Consultation Forum concerning the future action programme to promote active European Citizenship
(Brussels, 3-4 February 2005)
Thursday 3 February 2005 : Opening session -
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas Director General, Directorate General for Education and Culture, European Commission
It is my great pleasure to open this consultation about our activities for, and with, European citizens. In my professional life as Director General of the Directorate General for Education and Culture, I have noticed how important and difficult it is to carry out these activities. I am very grateful that so many of you have come to Brussels today to help us see how we can do more, how we can do things better and how we can innovate regarding the activities we have carried out so far, but which need to be renewed and given new life.
Today’s speakers are very illustrious: we not only have Commissioner Ján Figel’, who is responsible for Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism (and there are other things underlying those terms, such as youth and citizenship), we also have representatives of all of the European institutions – the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
Pascal Lamy will introduce the debate. He is President of Notre Europe and all of you know him as the former commissioner responsible for Trade. Our second speaker is Theodoor Adams, who is Director for International Policy in the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands. We will then have comments from organisations representing civil society – the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, the European Trade Union Confederation and the Platform of European Social NGOs.
Today, speakers represent the whole range of civil society, and I think the conditions have been met to allow this conference to be a success.
I would now like to give the floor to Mr Figel’.
Commissioner Ján Figel’ in charge of Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism
Distinguished Guests, Excellencies, Representatives of the many different parts of our European community, Ladies and Gentlemen, dear Friends, it is a pleasure for me to be here at this forum and at the town twinning exhibition.
1
The large portfolio described by the Director General (Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism) has a long name, but there is one link among all these terms – citizenship. I think it is a very important goal for all of us. In the past we have spoken of a business, environment and investment-friendly Europe; I think a citizen-friendly Europe is an encompassing notion which is very important for individuals, societies and international relations and which could see Europe as a place of partnership, friendship, stability and responsibility.
These fields of responsibility are very large. They need a lot of enthusiasm, but they also bring enthusiasm. They can communicate a Europe like few other actions and can help bring European institutions closer to the people.
Why is this becoming so prominent at this stage in our integration process? The present period in our history is marked by what looks like a paradox: European integration is a success story – there has been more than half a century of peace and prosperity, with greater mutual understanding and tolerance. It is an attractive space for many countries to join, especially those countries that have escaped from communism. However, we know Europe’s history and we should never forget it; last week’s commemoration of Auschwitz is a telling reminder of our obligations towards the past. Sixty years ago, Europe witnessed a surge of intolerance and disrespect that led to the mass extermination of those people who were perceived as different. And only ten years ago, mass graves were still being dug in the Balkans. European integration is a success; we should learn from history and prepare for a better future.
At the same time as we speak of an enlarged Union being more European, Europe has also become more complicated institutionally and geographically – the debate on Turkey’s membership clearly shows this. The everyday discussions about Europe and its future may obscure our impressive achievements. The low turnout at the parliamentary elections (including in some new Member States) seems to indicate that there is a gap between Europe and its citizens. Some call this an expression of euro-scepticism; others see something new – euro-apathy. Whatever the diagnosis, one thing is clear: we must inject new life into our vision of what Europe stands for, what its purpose is, and what the steps are that will lead us to our goal.
Yesterday in the European Parliament, President Barroso outlined what to do to revitalise the Lisbon strategy – more growth, more and better jobs, and more investment in education, research and innovation. In his words, we must make Europe a more attractive place to work and live in.
A week ago the Commission adopted a strategy for the coming years. The main message is summarised in three key priorities – prosperity, solidarity and security. If we act together we can make a difference, and there is no better way to rekindle interest in a united Europe. It is clear that these ambitions will require hard work at all levels – European, national, regional and local.
An essential ingredient in this recipe is credibility, and credibility can only exist when strategies and policies are communicated efficiently. The people have a right to know where government is leading them, and why. That is not enough, however. They should also be involved at all stages of decision making. Euro scepticism or
2 apathy shows that more must be done to communicate the European project, its ambitions and goals. This is now more necessary than ever after the enlargement from fifteen to twenty-five states and with new member states waiting to join the Union in the future. Enlargement means that our responsibilities to our neighbours and the world at large are growing and we must live up to their expectations.
Now, more than ever, we must offer a platform for a Europe-wide debate on European and international issues. We must promote the establishment of a truly European public opinion. President Barroso made a point that reconnecting with our citizens is one of the new Commission’s key tasks. Our Member States are of the same opinion. In last December’s meeting, European leaders stressed the importance of debate on our shared values and active citizenship in the Union.
Democratic participation and active involvement of citizens cannot be just slogans; they are essential principles on which the European Union depends for its future successes. I would go even further and say for its survival. In that respect, the upcoming round of ratifications of the new Constitutional Treaty will be a serious test case.
I have made these issues my own since the beginning of my mandate, when I announced that a programme for active citizenship would enter into force as of 2007. I intend to present the new programme to my fellow commissioners in April. This programme must be open to all citizens. It should not privilege any particular group, however defined. We must engage the largest possible number of citizens, from all regions and social backgrounds, in the debate about our European Union. I would like to see many more of our people thinking in European terms, expressing themselves on European questions, and claiming their stake in the European Union and its future. This is our own future.
We are not starting from scratch – our future programme on active citizenship can build on our earlier attempts to structure the Commission’s relations with civil society in the 1990s. These efforts were by no means unsuccessful, as illustrated by the thousands of projects that have been supported over time.
Early last year an action programme was adopted to give a more solid legal and budgetary basis to support a number of projects: twenty-one cross-industry trade union projects, seventy-two by non-governmental organisations, sixty-nine by European interest associations and federations, and direct funding for about thirty general European interest organisations was earmarked by the European Parliament. There were 455 twinning projects last year. This action programme was a step in the right direction because it gave more stability and security.
However, it is time to move on to the next level. We should now adapt our programme to the needs of our stakeholders in the European society in the context I described earlier. That is where we need you. A programme of this nature must be based upon the results of broad public consultation.
Many of you have already taken part in our online consultation. The number of replies was encouraging and we have already received some excellent views and suggestions. The great majority of respondents confirmed the need for a new
3 programme promoting active European citizenship. The idea that individuals and groups of citizens should be at the heart of our programme was largely supported. The programme should promote debate among citizens and local communities, particularly through town twinning and trans-national projects.
Most respondents also agreed on the need to support civil society organisations, such as trade unions, NGOs, think tanks and other associations. These bodies should take part in a permanent, open and interactive dialogue with the European institutions on issues of general European interest.
There is a consensus on continued support to the operating costs of some non-profit organisations which serve the general European interest and have the capacity to carry forward the European idea.
These are some preliminary results and, as you can see, there is already much encouragement and food for thought. The second stage of our dialogue starts today.
The proposal to hold this forum received a warm welcome – your participation confirms this interest. Let me thank you for your support. By coming here, you have already indicated that there is an important category of European citizens who want to be involved, who take Europe seriously and who are not affected by euro-apathy.
The task for the next two days is as simple as it is ambitious. Help us shape a coherent and global programme for the period 2007-2013. We are eager to listen to your insights, positions and debates. I warmly encourage you to air fresh ideas, put forward new forms of cooperation and envisage innovative actions.
Obviously, the new programme will not be cast in stone; its design should be flexible and ready to adapt to future circumstances. I am thinking of a mid-term review. This will allow us to adapt to new circumstances, such as the entry into force of the new Constitutional Treaty after its ratification.
Finally, I am pleased that the town twinning awards ceremony could be linked to this Forum for the first time. These two days are the perfect setting for an event that celebrates one of our most citizen-friendly actions.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to end these opening remarks by borrowing an insight from the Nexus conferences organised last year by the Dutch Presidency under the title Europe: a Beautiful Idea.
