Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Year of Youth 2022’ (COM(2021) 634 final — 2021/0328(COD))
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European cultural event, promotion of the European idea, young person, youth policy








C_2022152EN.01012201.xml










6.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/122






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Year of Youth 2022’
(COM(2021) 634 final — 2021/0328(COD))
(2022/C 152/20)






Rapporteur-general:



Michael MCLOUGHLIN











Referral


Council of the European Union, 21.10.2021
European Parliament, 21.10.2021




Legal basis


Articles 165(4) and 166(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted at plenary


8.12.2021




Plenary session No


565




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


201/0/1




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the declaration of 2022 as the European Year of Youth. The situating of the year in the context of the European Pillar on Social Rights and the post-pandemic recovery narrative is also most welcome.












1.2.


The EESC is ready to play a lead role in the European Year of Youth, building on successful EESC initiatives such as ‘Your Europe, Your Say!’ and the Youth Climate and Sustainability Roundtables. The EESC is uniquely positioned to facilitate engagement with youth networks.












1.3.


Clear indicators and policy goals need to be developed for the Year. These should focus on the impact on policies and cross-sectoral work beyond the activities organised.












1.4.


The EESC expresses concern that the agenda and priorities for the Year appear crowded and it considers that simple priorities might assist all stakeholders.












1.5.


If promotional activities are the main content of the Year, this should be clear in all communications, particularly with young people.












1.6.


The Year of Youth needs to contribute towards the EU Youth Strategy with clear plans and engagement, particularly in view of the youth strategy’s cross-sectoral dimension.












1.7.


The Year must ensure that harder-to-reach groups are included. If need be, group level and geographic indicators should be used to ensure this.












1.8.


In terms of budget, the EESC believes there is a need for more ambition. Given the critical situation young people in the EU are facing, there needs to be some resources beyond existing programmes for national youth councils and youth organisations.












1.9.


The EESC believes that a total allocation of EUR 10 000 000 with EUR 2 000 000 for coordination nationally, is required. The European Youth Forum and its members are also very important. These funds might be sub-granted via national youth councils.












1.10.


Local European Year alliances at Member State level would be welcome. The EESC can also play a role in this.












1.11.


Envisaged work on external relations and with the EEAS is also welcome for the Year and beyond. The relatively well-developed youth policies in Europe can play an important role in our neighbourhood and beyond.




2.   Summary of the proposal









2.1.


The EU Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, announced in the State of the Union address on 15 September that the Commission would propose that 2022 would be the European Year of Youth. Following reflections on the COVID-19 experience in Europe, the Commission president turned her attention to the year 2022 and the need to rebuild after the pandemic. She drew inspiration from young people’s involvement in climate activism and their emphasis on solidarity and determination to continue to strive to make the future better.












2.2.


The segment particularly relating to youth was set in the context of the social market and the European Pillar of Social Rights. The speech further referenced the new ALMA initiative from DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion, which is focused on young people not in employment, education or training. The speech also connected the proposal with the Conference on the Future of Europe:
‘And it is why we will make sure that young people can help lead the debate in the Conference on the Future of Europe. This is their future and this must be their Conference, too. And as we said when we took office, the Commission will be ready to follow up on what is agreed by the Conference’.
Ursula von der Leyen, State of the Union address, 15 September 2021












2.3.


The Commission published its proposal on 14 October. The proposal makes the objective of the Year ‘to boost the efforts of the Union, the Member States, regional and local authorities to honour, support and engage with youth in a post-pandemic perspective’. It further sets out three means to achieve this, incorporating ‘how the green and digital transitions offer a renewed perspective for the future and opportunities to counter the negative impact of the pandemic on young people and on society at large’, to engage all young people ‘to become active and engaged citizens as well as actors of change’ and ‘promoting opportunities for young people’ to ‘support their personal, social and professional development in a greener, more digital and more inclusive Union’.












2.4.


The proposal references a number of relevant policy areas and funding programmes that can support the European Year of Youth. These measures include: the reinforced Youth Guarantee; the Erasmus+ programme; the European Solidarity Corps; the Aim, Learn, Master, Achieve (ALMA) initiative; the European Youth Strategy; the European Youth Goals; the European Education Area; the European Climate Pact; the updated Digital Education Action Plan; the HealthyLifestyle4all initiative; the European Skills Agenda; the European Social Fund Plus; Creative Europe; Horizon Europe; the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme; the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund; the Justice Programme; the European Regional Development Fund; the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund; and the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development.












2.5.


It is envisaged that those funds that focus mainly on the area of youth, such as Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, will have a key role to play in supporting activities under the Year of Youth. These two funds will also be celebrating their 35th and 5th year anniversaries respectively. The Member States are requested to appoint a national coordinator responsible for organising their participation in the European Year of Youth, and the Commission will arrange for EU level coordination.












2.6.


