1BD.91 Official]ournal of the European Communities ^oCPo9^ 
ments required hy the operation of consolidation itself, 
the proposal gi^esnse^ to no particular comment. 
4. Conclusion 
The desire torenderCommunitylegislation clear and 
accessible to the ordinary European citizen should 
encourage the Commissiontoaim at greater simphfi 
cationbymeansof legislative consolidation—atleast 
whenever appropriate and whenever te^ts ha^e been 
amended, expanded and replaced so many times that it 
is virtually impossible for the layman and the unm 
mated tofindthethreadwhichwill lead them out of 
the labyrinth, r^y so doing, the Commission will provide 
interested parties with more comprehensible te^ts and 
sa^e them time and money lost through having to 
Poone at Brussels, 24 April 1991. 
1. Introduction 
.Phe proposal for a second phase of the r^outh for 
Europe programme ^CO^i(90) 4^ finals isbasedon 
the^outh for EuropePOecision of 16]une 1988 (see 
^eue^e^,^ M^^o,D^ consult Official ]ournals and worl^ bacl^ through a 
multitude of amendmentstothis or that Community 
directive, regulation or decision. 
In supportof this we would mention themeetingof 
themformal Councilon theSmgle^iarl^etof 8 and 
9Aiarch this year when the Luxembourg presidency 
raised the question of the ^post 1992 legislative period, 
pointingoutthat^when all POirecti^esha^ebeen adapted 
and brought into force, they should be consolidated to 
mal^e it easier for all citizens to read and become 
acquainted with them5 The Luxembourg presidency 
considered in particular thatdegislationonthe Single 
Aiarl^et is not at the present time accessible and trans 
parent, but tends to be opaques 
^ith the deadline ofl]anuaryl99^ approaching fast, 
the Commission should buclde down to this tasl^ 
immediately. 
CommitteeOpinionSEC^69B86ofl^Septemberl986P 
The proposal is broadly endorsed by the Committee. 
The second phase of the programme is to run for three 
years, froml]anuary 1992 tol]anuary 199^. 
The immediatepurpose is to promote informal edu 
cation and training outside the official system by pro Opinion on the proposal foraCouncil Decision adopting an action programme to promote 
youth exchanges and mobilityinthe Community^ the^outh for Europe programme(^) 
(91^C1^9^^ 
On l^POecember!990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and SocialCommittee 
under Article 198 of theTreaty establishmgtheEuropean EconomicCommumty,on the 
abo^ementioned proposal. 
The Section for Social, family,Educational and Cultural Affairs,which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee^sworle on the subject,adopted its Opinion on llApnl 1991.Lhe 
^apporteurwasAlrB.^.l^ompen. 
At its 286th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1991) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
No C 159/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
viding incentives for cross-frontier exchanges. It is also 
proposed to help youth workers to broaden their experi­
ence via international contacts. The longer-term aim is 
to make young people aware of the European context 
within which they are increasingly living and working. 
Prior to the programme, the Commission has set up a 
number of Community-level schemes. These include: 
— the Comett programme for industry-university 
training, which promotes transnational placements 
for students, 
— the Erasmus programme, which promotes inter-
university student exchanges, 
— exchange programmes for young workers and for 
students in lower and intermediate vocational train­
ing (under the Petra programme). 
The Youth for Europe programme focuses on 
exchanges outside the formal education and training 
system. It can thus be seen as a back-up scheme catering 
in particular for young people not eligible for the above-
mentioned specific programmes. 
If has two components: 
— action 1(A) provides direct support for youth pro­
jects involving exchanges and mobility, 
— action 1(B) is concerned with study visits and the 
vocational development of youth workers, 
— action II covers back-up measures for Action I 
(A and B). 
The relative importance of the two Actions is shown 
inter alia by the Commission's proposal that 80% of 
the programme's appropriation should be earmarked 
for Action 1(A) and 20% for Action 1(B) and Action II. 
In both 1989 and 1990 the programme enabled some 
20 000 young people to participate in exchanges. The 
aim for the next three years is some 60 000 per annum 
— i.e. approximately 0,1% of 15-25 year olds in the 
EC. In other words, the Commission indicates that less 
than 0,5% of 15-25 year olds will benefit from the 
programme over the three year reference period. The 
cost will rise from approximately ECU 10 million in 
1992 to 15 million in 1994, giving an annual average of 
ECU 12,5 million. 