In many ways, the dream of a united and peaceful Europe has come true, yet questions about our essence and identity multiply. In spite of our many tangible achievements, the idea of Europe, like all ideas, is perishable. It must be protected and nurtured constantly by debate. If we stop asking ourselves what Europe stands for, what our essential values are, and what the meaning of Europe is, the beautiful idea will wither and die. It is our duty to promote this life-giving debate among politicians, social actors and Europe’s people. This is why we are here today. Thank you.
4
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for the ambitions you have outlined and the task you have described for us.
It is my pleasure now to introduce Mr Christian Frederick Braun, who represents the Luxembourg Presidency of the European Union and who has a very important task at this stage. He is presiding over a part of what we call Coreper, which is a college of ambassadors that prepare all Council decisions. In the first six months of this year the Commission will propose a programme, which will certainly go through the hands of Mr Braun and his colleagues, in preparation for a Council decision in cooperation with the European Parliament.
Mr Christian Frederick Braun representing the Luxembourg Presidency of the European Union
Commissioner, first of all I would like to thank you for inviting the Presidency of the Council to the opening of your forum today.
Active European citizenship is something we all want to see. The fact that we have all the institutions represented here is quite a clear indication of its importance. There are some stages in the history of Europe which must be referred to, such as economic and institutional developments, which bring in citizenship. Although we have never lost sight of the need to keep in touch with citizens, it has not been formally enshrined until recent times. A directive was adopted in 1996 concerning the movement of people in the category of retired persons, the unemployed and students, which is somewhat different from the production factors which have so far been put into law. This is a step forward from the Economic Community. The Maastricht Treaty gave its blessing to that movement, and now Europeans within the Union have the right to move freely from country to country and vote in the European Parliamentary elections. It is quite clear that the citizen is very important with all these institutions.
The status of European citizenship can be improved upon, though I think what has gone before over a fairly short period of time must be borne in mind. It is only by measuring what has been done that we can weigh up the challenge for the future.
There are people today who would like to talk about a legitimacy deficit. A lot can be done about European citizenship in the future and we want that deficit to be overcome. A number of new programmes have been devised involving young people and audio-visual ideas. I can assure you that the Luxembourg Presidency will do its level best in the next six months to make sure that all these programmes are given a boost so that European citizenship can be properly promoted.
Education for citizenship is something the Council has already highlighted. The Council of Europe is also making a great effort along these lines – 2005 is the year of European Citizenship through Education. One would like to see the city of Europe open and dynamic and do all we can in favour of young people. We think that young
5 people are probably the best messengers in this sense. I am sure the Parliament and the Commission are going to commit themselves fully to the programmes to promote citizenship.
Commissioner, you have invited us all to participate in this Consultation Forum. The best way we can start is by taking greater account of the citizens of Europe. The programme for European citizenship has marked up considerable progress in trying to bring citizens together via the different institutions. These are quite ambitious objectives, but I think the value is that it is all blessed, as it were, by the most recent versions of the Treaty in a transparent process involving civil society.
Using Community jargon, we can say that added value is very relevant in this debate. This is the kind of initiative that can disseminate the notion of Europe and make people feel involved.
The programme the Commission will present in the next few months is certainly in line with what has been done so far to promote European citizenship. It is a challenge, but it cannot be done overnight.
Finally, I would like to thank you, Commissioner, for your invitation and welcome and hope you have a very fruitful dialogue today. The Presidency of the Council will eagerly await proposals from the Commission. Thank you.
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you, Mr Braun. We know very well that the Luxembourg Presidency has an enormous challenge to face and we wish you all the best in trying to achieve your ambitions. Education, culture and youth programmes are already before the Council and the European Parliament and we hope that a decision will be taken on these programmes very soon. However, everything is linked to the current discussions on the future financing of the EU for 2007-2013, the so-called financial perspectives, and that is your major challenge.
I now introduce Ms Catherine Guy-Quint, a Member of the European Parliament in which she is a member of both the Budget Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on the financial perspectives. She has also been heavily involved in the political life of her region and town and has committed herself to promoting the involvement of young people and European citizens generally in Europe.
Ms Catherine Guy-Quint Member of the European Parliament
Commissioner, Members of the Council, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a great honour to be invited to come here and speak about the future of the programme to promote active European citizenship.
I think we are all very worried to see the surge in euro-scepticism that we have witnessed over the past years. We should not only be focusing on the financial
6 contributions which Europe can give our citizens – and that, unfortunately, is all too often what comes to the fore when we are discussing the future of the European Union between now and 2013 – this is not the only type of future we wish to see developing in Europe.
We fully share the European Commission’s position when it states that it wishes to ensure that a renewed Lisbon strategy can promote competitiveness and employment in Europe and assure a brilliant economic future for each and every one of our fellow citizens. However, we are also aware that any political structure or institution, however brilliant it may be in economic terms, will amount to nothing if it does not have the understanding and goodwill of its citizens. If its citizens do not feel they have a certain ownership of its projects, it will bear no fruit in the future. That is why the topic of citizenship in Europe is a key part of our future deliberations in all the European Parliamentary committees. It is also part and parcel of our current thinking regarding the financial perspectives of the Community.
The Budget Committee is all too often thought of as just the Union’s accountants. However, the Budget Committee tries to make choices which promote democracy and has been working to this end for a number of years now. We attach great importance to twinning schemes, which have enabled the citizens of European cities, towns and villages to meet each other, rather than just reading in the newspapers and seeing on television what is happening in other European countries. Twinning schemes have enabled people to meet and get to know each other better, and thus promote better mutual understanding. The fact that the Commission now requires new twinning links to focus on new concrete European projects can help us to refocus the current practice of twinning, and this vision should be further broadened in future. However, we can create and foster citizenship not just through twinning; this should be done through all of the policies created by the Union.
The enlarged internal market has created European, and perhaps economic, citizenship. We should, however, note that such economic citizenship works and leads to further progress in the European economic structure. Nevertheless, the larger market should not overshadow the other issues at stake – the fact that a great many citizens are excluded from the day to day practice of their rights – and that is why we would like to ensure that all levels of future development involve all levels of the European population as a whole.
With the resounding success of projects such as Erasmus, it is regrettable that these programmes are reserved for university students. The European Parliament has stated that it wishes to see the future development of Erasmus to ensure that young people at technical training colleges or in apprenticeship schemes can be given an opportunity to undertake a part of their study course in other European Union countries, thus enabling them to learn more about different cultures. We therefore hope that what Erasmus has done for universities can be brought in to include all young people whatever training scheme they follow.
In addition, through bodies based in Brussels, such as the Committee of the Regions and the European Trade Union Confederation, we would like to ensure that these meetings lead on to other types of meetings and events. This would ensure that what is discussed feeds out to the grassroots. For European citizenship to actually
7 work, people of all age groups should be involved and work together to push the European project forward.
The Union’s new requirements regarding the quality of projects should also go hand in hand with a requirement for European citizens to pool their thoughts and ideas on fostering European projects during these meetings. European citizens should be able to work on promoting European projects, ensuring that these deliberations filter from the grassroots all the way up to the decision makers.
This is new to Europe. All too often the people at the top of the tree have overlooked the deliberations and aspirations of the citizens. I think there is a real problem with communication here. The European press seems to have some difficulty in putting across the real message of what is being achieved in Europe, and the media are unable to pass on the expectations, aspirations and feelings of the people of Europe about the decisions taken here in Brussels. We must come up with the appropriate means for promoting good communication, and we need the appropriate mechanisms to ensure that we can foster joint actions.