Article 3 of the legislative proposal sets out seven possible types of activity envisaged for the Year, including conferences, events and initiatives promoting youth participation. These activities enable young people to reach policy-makers, gathering ideas using participatory methods, information, education and awareness-raising campaigns, creating a space for exchanges on turning challenges into opportunities in an entrepreneurial spirit, undertaking studies and research on the situation of youth in the EU, and promoting programmes, funding opportunities, projects, actions and networks of relevance to youth, including through social media and online communities.












2.7.


In October, DG EAC launched a survey on the European Year of Youth for young people. National coordinators have also been appointed.




3.   General comments









3.1.


The proposal correctly points out the huge impact that COVID-19 has had on young people, and this should be carefully noted. This is not to set one group against another, merely to ensure that people understand that the impacts on young people can be long-lasting and that decision-makers have a responsibility to address them.












3.2.


The proposal contains a very large number of commitments, references to other initiatives, budgets, and policy areas. In most respects, this is welcome. This also reflects the cross-sectoral nature of the policy area and the EU Youth Strategy. However, it is also important to have clarity and focus in the proposal. Sometimes less is more and there may be a fear that a long list of policy areas and shared responsibilities can obscure a clear focus on outcomes, responsibility, and results.












3.3.


It is clear from the proposal that the Year of Youth is primarily about promotional activities and events. It is important to be clear on this. While it may be envisaged that these will influence policy or highlight the opportunities for policy input, the proposal does not contain, in and of itself, any policy commitments.












3.4.


The proposal is clear that any major funding for initiatives will effectively come from existing sources and the Erasmus+ programme seems to be the main area of focus. Once more, if this is the case, it is important to be clear about it. Similarly, if national agencies for Erasmus+ are to prioritise activities relating to the Year of Youth, they will need clarity, support, and direction. The new youth participation initiatives in the Erasmus+ programme may be well suited to such activities, but, again, proper preparation and information will be needed for applicants in the Member States. Again, it must be clear in all promotional material and other activities that the Year of Youth largely involves existing resources. Such honesty is critical when working with young people.












3.5.


It would also be important to ensure that other funding lines from other DGs are fully available for relevant activities and that this is similarly publicised and highlighted by these budget holders. This is particularly apposite given the cross-sectoral nature of youth as an issue and the prominence given to this in the EU Youth Strategy. It would of course also provide more resources for activities, connect other policy areas, and reach out to new groups of young people and possibly those harder-to-reach groups.












3.6.


The coordination activity will be critically important for the success of the Year. There is a need for greater involvement of civic society here and a greater role for youth organisations nationally, locally and at European level. National youth councils and other major youth organisations should be equal partners in the National Coordinators Group involved in both co-creating and implementing the Year and should be supported in fulfilling this function. The role of the European Youth Forum should also be recognised as a key partner in the Stakeholder Group.












3.7.


The European Youth Strategy is the leading policy commitment by the EU in the field of youth. It too has a significant and welcome commitment to the cross-sectoral dimension of youth as a policy issue. This is critical to making progress on a whole range of policies for young people, such as employment, the environment, education and training. It is vital then that the Year of Youth closely relates to the EU Youth Strategy, particularly the cross-sectoral dimension of youth policy. The proposal does make this clear, but it will also be important that all sectors contribute and play their part when it comes to monitoring and oversight.












3.8.


Work must continue in all areas of youth policy and related cross-sectoral fields to ensure there is maximum engagement with the hardest to reach. This should be part the monitoring of the Year and there may be methods to prioritise certain groups or even disadvantaged areas to ensure there are sufficient activities drawn from these. Reference to the ALMA initiative is also welcome here, as is an emphasis on NEETs, although more information is still needed on this.












3.9.


The focus on activities and events must be connected to outcomes. For this to be the case, indicators will be required which go beyond the activities. If the outcome is for young people’s voices to be heard, this must be reflected in the indicators. As the concepts of ‘honour, support and engage’ are common in the proposal, they may well provide a good framework for indicators. The most important thing is that these go beyond just the output of activities and events and focus on the outcomes of these.












3.10.


Much of the prospects of the Year of Youth will depend on action at national level, but time has been extremely tight for national authorities. Similarly, funding will be an issue so late in the day, national authorities inevitably have busy agendas, and there are also considerable differentials in youth policies, as noted by DG EAC’s own work. All these factors will present challenges to the implementation of the Year.












3.11.


Overall, the EUR 8 000 000 budget set out in the proposal is very minimal. even if only for actions at the EU level. There must be some resources provided for national activities and/or coordination for the Year to have some impact and to incentivise maximum buy-in and participation. The EESC believes that a total allocation of EUR 10 000 000, with EUR 2 000 000 for coordination nationally, is required.




4.   Specific comments









4.1.


The proposal to designate 2022 the Year of Youth has been developed at breakneck speed. We do not believe this is the optimal way to develop such proposals, as welcome as they may be. The development of the European Solidarity Corps in 2016 was subject to a similar State of the Union announcement. This presents the danger of important youth-related initiatives becoming more about high-profile political announcements rather than long-term systematic development. Such a move could increase cynicism among young people. Similarly, the legislative process has suffered from this rushed approach.