The 1992-1994 phase is to be amplified in two respects: 
— Increased emphasis on disadvantaged young people. 
The Commission says that the programme has not catered for enough disadvantaged young people. It 
is proposed to remedy this as follows: 
• At lease one-third of the budget is to be specifi­
cally earmarked for this target group and 
• Financial assistance for disadvantaged partici­
pants may run-up to 75% of the expenditure 
incurred as against the normal maximum of 50%. 
— As an experiment, grants are to be provided for 
young people who take part in voluntary service 
activities in the educational, cultural and social 
fields. 
2. General comments 
Below, the Committee comments on the short-term 
policy to be pursued and puts forward some ideas on 
the longer term aspects. 
The comments on short term policy (1992-1994) relate 
to the draft Council Decision which has been referred 
to the Committee. 
The comments on longer-term policy (1995 onwards) 
relate to the memorandum entitled 'Young People in 
the European Community' [COM(90) 469] which is 
largely concerned with the Youth for Europe pro­
gramme after 1994. The Committee wishes to make a 
number of comments on those aspects of the memor­
andum which coincide with the subject matter of the 
draft Decision, because the Commission has asked it to 
do so but does not intend to make a specific referral. 
2.1. Comments on the Draft Decision [COM(90) 470] 
with respect to short-term policy (1992-1994) 
2.1.1. The Committee readily endorses the proposed 
new three-year phase of the Youth for Europe pro­
gramme. This programme is needed to provide facilities 
for exchanges, outside the official education/training 
system of, in particular, young people not eligible for 
the other EC programmes. 
2.1.2. The Commission proposal lays considerable 
emphasis on the disadvantaged as a target group. A 
proportion of the programme appropriation is to be 
earmarked for the disadvantaged, and they are to be 
eligible for higher refunds of a higher proportion of 
expenses incurred. The Committee has some sympathy 
for this idea, since it is designed to ensure that disadvan­
taged young people make up a fair proportion of pro­
gramme beneficiaries. The Committee considers that to 
achieve this aim, the supervisory councils and boards 
of the executive agencies in the Member States should 
include representatives of organizations which provide 
support for the disadvantaged in society. 
17. 6. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/7 
The Committee would make three further comments. 
— The purpose of the programme is above all to 
spread the European idea among young people by 
promoting informal education/training at European 
level. This involves providing information on the 
Europe of the future, making contact with inhabi­
tants of other countries, providing an insight into 
each others' culture and way of life, etc. Excessive 
targeting of the disadvantaged might lead to the 
participation of individuals who are not (yet) able to 
pursue with reasonable success the abovementioned 
aim of international exchanges. 
— The term 'disadvantaged' is unclear. The Com­
mission definition refers to 'young people suffering 
from geographical, mental, physical, cultural, social 
or economic disadvantage'. The Commission con­
siders that the definition can best be spelled out 
separately for each Member State, within the frame­
work of these criteria and the specified budget allo­
cation. This is consistent with the decentralized 
approach of the programme and with the subsidiar­
ity principle. The Committee assumes that in its 
contacts with the Member States the Commission 
will harmonize the decentralized definitions of 'dis­
advantaged' as far as possible. 
— It will have to be remembered that the term 'disad­
vantaged' has unfortunate connotations. This cri­
terion will have to be used cautiously when it comes 
to implementation. 
2.1.3. The Committee welcomes the proposal that 
the programme should embrace voluntary service 
activities undertaken on an individual or group basis. 
The Commission proposes to limit these to educational, 
social and cultural activities. The Committee is not 
certain that this limitation is advisable. 
Worthwhile activities in other fields can make an equal 
contribution to the aim of the programme, namely to 
make young people aware of the European dimension 
by familiarizing them with people and circumstances in 
other countries. The Committee does not rule out any 
activities in either the public—or private—sector, it 
urges a balanced spread across the two sectors. 
When selecting voluntary service activities, account 
should be taken of the preferences and ideas of young 
people. 