The goal is to have joint actions run by the grassroots population in Europe. We could, for example, have three cities in three different countries working together to foster a prize for young readers in their primary schools. Young people in these towns and cities in different countries could read the same books in different languages to help them gain an awareness of their common culture.
Towns and cities working together to provide aid and assistance to countries suffering from natural catastrophes, as happened recently in Asia, would help create European citizenship between citizens from different countries who would all like to broadcast the message of solidarity throughout the world.
I think this represents a plus over and above what we have done to date. However, the difficulty is that such activities should not focus exclusively on exceptional events and circumstances. We have to ensure that this is a sustained action. That is why we have to gain a better understanding of what is needed by the citizens who are in charge of running such activities. We must renew and breathe new vigour into the methods we use. I think that now, in the era of telecommunications and electronic methods of communication, the methods we employ for cooperating on projects should be truly modern.
The Young People’s Parliament in France has requested that each primary school should be twinned with another primary school from another country in the European Union. I think these French schoolchildren have had an excellent idea. We here in Europe should produce the necessary means, including financial means, to ensure that what they are suggesting can echo throughout all of the other Member States. Very often it is just a question of political will, which can be passed on by those who wish to become involved and help. Who better than the European institutions to assist in the creation of these new projects?
You may think that this is all very well in theory, but it is possible for us to come up with the procedures. At the same time, we must ensure that these procedures can be both reliable and sustainable. The new Commission proposal will allow us
8 sufficient sustainability to ensure that these new actions to promote meetings can be guaranteed for a period of seven years. We also have to ensure that red tape is kept to a minimum. We should not tire our citizens by asking them to fill in complex dossiers, because that will not tally with the expectation of the people working on the ground, who are very often working on a voluntary basis.
We must bring back trust. We have very complicated financial regulations which we would like to see simplified. We also have to try to ensure that European projects are put in the hands of those who would like to see real progress being made in developing the day to day lives of the European people. That is why we would like to increase the requirement for the quality of European democracy. That is the only way we can hope to advance towards a Europe where not only will we share economic welfare and wellbeing, but where we will see the whole European economy making progress in competitiveness and prosperity.
We should look at the everyday lives of our citizens, while respecting our specific cultures and promoting a deep-seated understanding of what has constituted the values of each European people. That way we can gradually move towards creating a European identity. This European identity will not only exist on paper, it will also exist in practice in the twenty-seven countries which will make up the European Union and those which will join us in the future. It will ensure that on a daily basis in all of the villages, towns and cities of Europe, people will live in the daily reality of their own towns and countries, but will also realise that they are European citizens. They will then give hope and expectation to coming generations.
We can ensure that the means are put at your disposal. It is up to you to create these new projects and actions. It is up to us to listen to you and ensure that your projects can be relayed throughout Europe.
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you. I now have absolute trust in the Budget Committee and you will be able to put forward the ideas which will be discussed here today.
Regarding European bureaucracy, we entirely agree with you. It is absolutely necessary to simplify things to make it easier to promote projects – and to make our own lives easier. We must find a balance between financial controls (we have to make sure that European money is spent properly) and the atmosphere we should create in order to allow a project to be submitted to the Commission and dealt with quickly. We really do have to overcome that barrier, as you have said. So thank you very much for those encouraging words – we are relying on you.
I now have the pleasure and great honour of giving the floor to the President of the European Economic and Social Committee, Ms Sigmund. The Committee is extremely important because it represents civil society as a whole. In the Economic and Social Committee, Ms Sigmund in particular has shown support for civil society, and I am told she has considerable gifts for communication. She played a particularly important role in the accession of Austria. She is very skilled in getting
9 the idea of Europe across, and if she can do that today as well, then I will be very grateful.
Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund President of the European Economic and Social Committee
Thank you very much, Director. Commissioner Figel’, Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends, I think the European Commission’s action programme to promote active European citizenship is a cornerstone in our common efforts to involve citizens more in the European work of construction. It is a particular pleasure for me to be at this forum today.
I am not only going to talk about the position of the European Economic and Social Committee, I am also going to talk about personal views about what I think should be in the European programme for the next year and a half.
Perhaps I could quote Jeremy Rifkin, who wrote a book about the European Dream. In a recent interview for a German Newspaper, he said that there is much multicultural diversity in Europe. There are many different layers of identity in Europe: many Europeans identify themselves with the region they come from and with their country, others feel themselves to be Europeans and world citizens. Americans, on the other hand, are fixated on the United States. Rifkin is particularly right when he talks about the cultural diversity of Europe. He highlights that, and also refers to the multilayered idea of citizenship of Europe’s citizens. I think European citizens are becoming increasingly aware that cultural diversity is not something which divides us, but which brings us together. This diversity is a source of enrichment, innovation and inspiration. Europe has always been a special area of cultural competition. We have to break down barriers – and we have done that. We must continue exchanging with one another and learning from each another. Our culture is a result of our past, it dominates our present and influences our future. It is therefore particularly important in terms of a social dimension.
We are now on the edge of a quantum leap: we want an integrated political project. The European Union is giving itself a constitution in the future to do this. All citizens in Europe will have to make a sovereign decision about this unheard of step into the future, and we all have to work together to make sure it happens. However, all of us, particularly the European institutions, must recognise that European citizens are not just objects of European policy but are, and have to be, the subjects of European policy. They must be able to draft it themselves – that is the point of European citizenship. Only if we adopt that approach can we have participatory democracy.
That also means that efficient procedures must be put in place to allow active European citizenship. Article 1:47 of the Treaty on participatory democracy must be implemented in order to take account of these needs for democracy in the future. We must listen to our citizens and consult them. That is not enough, however. Those consultation processes need to be supplemented by active participation in the decision-making process. These should be ways of determining the needs of our citizens, with them having a say in policies and implementing projects.
10 We have to develop a European culture which is sufficiently transparent for our citizens and provides them with enough information, and which also gives them enough of a possibility to participate. In this way, we will create European public opinion and increase inspection and control of European projects.
The Economic and Social Committee will make its contribution here too. The Committee will play a role as an institution forming a bridge between the bodies of the European Union and civil society. We are particularly aware of our responsibility and of your expectations in trying to promote active European citizenship. We also know the reservations people have about us. I want to make full use of the opportunities open to the Committee and I want to improve on what we are already doing. We must have new forms of cooperation and coalition through our European network.
Last year we introduced a liaison group with European citizens, which started work in autumn 2004. It meets every two months in the Committee and is currently co- chaired by myself and Giampiero Alhadeff of the European NGO Solidar. The basic principle of this new form of cooperation between different parts of civil society in Europe is that we have to deal with specific issues with a common commitment. That pragmatic approach could form a basis for the creation of in-depth cooperation between networks in Europe. Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example. I said that the European Economic and Social Committee is an institutional bridge between the EU and civil society in Europe. We have to make it clear that there cannot be just one bridge between the two; there has to be a complex system. We need lots of big and small bridges to overcome barriers, because we need to have a complex operating network in order to ensure rapid feedback of ideas and measures – otherwise we will not be able to achieve our aim.
Considerable funds are necessary, so there needs to be appropriate funding of civil society. As far as I am concerned, this is part of our common need and common good. It is in Europe’s interest and will allow citizens to play a responsible role in their European society. Public bodies must assume their responsibilities and provide sufficient funds for investment.
To sum up, I think the European Economic and Social Committee is the right body to take the Commission’s action programme to promote active citizenship forward. We will look at this programme critically and constructively, and I am sure we can find proper methods for making sure it is implemented properly.
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you very much, and may I say how much we are looking forward to our future cooperation with you. It will represent the continuation of the very fruitful work we have enjoyed together with your institution in the past.
It is now my pleasure to introduce Ms du Granrut, who is representing the President of the Committee of the Regions.
11 Ms Claude du Granrut representing the President of the Committee of the Regions
I would like to greet the Commissioner, the speakers and all of you as friends and as people actively involved in European citizenship, belonging to Europe.
I would like to thank you for inviting the Committee of the Regions to this forum for another reason. It is a fine initiative because it encourages all citizens to take up their responsibility and promote European citizenship. President Straub is very sorry he cannot be here today as the Committee of the Regions feels very close to this very important theme of European citizenship.
We will soon be drafting an opinion on the fourth Commission Report on citizenship in Europe, which will set up the Agency for Fundamental Rights. The conclusions of this forum will enrich the life of the Committee of the Regions. I would like you to think of this when you present the conclusions of this forum, because they will most certainly be included in our April report.
The Committee of the Regions is very pleased to have been consulted about the Commission Report because it feels identified as a link between the European institutions and the citizens. Each time the Committee of the Regions is consulted, we try to put ourselves in the position of those who are going to be affected. That is the context in which we present our opinions. It gives a specific weight to our opinion and makes them often taken into account by the Commission. If no account is taken of our views, under the new Constitution we can complain and even go to court, but I hope that will not happen. I would simply like to say that when legislation is being debated, we are entitled to have our voice heard by the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament.
My point is that the Committee of the Regions is very much geared to the notion of the European citizen. This is because all our members detain a responsibility in Europe as local elected representatives. We also cultivate links with the Associative world because our own tasks meet and complement the associative demands carried out throughout Europe.
The Committee of the Regions is delighted that progress is being made with respect to the notion of active European citizenship and it will be making many proposals in that sense.
When a citizen votes for its local representative that citizen delegates a part of his or her powers. This power is delegated to the local authorities and on up to the national level, but it is the individual citizen who is at the grassroots. This movement from the citizen up to the top creates a chain, and local representatives have a key part to play in this process because they are part of that chain. If citizens’ views, needs and expectations are not catered for, there is no point in moving higher up the chain to the national or European level.
Now European citizenship is inscribed and more officially recognised by the Constitution. Like many others, the Committee of the Regions insisted on the need for active participatory democracy in the draft of the Constitution. Once again, it
12 means that the citizen is seen as having a right to participate in making Europe’s laws - the Constitution states that. It gives the right to petition, it renews voting rights for all European citizens wherever they are (for the European Parliament and for local bodies), and we will propose rights for regional voting as well.
I would also like to say that European citizenship is a form of added value for local networks, because it enables citizens to have a much clearer vision of their responsibilities and what they can do. That is why local elected representatives should tell people that the Constitution gives them some powers they did not have before, and that we will do anything to help them to get their views across. I will give you a few examples of what I mean.
A lot has been said about structural funds. Structural funds will continue to play their part, and those funds are rooted in regional actions. That is important because it is one of the things that have enabled the grassroots citizens to realise that the Union can do something for them. Almost every city or region in Europe has benefited from these funds. It provides tremendous added value to their projects and I hope it will continue.
Twinning activities are one form of the cross-border programmes that the regions are setting up, with the contribution of the European Union. I think it is now time for this to become a much more active idea and a potential for a more active citizenship. You are all indispensable links in that chain of solidarity.
The Committee of the Regions often says that its members are one of the links between the citizens and the Union and that they facilitate communication. I was given an opportunity to take part in an inter-institutional group concerning communication, particularly with respect to the Constitution. That group realised that it could be better done by local associations because they are closer to the local citizens. I would add that in this perspective you have a role to play because you know what the Union can bring to the citizens and you know what we are hoping for.
I have been looking at the exhibition and it is quite clear that twinning involves very high quality projects that can be very efficient. People suddenly become aware that they are not just French citizens in a given region, but that they provide, with other citizens, a tremendous democratic potential throughout Europe. It makes them believe that they all belong to the European Union, participate in its own values and that they can be proud of that.
By way of conclusion, let me say that as far as the Union is concerned, citizenship is both the end and the means. If we do not manage to make people feel that they belong to Europe, the European Union will simply not keep going, it will not be able to fulfil the potential we have seen develop over the last fifty years. Now it exists, a political Union in which the citizen is part of the process, but you have got to help it. The Committee of the Regions and all the other institutions need this help; they need to ensure links with the citizens who are proud to be in Europe, otherwise Europe will not to be able to realise its potential in today’s world.
I think that the European Union is making it possible for that citizenship to be created. I also think that Europe can stand as a symbol for democracy and the participation of
13 very active citizens. This is perhaps a way in which we can set an example, rather than calling the tune.
Let me conclude by saying that it is up to you to put some life into the notion of citizenship at your level, as we do at ours. You can be sure that the Committee of the Regions will be very happy to listen to your messages and pass them on. We are all in the same European boat and I know that you feel proud to take up the challenge to bring to the citizens what they are hoping for.
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you very much indeed for reminding us of the very important role played by the Committee of the Regions. I would also like to thank you for offering to cooperate with us in this very important undertaking and for stressing how important citizenship is for the future of Europe. I think this echoes the Commissioner’s sentiments when he pointed out that the people of Europe are an essential part of its future, and perhaps even for its survival.
It is now a great pleasure to introduce Mr Pascal Lamy. He was the head of Jacques Delors’ Cabinet and then Commissioner for Trade, in which capacity he played a widely recognised role of great importance. He is with us today as President of Notre Europe, a research body created by President Delors. I had the privilege of working with him when he was head of Mr Delors’ Cabinet and what always impressed me then, and continued to impress me throughout his career, was his phenomenal ability to be both a man of reflection and a man of action. This was seen in the way he met the various challenges that confronted him during his career.
It is with that very exciting career in mind that I would like to introduce Pascal Lamy.
Mr Pascal Lamy President of Notre Europe and former Commissioner
Thank you for asking me to speak at this forum in this huge amphitheatre which reminds me of many past discussions I have held with members of civil society.
I am here in my capacity as President of Notre Europe, which is a think tank set up by Jacques Delors in 1996. Notre Europe has become one of the main centres of reference regarding European integration. It is run by a small team of researchers who concentrate on building Europe very much along the lines imagined by Jacques Delors. I am not here to present the ideas of Notre Europe, but rather to speak to you as a representative who would like to put a number of new ideas to you on how I think we can best make use of the new proposed programme.
My point of departure is a fairly simple one. I think the reality of the picture is a lot less rosy than the fine words I have heard here this morning. Europe is suffering from a very serious problem with its citizens, and the problem is not ready to disappear either. It is not as simple as what is commonly termed as the democratic deficit – I think it is nonsense to speak about a democratic deficit because we do
14 have our institutions in place – but it is, I fear, a basic problem which is a reality of our life today. Most of our fellow citizens in Europe do not feel they belong to Europe in the same way that they feel they belong to their towns, regions or countries. They do not feel they are European citizens. The problem is not rooted in Europe’s institutions or procedures. The only way we can resolve the question is to change people’s mindset.
Citizenship is a feeling of belonging and participation – you need to belong and participate to be a citizen. If we can try to make people feel more as though they belong, then, as time goes on, I think there will be a growing sense of the need to participate.
That is why I think you have to concentrate first on the fact that Europe will remain remote and distant for most of our citizens. Citizenship is exponentially related to the distance from the seat of power. By definition, it will always be further from our people than other seats of power – whatever improvements we make. I therefore fear that we are going to have to continue working under this tremendous burden. If we do wish to make any progress, then we will have to keep trying to shift this rock of Sisyphus, which will just keep rolling back down the hill. So that is the bad news.
There is some good news, however, and that is the growing realisation of the importance of civil society in people’s lives today. Civil society was of course active from the beginning of the construction of Europe. The Action Committee, and other initiatives which were important for getting Europe off the ground, served to demonstrate that in the past, even when there was a certain feeling of rejection of Europe on the part of some political parties, Europe was borne forward on the shoulders of what used to be called NGOs, and what today are more commonly called civil societies.
These various non-governmental bodies and elements of civil society are becoming increasingly important. The reason for this is that, unfortunately, our citizens are becoming ever more distrustful of the traditional political structures. If you look at opinion polls, you can see quite clearly that whatever media you look at – television or press – there is less and less public trust in these sources of information. At the same time there is an increase in trust of non-governmental bodies. From our point of view, this is not necessarily always to be seen as a bad thing. On the contrary, for structural reasons there is a growing trend for these organisations to occupy centre stage in our modern societies.
In the case of think tanks, for example, Notre Europe presented a study last year providing an overview of think tanks that devote at least part of their activities to the European Union. In this overview, we saw that the number of these bodies had mushroomed, although on average they remain moderate sized bodies. Not only that, we saw that their views are increasingly being sought by citizens themselves, who very often tend to turn more to a centre with a certain aura of independence because, in the citizens’ minds, other bodies are biased – and I am referring here to companies, political parties or institutions. So that, I think, is a positive development and is of fundamental importance. Think tanks build an important bridge between the world of academia, which is often distant and abstract and the world of politics, which needs to take a few steps back to see things in perspective.
15
I would like to conclude this contribution by making a number of recommendations. Firstly, I think the Commission must invest in civil society – in think tanks and programmes such as twinning schemes, which I think have proved their worth in the past. We must therefore ensure investment in the participatory society, which has a contribution to make to the construction of Europe, but we should not to try to imbue any such construction with a particular political slant. We must try and maintain biodiversity in our society, a sort of “ideodiversity” in all areas, including European topics. We have to realise that the European institutions in particular are open to the criticism that they have a one-sided approach. Very often, despite the fact that we are achieving a tremendous amount, we seem to be accused of moving in only one direction and putting a certain amount of pressure on our citizens to change their thinking. That is why it would be a good policy choice to invest in maintaining “ideodiversity”. The more discussion there is on European questions, the more successful the construction of Europe will be in the future.
Secondly, please let us try not to make things over-complicated. Very often our structures and resources are limited and if we absorb all of our resources in the tasks we have to undertake to ensure the maintenance of good relations, then we are more or less going to be chasing our own tails. Over the past few years, however, I think it has become clear that this type of self-serving part of our tasks has increased. I do realise how difficult this is as I am familiar with the Commission’s financial regulations. I know what the Court of Auditors and the Parliament’s Budget Committee do, but I think if we concentrate very hard we can come up with intelligent and simple solutions.
Thirdly, we should also endeavour to broaden our vision. Of course, we are going to have to talk about money at some point, even though such subjects are unpleasant. The orders of magnitude which are being mooted at the moment – about 20 to 30 million euro per annum – would represent the budget of one single American think tank of average quality. Their budget would correspond to the budget of all the various activities we are discussing together today. So I think that we have to keep a sense of proportion and look at things in context, and I certainly hope we can make a contribution on that basis.
Fourthly, this greater ambition goes hand in hand with a greater need for evaluation. You represent the European taxpayer, you are entitled to ask for objectives to be set and for an assessment of how these objectives are being met. Public money is always more valuable than private money and that is why it has to be subjected to specific procedures. The correct way to do this is by evaluation, but you can only evaluate if certain prior objectives have been set. Once we have reached agreement on objectives, then a major step forward has been taken.
The fifth recommendation is that we should focus on networking, which represents true added value. We should try to pool our resources and do more work together, bringing together various project leaders across borders. Cross-border cooperation does not necessarily always lead to added value, but experience has shown that it very often does work because it stimulates new ideas. I think this is an intelligent way of going about things and also stimulates ideas.
16 My last recommendation is that I think we must give greater emphasis to our new Member States. There is a paradox here that we have not yet been able to measure fully. The Berlin Wall came down under the influence of civil society in the countries on the other side of it. However, over the last decades we have seen the growth of a civil society which is perhaps poorer than elsewhere in Europe. There could be many explanations for this but whatever they are, there is a huge imbalance between the level of activity of civil society and independent bodies, such as think tanks, between the ‘old’ Member States and the ‘new’ Member States. I think we should correct this imbalance, and research centres such as Notre Europe are endeavouring to do so.
Those, then, are my thoughts in my capacity as a user, and to avoid generalities, I thought it was useful to make these recommendations to your debate today.
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you for those comments. In a few words you have put forward a very extensive work programme. Looking around the room, I think you have struck a chord with your recommendations and I think they will leave their trace both during and following this afternoon’s work in the workshops.
I am now going to give the floor to Mr Theodoor Adams, who is responsible for International Policy in the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. He is representing the Minister, Ms van der Hoeven.
We are very pleased that Mr Adams has come here today because the Dutch Presidency in the second half of last year invested a lot in European values and citizenship. That was clearly against the tide because when the Dutch Prime Minister launched the debate, there were various cynical smiles from those who doubted whether it was an important enough issue to be dealt with at a high political level. However, the outcome of the various workshops which were held – particularly the Conference the Commissioner referred to, Europe: a Beautiful Idea – showed that this is an extremely important issue which was worth looking at. As Pascal Lamy has stressed, this is not something we are doing simply today in order to get results at a certain point in the future; it is something which has to be worked on every single day, and that work will never come to a stop. So the contribution of the Dutch Presidency last year was extremely welcome and useful.
I now give the floor to Mr Adams with pleasure.
Mr Theodoor Adams Director for International Policy, on behalf of Ms van der Hoeven, Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science
Ladies and Gentlemen, on behalf of the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science, let me express our gratitude for the invitation to this forum. Minister van der Hoeven has asked me to represent her today and to inform you briefly of the outcome of the debate held during the Dutch Presidency on citizenship education in
17 Europe. I would also like to make a connection to the debate on European civic values, which also took place during our Presidency.
I am aware that most of you represent a wide range of sectors from civil society – NGOs, local communities and the like. At the same time, it is important to realise that I represent an Education Minister and thus, in a sense, the education sector. This very fact may be considered as proof that the debate on citizenship education is widening its scope and still gaining momentum as a valuable, even necessary, element in the broader debate about citizenship in Europe and European citizenship.
Let me very briefly go into this a little more to clarify the institutional background of this specific element, and then speak about citizenship education.
At the Council of Education, Culture and Youth in November last year, the EU Education Ministers reported last December to the European Council that, and I quote, “All Member States share the view that education should equip the present and next generations with the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to become active citizens, including at European level.” The European Council adopted the Education Ministers’ report and the Council requested that the Commission take the report’s proposals into consideration when devising the new action programme on European citizenship. This request by the Heads of Government provides us today with the legitimisation to discuss the possibilities of enhancing citizenship through cooperation between citizens, NGOs, local authorities and schools. My objective is to give input for this discussion and some concrete suggestions as to how the EU, through its programme for active citizenship, can strengthen this cooperation.
My introduction is in three parts. I will say a few words first about why citizenship education was one of our Presidency’s top priorities. I will then sum up the main results for last year, especially at the European Union level. Then I will give a few suggestions for the action programme that is the subject of this forum.