4.2.


While an official document, some of the language in the proposal is rather convoluted and far from the type of plain English we would wish to see when dealing with young people or indeed the public more generally.












4.3.


The Commission must ensure the participation of young people and youth organisations at the Member State and sub-regional level, where appropriate, in monitoring and overseeing the Year. We know that youth policies are uneven and approaches to these questions still differ across Member States, so it is most important that the Commission ensures this.












4.4.


The provisions on the European Youth Goals are most welcome and provide very concrete areas based on youth participation. They also illustrate well the cross-sectoral nature of young people’s needs and aspirations.












4.5.


The provisions on digital issues are welcome, particularly as the popular notion of young people as digital natives is indeed rather simplistic. Particularly during COVID-19, it became apparent that such competences are not shared by all, and, in particular, young people accessing content through their phones is very different to the skills and competences needed for online learning. Many of these competences are not technological but social, and the EESC opinion on Blended Learning (1) cautioned against an overreliance on screen time and online activity. There is a solid tradition of outdoor pursuits and environmental activity among young people and in youth work, which must also be fostered and encouraged.












4.6.


The Youth Action Plan related to the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument and external action does indeed offer a valuable opportunity for youth engagement and is most welcome. The EESC awaits the proposal from Commissioner Urpilainen on this. It would be most important to ensure the strong involvement of civil society and youth organisations in such an action plan. The European model of youth work has a lot to commend itself to the world and should feature to a greater extent in our external relations.












4.7.


Mobility is always an important part of youth policy and has been central to the Erasmus+ programme. It is natural that it would be an important part of the Year of Youth proposal. However, we must always be conscious that mobility can sometimes be seen in a negative light by young people, particularly when it is involuntary or forced, as can still be the case in poorer regions or areas suffering from ‘brain drain’.












4.8.


The idea of action that ‘specifically aims at strengthening the voice of young people at the European level’ is of course most welcome, and all institutions need to further develop the voice of young people in their policy proposals. Again, this might work well as an overarching aim or objective of the European Year of Youth.












4.9.


The provisions on implementation, while positive, would benefit from clearer indicators, particularly relating to the impact on policy and programmes in the area beyond the Year and on the cross-sectoral aspects of provision.












4.10.


The provisions on the European Youth Work Agenda are positive and welcome, but they also add to the number of initiatives and policy priorities in the proposal, and in the legislative text in particular. Once more, there may be concern about overload, with so many policy areas and priorities, notwithstanding the need for cross-sectoral work.












4.11.


Article 3 of the legislative text provides a good summary of what is envisaged and once again makes it clear what the Year will be about. The financial statement sees the European Years as ‘awareness raising instruments’, once more highlighting this aspect.












4.12.


The financial tables appear to indicate that Erasmus+ is expected to be the most significant funder of any activities. The proposals also seem to envisage support at EU level for staff and resources for the delegations and contractors, but not for young people or youth organisations. It also seems unclear how much funding might eventually come from Erasmus+.




5.   Examining European Years more generally









5.1.


It is perhaps time that the Commission and other EU institutions examined the ‘Year of…’ concept. The proposal does refer to previous Years, such as the Year of Development and the Year of Citizenship. These seem to arise from time to time and it would seem advisable to have some coherence around their use and purpose.












5.2.


The Committee’s opinion on the European Year of Citizens (2) concluded that significant dialogue was needed with civil society in developing these Years and that a significant budget was required — more than was proposed. The EESC considered that the planning and implementation process should be as open as possible and should involve all interested players at all levels and all stages: the Committee of the Regions, the EESC itself, representatives of civil society organisations, including the social partners, and representatives of national and local administrative bodies, among others.












5.3.


The Committee also called for guarantees for transparent, effective coordination of the 2013 European Year at all levels and between all the stakeholders involved, particularly by making full use of the potential of the steering committees by setting up effective mechanisms for exchanging experience at national level.












5.4.


On the European Year of Development, the Committee said it was crucial to avoid spending money on cost-intensive campaigns run by public relations (PR) agencies, or else that such services should be reduced to an absolute minimum. The need for a decentralised approach was also emphasised. Task forces at national level, it was felt, should establish a national motto, slogan or invitation for the Year that best reflects the situation within the Member State. The work of the task forces and support for their work should be continued beyond the Year. Organised civil society should play the key role in the task forces (3).












5.5.


The Committee called for specific measures to be drawn up and implemented to ensure a link between the different thematic years and to ensure that the outcome of the events is enduring. The Committee also said it was necessary not only to carry out information campaigns, but also to undertake practical and concrete actions drawn up by decision-makers working together with society and to produce a follow-up report. The Committee supported the allocation of funds via the Commission’s representations in the Member States (4).





Brussels, 8 December 2021.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG




(1)  SOC/701: Blended learning (OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 128).

(2)  OJ C 181, 21.6.2012, p. 137.

(3)  OJ C 170, 5.6.2014, p. 98.

(4)  OJ C 181, 21.6.2012, p. 137.