Membership Structures and Fees Initial Discussion Paper

SC1402-05

Membership structures and fees Initial Discussion Paper

The present structure in terms of categories of membership and also membership fees has been in place since the NPLD network was established in 2007. Since then there have been many discussions around the issue of membership fees and these have been adjusted to reflect the current economic downturn. Also during this period NPLD has been in receipt of two periods of EU grant funding, the first from 2007-2010 and the second for the period 2013- 2015. As we look to the future of the network from 2016 onwards, both in terms of its membership and also in terms of its financial stability, now is a good time to revisit both the issues of internal structures and fees.

This paper is intended as a base for the initial discussion in 2014, in order to look and calculate ahead for the period from 2016 onwards. The final decision on this paper will be taken by the end of 2014 so as NPLD can safeguard it’s future.

Three major considerations need to come into play in these discussions if we wish to see the network further develop itself on a strong and stable foundation.

 Europe 2020 and other sources of European funding. The funding which has been available for networking for regional and minority languages is no longer an obvious feature with the new EU grant budgets for the period 2014-20. Although it’s stated that all the budget lines are open for all languages, the new programmes under Erasmus Plus for example are geared very specifically towards the university, schools and youth work sector. Therefore general funding to support the networking facility provided by NPLD is unlikely to be funded. If we wish to gain EU grant funding we will need to apply for specifically funded projects which are within the work areas/sectors listed above. These of course will be specific projects and will not release funding for more general networking.

 The second issue is the economic downturn which has had an affect on many of the members of NPLD, especially the governments of the countries in southern Europe. This economic situation is likely to continue for some time. Moreover, various regional governments are strictly confined to one-year budget calculations and prospects. Therefore find it difficult, if not impossible, to commit themselves to paying membership fees over a two to three year period.

When the NPLD network was initially established, it was calculated that it would cost at least 300,000€ to run a network such as the NPLD on a yearly basis. This has proved to be

1 SC1402-05 the case and that sum has most probably increased to around €350,000. To continue the work of NPLD after the end of the present grant period will be difficult. We consider, however, three possible ways to increase the budget of the NPLD: (1) The members increase their membership fees from the current reduced levels

(2) An other way of generating funding is agreed (3) Attracting new members

At present we have developing a two, level of payment of fees: full members and associate members. Some discontent is developing around the issue of difference between the actual fees of full members, and therefore there needs to be more clarity about what will be the membership fees in the future and how these can be stabilised in order to facilitate the longer term planning of the network’s activities and budgets.

 The third issue is the one of attracting new members. To attract new members we must have both an attractive list of activities and events and be able to show that we are a major player in terms of CRSS languages at an EU level. We have already started to change the nature of our meetings, with much more emphasis being placed on the sharing of experiences and knowledge and much less on issues around the actual running of the network. One of the ways that we could look at persuading a broader range of language communities to join would be to revise the current membership fee structure, which is, in principle, that all linguistic communities should pay the same fee. This obviously is rather difficult to sell to a new member when it’s stated that a member with 5 million speakers is require to pay the same as a community with 40,000 speakers and no formal institutions of their own to help them with their fees! Therefore it would be good to consider having differentiated levels of fees which would reflect the linguistic nature and democratic structures of individual communities.

The process and timetable This paper is intended as a base for an initial discussion on what could be a rather sensitive and difficult process. In terms of a timetable it is envisaged that this discussion should take place during 2014, with a final proposal being made by the SC meeting at the beginning of 2015, and then being proposed for ratification to the GA in 2015. This would lead us into 2016, which is the year after our present grant funding from the EU comes to an end.