2.1.4. The decentralized implementation of the pro­
gramme at national level presupposes the existence 
of high-grade, professional national agencies in each 
Member State. The Committee presumes that there will 
be no question of the Commission providing subsidies 
until these agencies exist. 
2.1.5. Committee Opinion SEC 769/86 recommends 
including non-member countries in the programme in 1992-1994. As stated in Commission memorandum 
COM (90) 469, the separate Tempus programme has 
now been established for Eastern and Central Europe, 
inter alia in the broader context of the Phare pro­
gramme. In the draft 1991 budget the Commission also 
proposed a separate line for exchanges in particular 
with the USSR; this line was not however endorsed by 
the European Parliament. The Committee still considers 
that in addition to the USSR, young people from the 
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and Mediter­
ranean countries should be eligible for exchange pro­
gramme. A number of these countries do not have 
national agencies capable of initiating and organizing 
exchanges. The Committee suggests that in these cir­
cumstances the Commission liaise with international 
youth organizations which have good contacts with 
young people in EFTA and Mediterranean countries. 
2.1.6. The Committee considers that Community 
institutions should set a good example in making young 
people aware of Europe. They should, for instance 
adopt a positive approach to applications from young 
people to take part in fact-finding trips and in service 
training. The budget should cater for this. 
2.1.7. The Committee should be on the list of recipi­
ents of the annual Commission report on the implemen­
tation of the programme. 
2.2. Comments on long-term policy 
2.2.1. Among other points, Commission memor­
andum COM(90) 469 on Young People in the European 
Community devotes a considerable amount of space to 
the Youth for Europe programme in the post-1994 
period. The Commission has invited interested parties 
to comment on the memorandum. The Commission 
representative drew attention to the memorandum in 
the course of Study Group discussions. As the Com­
mission is not referring the memorandum to the Com­
mittee separately, we take this opportunity to make a 
few comments. 
2.2.2. The Committee endorses the concept that 
young people should be systematically involved in 
building a new Europe in the longer term too. Alongside 
the plethora of programmes targeting special 
groups—such as Comett, Erasmus, Petra, Tempus and 
structural-fund support measures—there is room for a 
general programme such as Youth for Europe, catering 
in particular for young people who fall outside the 
special target groups. 
2.2.3. It is recommended that the limited Community 
funds available be spent on building up a sound Com-
No C 159/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
munity infrastructure for youth exchanges. This infra­
structure should include: 
— one week or two week courses for young Com­
munity citizens on the history, culture and unifi­
cation of Europe and its expected future dimension. 
Meetings on specific topics could also be arranged 
—for instance on demographic trends, multi-ethnic 
society and relations with other cultures, 
— the establishment and maintenance of an inter-
Member-State network responsible for exchanges 
and for evaluating the impact of the programme. 
— the establishment of a Community-level infor­
mation centre, with branches in the Member States; 
this centre would provide information on future 
meetings, work camps, individual voluntary service 
arrangements and other activities, 
— promotion of European ideas, for instance via 
courses for teachers, youth leaders and others 
involved in youth work. 
2.2.4. The Committee considers that young people 
from third countries (EFTA, Maghreb, Central/Eastern 
Europe) should also be allowed to participate in Com­
munity exchange programmes. The main emphasis, 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1991. however, should be on proper organization of multilat­
eral exchanges within the Community. 
2.2.5. The Committee feels that post 1994, action 
should also be taken to promote exchanges of 11-15 
year olds. This would make it possible to involve very 
young school children in the programme. 
2.2.6. Organization at Community level must be as 
straightforward and transparent as possible. The 
Council and the Commission should be responsible for 
policy development and follow up. The establishment 
and running of the Community infrastructure, on the 
other hand, could well be contracted out to a pro­
fessional body. Policy implementation should remain 
the prerogative of the Member States, in accordance 
with the subsidiarity principle. 
2.2.7. It is recommended that steps be taken to facili­
tate exchanges with countries in other continents, in 
addition to those with the countries already covered by 
the current programe. 
3. Specific observations 
3.1. It is presumed that the Commission will, where 
appropriate, amend the draft Decision in the light of 
the above comments. The Committee therefore does 
not propose to comment on the individual articles. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN