions concerning the Dialogue between civil societies from the EU and from the Candidate Countries from 29.6.2005 - COM(2005) 290 final

[27] See supra point 4.3

[28] Cultural Policies, European Commission, http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html

[29] Nancy - Metz Report, « Analyse des résultats de la consultation européenne sur le développement futur des programmes de l’Union européenne dans les domaines de l’Education, de la Formation et de la Jeunesse après 2006 », 18/02/2004

[30] Erasmus Mundus Progamme, European Commission :http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/mundus/index_en.html

[31] Leonardo da Vinci/intercultural dialogue brochure.

[32] Jean Monnet Action – Activities and projects on the dialogue between peoples and cultures et http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/ajm/index_en.html

[33] TEMPUS Programme, European Commission :http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/tempus/index_fr.html

[34] Education and Training programmes, European Commission,http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/mundus/index_en.html

[35] Community programme of fight against discrimination, DG EMPL,http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/index_en.htm

[36] Treaty of Amsterdam, Article 13.

[37] COM (2004) 470 final, Nouveau programme de soutien au secteur audiovisuel européen (MEDIA 2007), Evaluation d’impact.

[38] COM (2005) 225 final, 1.06.2005. Proposition de décision du PE et du Conseil relative à l’Année européenne de l’égalité des chances pour tous (2007). Vers une société juste.