This discussion will also need to consider carefully the nature of the work of the network in the future. If we wish NPLD to be mainly a lobbying mechanism at a European level then there is no doubt that membership fees will have to rise substantially as no EU grant funding

2 SC1402-05 will be available for this activity. The other avenue is to look for a mixture of activities which include advocacy work, the sharing of good practise and also some developmental work, and then it is possible to look for EU funding. But much of the new funding will be for project work in quite specific areas and themes. The main organisations which will receive funding from the EU in these contexts will be universities and to a lesser extent schools. There also will be some funding around the issue of policy development – again in the context of education and training. Therefore in our revision of the work of the network we will need to consider how we facilitate the development of these new projects or work streams within the network itself.

The following suggestions outline a way forward in terms of dealing with the new issues which will face NPLD over the coming months and years. What is proposed is a relatively simple diversification of the structures of NPLD and hopefully these first ideas will prompt a discussion which will lead to an agreement on the best possible structures for us to face the future.

Three levels of membership are proposed:

 Full Member

 Associate Member

 Project/work theme Member

Full Members Full members are the core members of the network; national, regional and local authorities . They have access to all the meetings and work streams of the network. There could be three levels of membership for Full Members based on the numbers of speakers (fluent speakers) within their communities.

 Less than 100,000 speakers Fee 10,000-15,000€

 Between 100,000 and 500,000 speakers Fee 20,000€

 More than 500,000 speakers Fee 25,000-30,000€

Members in financial difficulties may be able to request a reduced fee based on providing evidence. This reduced fee will be for an agreed limited period only.

Associate Member Associate Members will include non-governmental organisations, local governmental organisations, university departments, research centres, associations, clubs, youth organisations, small networks etc. working in the field of linguistic diversity.

Associate Members will be entitled to send one representative to the annual General Assembly of NPLD free of charge, which consists of travel costs and one night at a hotel or similar. Associate

3 SC1402-05 members will be represented at the Steering Committee of NPLD. (Currently 5 members are representing the associate members in the SC.) Associate members represented on the Steering Committee are required to inform other Associate Members of the activities and the decisions taken by the Steering Committee of NPLD.

Annual fee for Associate Members 1.000 €

Project & Work Theme Members The third level of membership will deal with members who are part of a project or work theme which has been agreed by NPLD. Erasmus Plus provides numerous opportunities for joint working on projects or work themes which in general are related to all aspects of education, training and youth work. Universities are very well placed to be included at this level of membership. Initially at this level of membership, NPLD will attract or invite members as project members.

Project members Project members are individuals from organisations who join NPLD through an invitation process and who are members for the period of the project. Projects will have a defined start and finish date and a specific task to accomplish. They will not be represented on the SC apart from the reports on their work produced by the secretariat.

Work Theme members

Work theme members are members of the network who have progressed through the process of being Project members and are now working on a strand of work which the members of NPLD consider important enough for it to be established as a permanent work stream. The Permanent work stream will be represented on the Steering Committee of the NPLD by the Chair of the work stream. Membership fees for the work stream will either be sum of 10,000€ or will form a sum agreed by the work stream as an investment in the work to be undertaken. This sum cannot be less than 10,000€.

4 SC1402-05

Comments Recieved on Membership and Fees Initail Discussion Paper

All comments noted below were recieved by 1st May 2014, from 5 members of the NPLD. Their comments are as follows;

Folktinget Folktinget thanks for the possibility to comment on the initial discussion paper. In general, we find it crucial to thoroughly assess the situation and plan for the years to come, regarding the future structures and working conditions of the network, as well as the funding of it, and thus safeguarding that the activities and the basis for the NPLD remain on solid grounds. The future funding opportunities from the EU programmes for our languages and for the network itself, indeed poses questions and concerns.

General comments, process and timetable The year 2016 onwards makes a good starting point, as the second of our 3-year projects (NB, the former project periods were 2008-10 and 2013-15) funded by the EU is coming to an end at the end of year 2015. We note however, that the funding for the network for 2016 seems to be enough for to continue with basic activities until the end of that year, as we will both be repaid the bank guarantee sum from Friesland, probably be able to raise membership fees at more or less the current level, and in addition have some remainders from the last years to fall back on. However, if we continue in 2016 with activities that are on the current level, we will have very little funding left for 2017. It is therefore wise and foreseeing to revise our structures and fees in good time.

Folktinget therefore agrees on the timetable being set up: to present the revision of structures and fees to the GA 2014 briefly and to agree on the timetable and process, then to give the SC time to thoroughly discuss and agree on a proposal to the GA during autumn. After that, the texts have to be finalized including necessary proposals for amendments to the Statutes and other documents at the latest by February 2015, in order for the SC to agree on the concrete proposals for the GA. The formal decision/ratification on any new structures (and fees to go along with these) including amendments to the Statutes, is to be done at the GA in summer 2015, and the new membership structures shall come into force from the beginning of year 2016.

On possible sources for funding We agree that the possibilities to receive funding for the networking of the NPLD (and for general purposes, to fund the network itself) seem to be bleak within the framework of the new EU programmes and funding instruments that have been presented.

5 SC1402-05

However, we wish to put forward a word of caution. Even if it is true that especially in the realm of Erasmus+ emphasis is (almost entirely) being put on universities, schools and the youth sector, and funding will be available for projects only in these very specific sectors, we should be very careful to “blindly” focus on these areas, just because we need funding.

We must not move too far away from the core activities and issues that are crucial for the NPLD, i.e. promoting linguistic diversity and engaging in language planning. Folktinget strongly believes that the network needs to continue to put its main focus on these areas, in order to maintain its raison-d’ètre as the only European network promoting linguistic diversity. We want to point out that projects with a very specific scope will engage and be beneficial only to those members who have a special interest in and themselves are able to work in that specific area (which in turn could lead to a frustration for other members, feeling being left out). In addition, as said in the paper, project funding does not necessarily bring any funding to the network itself, but only to the specific project (EU-funded projects often “eat” a lot of resources as well, in an administrative sense).

Therefore, if we seek project funding, the NPLD has to balance very carefully between different topics, keeping in mind our core issues. We have to seek for opportunities in all relevant EU programmes in order to keep a broader range of issues we engage in, and not only focus on for example the education or youth sectors via the Erasmus+. We thus have to analyze carefully also the structural fund possibilities and other possible options. (for example, we have information that FUEN has succeeded in getting Interreg funding for its project The House of Minorities in Flensburg, which is to include a Think Tank. All possibilities thus have to be examined.)

Maybe we should also look for possibilities to engage in more concrete cooperation with other networks or organizations, such as the FUEN? This could give us more “muscles” in certain fields – speaking in one voice, and in a lobbying capacity maybe? (FUEN will open an information office in Brussels). It does not necessarily mean that we would have to be part of a formal project that would require additional funding. We could maybe elaborate a way of functioning that would bring expertise and resources together but with a division of tasks, for a specific purpose/field? These are only initial ideas that could be developed further.

On the three possible ways to increase the budget of the NPLD, we wish to state the following: Firstly, we unfortunately don’t think it’s realistic that the (full) members would increase their membership fees drastically during the years to come. If the decreased European funding is a fact, so is the situation of the public funding of our members and activities at a national, regional and local level, due to the economic crisis. This will not change in the foreseeable future. The second way is indeed to generate any other ways (in plural!) of funding that can be found (see ideas above). And trying to attract new members is definitely worth while, even if the number of possible full members seems to be limited (partly due to the “division of power” between NPLD and FUEN).

Introducing a new category of members could, according to Folktinget, be helpful, but would bring more economic stability mainly as far as specific project work is concerned. We will try to further develop these thoughts below.

Comments on the proposed categories of membership Firstly a general comment: Folktinget does not agree on the notion that individuals could be members, in any of the categories. Even when we have a researcher, a professor or an expert

6 SC1402-05 engaging in a project, their background institution has to be the formal member, also bringing security and stability (economic, prestige and other) to the mutual cooperation.

On the three membership levels and accompanying fees proposed for the full members, Folktinget does (for its own part) agree with the categories and fees proposed in the paper. If however, the reduced fee option seems to become a rule rather than an exception for most full members when we come to 2016, maybe the categories should still be discussed further? We would like to stress the need for a list of all current members and to which proposed category they would fall into according to the numbers of speakers, to be provided at the meetings where we discuss the matter. This would make the proposal more concrete.

Another model that has already been discussed, would be a mix between slightly lower membership fees for the full members, in connection with “self-financing” regarding the costs of meetings (travel and accommodation). One proposal could be that members, both full and associate, would be paid by the NPLD for participating in only one meeting per year, the GA (this would remain the same as in the current system for the associate members– provided that their membership fees follow the level of average costs for one person coming to a meeting). The costs for participating in all other meetings would be covered by the members themselves.

Associate members: Folktinget agrees on this category being kept more or less as it is, including the fees, that should of course be checked towards the average costs of travel and accommodation for one meeting (as we have agreed before). That is why the fee in the paper is proposed to be 1.000 euros instead of the current 750 – we are speaking of a period starting from year 2016 onwards.

Proposal on third category, project members and/or work theme members: One question that is absolutely crucial, before deciding on introducing new categories of members, is the one about the believed added value for organizations, institutions, universities, research institutes and others, whom we would like to invite to become new project or work theme/stream members. How do we motivate them and what arguments do we use, what is their incentive to engage in cooperation and projects with the NPLD? And in addition, to pay for it? It is a fact, even before the new EU programmes came into force, that the research institutes, universities and the rest of the education sector are the ones that receive EU funding relatively easily, this sector also has the most developed networks throughout Europe and also internationally. So what can we offer them? This has to be stated very clearly and also evaluated thoroughly, before we take any further steps.

On the other hand, many educational institutions have quite substantial funds for research and development projects – which means that they can, and should in our view, contribute to mutual projects at least by paying a co-funding share. The NPLD cannot afford members or cooperation partners that wouldn’t contribute to our work also in a financial sense (other than helping to bring in EU funds). So in our view there are two prerequisites for bringing in new members/member categories: on one hand the proposed new members have to be motivated to cooperate with us and also prepared to pay a contribution for this, and on the other, the NPLD should benefit from this cooperation, both content-wise and economically. We need to ensure that both these prerequisites are met, before we make fundamental structural changes to our own network.

7 SC1402-05

On the proposed third category: Folktinget does not agree on the need to divide between project members and (more permanent) work theme/stream members. In fact, the project member category is not needed at all in the formal categorization of NPLD membership! Nowhere in our Statutes or other rules there is a wording that would forbid or restrain us from engaging in cooperation with a third party, even meaning being partners in a EU project. We can do that within our current structures and by agreement of our decision-making bodies (the SC, with ratification by the GA). We only need to present a project plan and a budget for this, and to make a contract with the partner/s concerned on practical matters like the division of both co- funding and responsibilities, before deciding formally to hand in an application. The EU has strict rules for the rest…

The work theme/stream question is more complex. We currently have a body that is not mentioned in the Statutes, the Think Tank. But as the TT is formed only by members already belonging to the network, as the TT rules and budgets have been agreed in the SC and the GA, and there is no additional membership fee involved, that is different. No additional category is needed for the TT, it is simply an internal structure (and can thus be compared with an internal project). A totally different question is, how the appearance of new work streams would affect the functioning of the TT itself – if for example one work stream would focus on migrant issues? Who would then decide what?

Bringing in a new membership category, from a sector that we haven’t worked with that closely before, wanting to set up a working pattern that differs from our normal procedures, and in addition wanting these new members to contribute financially – yes, this will indeed require the changing of our Statutes. But the view of Folktinget is to try to formulate a more general definition of the possibility of forming (ad hoc) work streams in the Statutes, rather than to have a heavy structure or to state that this membership form is (categorically) “permanent”. We however need to formulate some basic rules on this. For example, the decision about forming this kind of work stream would in our view fall on the GA (on proposal of the SC), who would also decide on the theme and duration of the work stream, and of yearly membership fees for new members in connection with this. Our view is that the work stream should be flexible and in that sense ad hoc/provisional, formed for a certain period of time (which can of course be prolonged – but there might be new needs and themes that come instead, after a certain period?). One has also to bear in mind, that the proposed partners will not necessarily even be eager to make an unlimited commitment - in that sense a 2-3 year period to start with could be quite functional? There should also be rules about on which conditions other (old) members can participate in the work stream, or maybe members should be agreed once and for all by the GA, following certain criteria? (there is a danger that most of our present members would wish to “sit in”, which could hamper the efficiency of such a work stream).

If we agree on this form of new work stream category, we could write quite general formulations to the Statutes (a few new paragraphs are needed). And then, as a first practical measure by the GA, decide that we want to form a work stream on the theme “Education and Youth” (as an example!), formulating the conditions of work, the general tasks, duration and the fees. In our view, the preparatory work and the planning before forming such a first work stream is crucial, and will most probably take time! We will have to be certain of the interest for such a work stream by external

8 SC1402-05 partners, and have to formulate certain basic rules beforehand. The level of the fee for external partners needs to be substantial (10.000 euros seems to be a good start concerning universities, but could be too much for other groups in the future?) – we simply must not change the whole structure of our network for much less! What also needs to be remembered, is that most work streams will engage in applying for EU project funding (thus, this membership category will actually be a combination of the proposed project and work stream members). If this is the case, the work stream membership fees should at least partly be used for the co-funding purposes of the specific project.

After forming a work stream, we would need to ensure that this form of membership category is working efficiently and without problem (for 2-3 years?), before deciding on the next step (which may be forming another work stream, or further developing our structures).

Question on the distinction between membership categories 2 and 3 One concrete question that Folktinget wishes to raise, speaking about membership categories (especially the associate membership in comparison with the new, third category), is the role of research institutes, universities and other educational bodies. That is, IF we were to introduce a third category that most probably (at least in the beginning) would focus on educational issues. How would this affect the bodies dealing with education that already ARE associate members of the network, in connection to this new category? In which category would they then belong? Because if we have different categories, it should be very clear where different applying members would fit in (the categories should be mutually exclusive). And it would not be appropriate to have double standards regarding “old” and “new” members belonging to the same field of expertise, being put into different positions within the network. This question needs further discussion and clarification.

Folktinget thanks again for the opportunity to comment on the initial paper and ideas presented to the Steering Committee. As we might be facing rather fundamental changes in our structures in the coming years, we hope that the network will engage in a thorough and constructive discussion about the best way forward.

Helsinki, 24 April 2014 Folktinget – The Swedish Assembly of Finland Markus Österlund, Peggy Heikkinen Secretary General International Coordinator

Ireland

It is clear from the paper that the NPLD has operated on the basis of a combination of membership fees and EU grant funding since its establishment in 2007. With EU grant funding due to end in 2015, this is an appropriate juncture to consider the future of the NPLD.

The NPLD currently operates as a network with the dual aim of raising awareness at a European level of linguistic diversity and facilitating the exchange of best practice among its members. Its future raison d'être needs to be considered in the context of its membership structure and fees. It appears from the paper that EU grant funding will not be available in future for networking/lobbying and that the focus will be on funding specific projects. While recognising the laudable aim of raising

9 SC1402-05 awareness of linguistic diversity at a European level, it is considered that more practical benefits can be reaped through facilitating the exchange of best practice among members.

The paper outlines 3 possible ways to increase the NPLD's budget through increasing membership fees, generating alternative sources of funding and attracting new members. In the context of ongoing budgetary pressures and concerns regarding the actual benefits of NPLD membership, increasing membership fees is not considered to be a viable option. The option of generating alternative sources of funding, presumably through applying for project funding from the EU, may be difficult to achieve in reality. While the third option of attracting new members is worth considering, NPLD experience to date has shown that this can be problematic.

The paper outlines a possible approach to a differentiated membership structure including full members, associate members and project/work theme members. The full membership structure proposes 3 levels of membership based on the number of fluent speakers in language communities. Full membership involves national, regional and local authorities. Even for bodies of this nature, annual membership fees ranging from €10,000 to €30,000 is a considerable investment which requires a clear justification in the form of outputs and outcomes resulting from it. Reducing the full membership fee to a more reasonable flat rate for all may be a more viable option.

The associate membership fee of €1,000 per annum covers a wide range of organisations, including non-governmental organisations. It may be difficult for organisations of this nature to justify or indeed afford taking out associate membership of the NPLD.

The third tier of membership for project/work theme members appears to be orientated towards universities or other unidentified members. An annual fee of €10,000 would appear to be ambitious to achieve, particularly if the benefits of NPLD membership are not entirely clear to potential members.

With EU grant funding due to end in 2015, the future viability of the NPLD is clearly in the balance. In this context, it is considered timely to undertake a root and branch review of the NPLD's modus operandi, membership structure and fees with a view to considering whether an alternative approach may be more realistic in the current economic climate. All options should be open to consideration as part of this review, including online meetings; members paying for their own travel and subsistence costs to attend face to face meetings, where such meetings are deemed necessary; and discontinuing the interpretation facilities currently provided at meetings. Notwithstanding the practical difficulties which these measures may cause, members may need to accept that face to face meetings may become the exception rather than the rule for the NPLD in future and that the lingua franca of the NPLD is of necessity English, in the context of ongoing budgetary constraints.

Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Ireland), 30 April 2014

Navarra

I have some questions about the document: the first one is on the date of decision. At the beginning of the document the date is the end of 2014. I’m afraid it will not be that one, because as it is

10 SC1402-05 indicated in the paragraph The process and timetable, the debate will take place during 2014, the SC will make a proposal at the beginning of 2015, to be submitted for ratification at the 2015 GA.

Erasmus Plus program is mentioned in the document, and it is also said that it will be more difficult to get grants, because universities, schools and youth sector will be most probably receiving these grants. In my opinion, there are other European programs that a network like NPLD could access. We should consider also this way. Perhaps we are not paying attention to other funding, because there is a special emphasis on turning the network into something educational, specifically focused on universities, which already have their specific networks.

The document also states that 350,000 € are needed for the NPLD to move forward. When considering three ways to increase the budget (increase in fees, new way to generate funds and recruiting new members) I would include a fourth: an issue we have already raised in several meetings: let’s start from the money we have (fees + European grant) and see what we can do with it.

The second paragraph, The process and timetable, should be part of the initial argument. My question is if in fact the only possibility of having new European funding is through universities. I think we should ask Vicent for advice on this matter, because he knows well the European grants and funding.

On the proposal of three types of members:

- Full Members: I do not think we could agree on paying our fees according to the number of speakers.

- Associate Members: I suppose most of them will refuse to pay more than they do now.

- Project & Work Theme Members:

This new kind of member requires further explanation. It would be any change on the structures of NPLD, statutes and internal rules?

Would this new proposal replace the job done in the Think Tank group?

Friesland

Full Members: Why not introduce a system based on either the levels of Gross National Product or related to the tax incomes of the countries/regions; some regions have their own tax incomes, whereas others are dependent on funds from the national governments.

PROJECT Members: Costs for work, travel and accommodation shall be covered by the own organsations.

11 SC1402-05

Brittany

As I have expressed before I don't think that a fee based on the number of speakers of a language is a fair basis. Occitan and Breton in France for example are languages which still enjoy a certain amount of speakers so to speak but the legal and financial support for those languages are certainly amongst the weakest in Europe, as are the same for the languages of Greece I'm afraid.

Fulup Jakez