The Netherlands became increasingly interested in the public debate on civic values as a result of social and political developments within our country in recent years. Minister van der Hoeven adopted citizenship education as a major topic for her policies following a Dutch Education Council study published in December 2002. Our Minister presented the theme to our European colleagues on several occasions, thus preparing for the debate during the Presidency. In doing this, she responded to a Greek initiative on the cultural role of education, and to the 2003 Spring Council’s invitation to investigate ways of promoting this cultural role. Meanwhile, the Dutch Prime Minister sponsored a Presidency debate on Europe: a Beautiful Idea, which resulted in, among other things, the conclusion that education is of vital importance for transferring values that stimulate active citizenship among Europeans.
Characteristic of the way citizen education has been put on education ministers’ agenda is the title of the study commissioned to prepare the debate: Living Together Starts at School.
Major changes in our societies – the effects of developments like globalisation, individualisation, and migration within and from outside Europe – have made social cohesion less obvious. Existing social networks become weaker as new ones are
18 required. The Netherlands, of course, do not stand alone in this respect. Everywhere in Europe, social cohesion is increasingly threatened, which makes it all the more necessary to promote active citizenship as an important part of the remedy.
The conclusion of the Education Ministers’ debate was that there is enough evidence from experience, and from science, that citizenship education is a strong means for building trust and social cohesion among people. It is important to realise that active citizenship can and must be defined, experienced and thought about on various levels – school, neighbourhood, city, region, at national level, at European and even global level. Today we address primarily the European level, without neglecting the other levels, however. They are like concentric circles with the individual at a common centre.
A European programme on active citizenship should address cooperative aspects of citizenship (that means transferring knowledge) as well as attitudes and behaviour – actually being an active citizen. Young people particularly need the possibility of putting what they have learned into practice.
The debate during our Presidency resulted in a report to the European Council that consisted of two main parts: a reflection on the concept of citizenship education in the European context, and some concrete actions to support Member States in shaping their national policies in citizenship education. The report primarily addresses the European level and aims at achieving concrete effects on pupils, teachers and schools.
Citizenship in Europe finds a strong basis in the values that have been formulated in the Treaty for the European Constitution: respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including minority rights.
I would like to mention some concrete actions that both the Council of Education Ministers and the Council of Leaders of Government agreed upon at national level. Ministers will encourage educational institutions to seek active cooperation with parents, teachers and school leaders, and other stakeholders on a national and European level. Ministers will encourage, in their own education systems and among education systems, comparison and exchange of experience on citizenship education, inside and outside their curriculum, by stimulating the forming of networks, for instance, and using organisations already active in this field as contact points. Possible fields of action, information exchange and cooperation could include cultural education, art and heritage, intercultural education, education through sport, and integration of migrants, as well as worldwide cultural exchange, including the use of new media and technical innovation.
Ministers stressed the importance of involving social partners and other stakeholders – local, regional, national and European – in partnerships with the education communities. During our Presidency, Minister van der Hoeven invited the Brussels representatives of employers and trade unions to discuss the new EU education programme. Such debate can, and should, be extended to other levels – national and regional. This is where the programme for active citizenship comes in. You, as stakeholders from civil society, can include a citizenship dimension in your proposals.
19 The European Year of Citizenship through Education in 2005 – a Council of Europe initiative – will provide ample opportunity for putting citizenship education in the spotlight again.
I promised you some suggestions for cooperation between players in the action programme for active citizenship and players in the education sector. At all levels, the relevant stakeholders – schools, parents, citizens, institutions, NGOs and governments – can take initiatives in this field.
Municipalities can organise support for schools on several aspects. They can play a mediating role in finding trainee posts for voluntary social work by pupils. They can also offer themselves as a perfect place near the school where pupils can experience local democracy. Municipalities can also include elements of citizenship education within twinning programmes with foreign cities. Chambers of commerce from twinning cities could promote European cooperation in fields of vocational training.
At national level, non-governmental organisations could be mobilised. They could provide examples of good practice on citizenship education – the Dutch Institute for Public and Politics, for example, and the Comenius national agencies. Curriculum development institutes have developed extensive knowledge of citizenship; they could support schools by making this knowledge available to teachers and pupils. They could also support other parties in formulating suggestions for cooperation with educational institutions.
At the European level, youth organisations (and I mean of, and not for, young people) could play an important role in putting the theme of citizenship education on the school agenda in the different European Member States. They can emphasise the importance of exchange between schools in different countries. In the EU education programme, financial support will be given to exchange activities.
Ladies and Gentlemen, my suggestions are not entirely new. Nevertheless, I hope they can give an impulse to participants both in and out of the education sector. Looking at today’s school-age girls and boys, we have to search for pedagogical and didactic methods that will really captivate them. We know one thing for sure: learning from textbooks is not enough; citizenship education is only effective when learned and practised in a true to life way. Thank you for your attention.
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you for having reminded us of a very strong truth and for having given a number of very concrete suggestions for our further work.
I now turn to the European institutions’ important partners in all the work we are doing. I start with Mr Jeremy Smith, who is General Secretary of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, as well as Secretary General of the International Union of Local Authorities. The Commission worked very closely with your organisation when we had to assemble and improve the twinning system, and that cooperation has left me with the best of memories.
20
Mr Jeremy Smith General Secretary of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, and Secretary General of the International Union of Local Authorities
Thank you very much for those kind words of introduction. It is a great pleasure to be here and thank you for the invitation. We have heard a lot of speakers and I think we should pay tribute to the people here for your patience. I hope to be fairly brief in making just a few comments in response to the very important speakers from the institutions this morning.
On behalf of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, I think in the interests of transparency I should declare that we receive an operating grant from the Commission of some 15% of our budget. However, I am really here to talk about our role in relation to Town Twinning and to say a few words on what we have heard today.
The report in your papers on twinning emphasises that it is not a new concept, but one that grew from the period after the Second World War as part of the aim to build a more united, peaceful and prosperous Europe. My own organisation was created in 1951 at about the same time. Since our foundation, one of the key areas of our activities has been to promote, coordinate and assist in the development of town twinning across the European continent. We still have our network today, with members in thirty-three countries and a twinning network which represents the majority of those countries. We work closely trying to keep good quality twinning going and we act as an interlocutor and partner with the Commission. So we feel that we have been actively promoting active European citizenship for over fifty years.
The key point in time was 1988, when we first got funding for this after Nicole Fontaine’s Parliamentary Report. Twinning is an activity that has its own life and momentum apart from the funding, but the funding is absolutely crucial for many twinning activities, and certainly to ensure and improve the conceptual content of the work. We have had support in the past from the Culture Committee and from the Budget Committee and we are now rather pleased to have a stable programme for three years. We hope there will be the same degree of stability and the ability to forward plan activities in the future.
When putting forward the current programme a year or so ago, Recital 8 of the Council’s formal decision said that the Council reaffirms its belief in the need to continue supporting Town Twinning schemes, given the important role they can play in promoting civic identity and mutual understanding between the peoples of Europe. It stresses that in the context of the multi-annual programme, an appropriate budget for, and continued promotion of, town twinning schemes should be guaranteed, as the European Parliament has insisted every year in the budgetary procedure.
We draw sustenance from the Council’s support and hope that with the support in the future of the Commission, the Council and Parliament, this will be an important part of an essential future programme. I do not need to make the case too strongly for twinning, though there are many across Europe who think it needs to develop in new ways. We believe one of the
21 advantages from the consultation process so far has been the indication of the need to look at some of these issues in a slightly more flexible way, such as how municipalities and their citizens together can take actions further. I think it is worth recording that although twinning is done by municipalities and cities of all sizes, the programme we are talking about has been particularly important and necessary for the small and medium sized municipalities and towns.
We welcome the consultation and we welcome a greater degree of flexibility to enable discussions that perhaps link some of the key issues of local democracy and local life. There is a need for discussion between the officials of a municipality and citizens in the context of more participation, and also to exchange experience across countries on issues such as child care, health services, and so on. We also believe that this new programme needs to be careful of not imposing too much bureaucracy.
I welcome the remarks made by Ms Guy-Quint about the possibility of looking at the financial regulations. We believe from the experience of all those involved that there are some aspects of the financial regulations which simply do not fit this sort of citizen-friendly programme.
As an organisation, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions continues solidly to support town twinning. There was a unanimous position paper adopting it in our Policy Committee in December, in which we put forward the thought that the original purposes of twinning need to be thought of now with some of the European Union’s new neighbours, with particular regard, perhaps, to the Balkans. The original programme was about building peace and stability, and we can think of nowhere more directly concerned than the Balkans in terms of peace and stability. We hope that aspect will be looked at. We also think there is a case for looking at twinning programmes with other European Union neighbours, in particular in the Mediterranean region.
We welcome the organisation of the Golden Stars Awards today by the Commission here in Brussels. We believe that the chosen activities demonstrate the range and importance of the issues that bring us together across our national boundaries.
In conclusion, we welcome the importance given by the Commissioner and many of the speakers this morning to the need to continue twinning in a new future programme. I should add that we see a future programme as absolutely essential. We are fully cognisant of the problems from the financial perspectives, but believe that a modest increase in that budget in real terms is a really essential aspect if we take the need to connect with citizens seriously.
Before coming here today we were a little apprehensive that town twinning could get a little lost in this programme, but there are so many skilled and brilliant advocates and negotiators on behalf of NGOs and other sectors of civil society that I am sure that is not going to be the case, and I am sure there are some brilliant advocates as well for town twinning. We do not want to see it as a competitive exercise, but we do believe that this very local activity, which brings together citizens across Europe’s boundaries at local level, has a long history of which we are very proud. It has an even more essential future if we are to build that Europe together. Thank you.
22
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you very much. Town twinning is one of the most powerful instruments we have to bring citizens together, and every time the European Parliament adds a million to the budget for this action (and Parliament is rather generous as far as this action is concerned), we cheer. Already we have almost 1,500 town twinnings per year, and since financially these are relatively small operations, an extra million means a lot of small town twinning.
Now, trade unions play an extremely important role in civil society, and therefore we are extremely happy to have the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, Mr John Monks, with us to offer us his organisation’s view on what we are trying to do here.
Mr John Monks General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation
Thank you very much for the invitation and thank you for this initiative. There are two things in the forum title which I think are very important to stress: one is active citizenship, and the other is European citizenship – which is not necessarily always the same thing. If you saw the survey about Europe conducted by the Commission last week, there was widespread ignorance of anything to do with the Constitution, plenty of indifference among the people of Europe, and there was also evidence of increasing hostility in quite a number of countries.
For us in the European trade union world, Europe is our vehicle for trying to get some influence on globalisation and the spread of market capitalism. We are trying to civilise it and are seeking to maintain some counters to it in the form of welfare states, worker rights and trade union influence, and services of general interest, which are not wholly subject to the law of the market. We are trying to get a balance in our society between these different forces.
With the news this morning of five million unemployed in Germany, I am reminded of what I am coming across as I travel round Europe to meetings, factories and workplaces. It is a sense that in the minds of many people in Europe, Europe is now the vehicle for jobs out – emigrating somewhere else, somewhere cheaper, somewhere with less social standards, less welfare state, less trade union influence – and people in – who come perhaps to do things under lower conditions than Europe’s current citizens will do them. To some extent, this problem has been exacerbated by enlargement, by the necessary development of the single market. However, it is not doing the concept of European citizenship much good.
It is against a very complex background that nation states themselves are just as worried about their concept of active citizenship as we are at the European level. My own country, Britain, for example, has just introduced a new ceremony with the mayor of the town awarding British passports to people who attain British citizenship. My wife, who is Dutch, after thirty-five years of marriage decided to take out British citizenship and went through one of these ceremonies just three weeks ago. You
23 can see that because Europe is the new multi-ethnic world, it is not just Europe that is worrying about active citizenship, it is nation states as well.
In all of that, we must be aware of promoting the European dimension. This is a huge task. It is not something on the margins of Europe; it is fundamental to where Europe is going to go. We have to fight for active European citizenship, for a sense that we are all the peoples of this unique and wonderful region of the world, with its diversity and its ability to balance reasonably well both economic prosperity and growth with strong social dimensions.
I did not take too kindly to the Commission’s announcement yesterday that in effect, social policy is now somewhere on the back seat, along with environmental policy, and that everything is going to be focused on economic policy. For those of us who will be campaigning for acceptance of the European Constitution in a number of very difficult referendums, the idea that Europe is somehow all about liberalisation (and that it is the agent of extra job insecurity and working longer) is not going to help in these campaigns. To encourage this idea of citizenship, it is important that Europe maintains its clear vision of what Europe is and what we belong to.
The role of the trade union is absolutely crucial. We are by far the biggest voluntary organisation in Europe. We have sixty million people paying on a voluntary basis every week to be trade union members. In addition to doing the trade union job of promoting worker rights, social dialogue and social partnership, we promote Europe. Nation states cannot get a grip on what is happening in the world on their own, but Europe, with its over 400 million people, certainly can – and certainly should.
We were the first to support the Constitution and we are campaigning for it. We want to make sure that the vision of Europe – the sense that Europe is something people really want to belong to because it us a unique part of the world, setting standards for ourselves which we then want to export to other countries as our model for development and our model of society – seems to me to be worth fighting for and worth being citizens of. That is the concept we should develop.
We are very keen to work with this programme, trying to spread this notion of trade unionism in the new Member States and strengthening it after all the upheavals they have experienced. It is not particularly easy but we are having some success and I am quite optimistic that we will have more. We spread a lot of information about what Europe is doing, and that gets multiplied through union channels down towards a reasonable proportion of our sixty million membership. We are promoting Europe down those particular channels.
It would help if the European industry federations could access some help, as well as the national centres and the European Trade Union Confederation itself. It would also help if the budget for this work recognises the contribution that can be made in the workplace, through trade union channels and through social partnership, to this concept of European citizenship. I recognise that the civic side is important, but the workplace and employment side is also very important. I support the suggestion that the candidate states in the Balkans, and perhaps neighbouring countries as well, are areas for which we need to find some resource
24 and energy to promote ourselves, the notion of citizenship and being part of Europe, as part of our programme.
Finally, the survey showed that the level of disinterest and lack of knowledge is greatest among young people. Relatively few are even bothering to vote in national elections, never mind the European elections. I welcome this youth pact idea that four Member States are promoting and I hope we can contribute to that within our programme.
This is not a technical subject, or abstract or complicated, it is about putting across what a citizen of Europe is, making it an attractive concept, and one that we can unite behind. I hope that this programme will contribute very strongly to that particular process. Thank you very much.
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you very much for your presentation and your remarks, which are food for thought. Your last remark that what we are trying to achieve is not that difficult makes me wonder. I think, on the contrary, it is very difficult. There are so many chefs in the kitchen all wanting to co-produce the soup (I am talking about those who have to decide on the programme and its financing) that I am not sure that the soup is going to be good as we all want. However, we should not be pessimistic; we are here to create the best conditions for the best possible soup.
Ms Parent, you are the last speaker. You are President of the Platform of European Social NGOs. You are very committed to many areas, including the disabled, and therefore your commitment to promoting European citizenship is assured.
Ms Anne-Sophie Parent President of the Platform of European Social NGOs
I would like to thank the Commission for inviting the Social Platform to give its view on the future active citizenship programme. NGOs play a key role in fostering active citizenship – it is actually their raison d’être – so that is why we are pleased to be given the floor. I will present some quite general views, but they will be fully complemented with individual responses from my colleagues and other NGOs during the forum.
We were asked to give our views on why we need a new programme and what it can do for EU citizens.
We have heard this morning that there is a huge democratic deficit. This is not only reflected in the rather low participation rates in the EU elections, but in a growing feeling of scepticism, even euro-apathy, among the population – including in Member States that have always been very pro-EU.
Imagine an example. Yesterday, Prime Minister Raffarin sent President Barroso a very strong signal against the Bolkestein directive. His message was supported by
25 the opposition – both left and right – and the population. Mr Raffarin raised awareness of the risks such a proposal would bring and the disastrous effect it would have on reserves for the referendum on the future Constitution. EU fanatics will say that has nothing to do with it – but for citizens, it has. Citizens are starting to fear the EU rather than welcome it. The social dimension is the Cinderella and this is not what citizens wanted to hear. We were very disappointed yesterday with that speech.
It is quite difficult to explain to citizens that the EU is trying to work for them, for their benefit, wellbeing and welfare, when such messages come across more strongly than the facts of what the EU is really doing for their benefit.
We think there is an urgent need to bring the EU closer to its citizens. This involves two types of activity. First, information campaigns are needed – information campaigns in easily understandable language to explain what the EU is doing for them. Then, opportunities for citizens to get involved in the construction of Europe and what the EU can do better with their contribution.
These activities are essential for raising citizens’ awareness of how the Union functions and what it brings to their daily lives. They will need to be carefully designed and echoed at national and local level, paying special attention to the national context to avoid being perceived by citizens as EU propaganda.
Even so, that will not be enough to bring the EU closer to its citizens, and this is why we welcome the new programme – especially the opening remark about the online questionnaire. Although the responsibility for education policies lies primarily at national and local level, we feel that concrete and well-targeted action at EU level can help promote a greater sense of ownership among EU citizens. This programme should help the direct involvement of citizens in the construction of a more solidary and inclusive Europe. The future active citizenship programme could be a useful tool for this second type of activity. With its bottom-up approach, the new programme should aim primarily at involving citizens in the Union construction process. With such a name, it would be quite confusing not to have activities aimed at involving them directly.
This is the best way to get citizens’ support – if the EU is to become a reality for citizens, it must work hand in hand with them. It is particularly important because the Council debates and meetings will be open to the public in the future if we get a new Constitution. How could the citizens use this opportunity for transparency and openness if they are not properly informed, and if the means to get involved in the debate is not offered to them?
Some of you may say that such opportunities already exist, and we hope they will be maintained in the next generation of programmes. However, they are part of the EU consultation process on very specific policy priorities – in the social, environmental or human rights fields, for example.
The active citizenship programme can be innovative if it follows certain criteria and promotes the active involvement of ordinary citizens of all ages. I welcome Ms Guy- Quint’s remark because she mentioned that the focus on youth is very important,
26 which we welcome, but we need to involve all citizens of all ages. The active involvement of ordinary citizens should be the main priority of this programme. It should not just be targeted at EU supporters, although their input is very valuable, because it helps citizens develop a better understanding of the EU. The new programme should give citizens real opportunities to influence policy development. It should help build the ability of citizens’ groups to share views, develop better understanding of how the EU works, and how they can contribute to a more integrated and solidary society.
All this is easier said than done, especially with the very limited resources we heard about this morning. If we want to achieve all the objectives described this morning, I think we would need about a thousand times the budget of an average US think tank. This is why very clear objectives and criteria for participation need to be defined in the new programme.
As we are entering a new phase in the European Union’s development – with a new Constitution to be fully ratified by all Member States – the new programme should aim at demonstrating whether or not there is a definite added value in involving citizens in EU matters, and how this can best be achieved in the long term. We see this new programme as just one step further, and hopefully aiming at a much larger programme.
Because this limited budget is going to restrict our possibilities, we recommend that when the Commission defines the new programme’s aims and objectives, it should pay particular attention to citizens’ active involvement and to the multiplier effect in all its proposed activities. In our view, they are the two most important criteria for the programme.
As Social Platform President and on behalf of our members, I would welcome a special commitment to ensure the future of our organisation. We feel that, as a network involving forty European organisations or citizens’ groups, we definitely meet the two criteria for active citizenship involvement and multiplier effects. We know that our activities play a crucial role in disseminating information about the EU and retrieving feedback from citizens’ groups at grass root level in a coordinated way.
In addition to supporting a few major citizens’ networks, the future programme should also be open to smaller EU networks that can prove they can bring a useful contribution to the EU debate and can help involve citizens in the process.
The scope of issues debated at EU level has greatly increased in the last few years and the EU would gain a lot by giving a voice to some significant citizens’ groups which are presently not heard at the EU level. For these types of small-scale activities, and for trans-national actions and other foreseen activities, we fully agree that the conditions should be more flexible and the administrative burden limited. This would increase applications from networks which presently have very limited resources, but which could contribute a lot to EU civil dialogue if they were given some support. We are pleased that everyone here agrees on simplification of the financial procedures. Public money belongs to all of us and as it is our money, we want it to be spent wisely.
27 Activities open to smaller NGOs should be dealt through open calls for proposals, with criteria based around factors such as the network’s ability to engage citizens in European debates, its multiplier effects, the European nature of their work, and the network’s democratic accountability.
We all know that town twinning activities have played a very important role in bringing populations that have a very difficult shared history closer together. This is why we feel this programme could play an even greater role in creating a real sense of EU citizenship, and also why we would like to recommend that town twinning activities should be tailored to promote the involvement of citizens’ groups and help build civil dialogue on new matters at local level. Town twinning activities should be aimed at involving relevant citizens’ groups in debates and exchanges of views on new matters. We talk about policy-oriented research; I would say here that the key word is policy-orientated activities. One solution for the shortage of money could be to try to mainstream town twinning activities in other EU programmes, because there are opportunities for similar activities in other programmes as well.
Another recommendation is that the new programme should try to promote synergy and networking between projects. This would enhance the multiplier effect and strengthen the European dimension. The proposed activities to be funded under this programme are very diverse and we would very strongly recommend some kind of coherence between the activities to be funded. The programme should also use the few years it will have to explore the role it could play in the implementation of Article 1:47.
This programme should pay special attention to playing a complementary role to other EU initiatives. There are a lot of opportunities for organising exchanges for children in schools, or research projects on EU policies under educational research programmes. This programme should clearly avoid duplicating opportunities for funding that already exist in other programmes. Thank you very much.
Mr Nikolaus van der Pas
Thank you very much for these very concrete suggestions for this afternoon’s work. We have come to the end of this morning’s introduction.
With regard to what President Barroso presented yesterday in terms of revitalising the Lisbon strategy, I did not take it as a programme which ignores social inclusion in our societies; I understood it mainly as a wake-up call to the Member States; a call to review the governance of the Lisbon strategy as an attempt to ensure that Member States do what they committed themselves to do.
We have noticed over the last few years that the biggest weakness has been great intentions, but not enough results. We have come to the same conclusion in the education sector, and drawn similar operational conclusions, namely: remind the Member States all the time of what they have committed themselves to do.
In the Lisbon strategy reporting exercise that the Commission proposed, there is a definite link between the broad economic outlines and the employment strategies.
28 The annexes of the paper clearly indicate that the reporting which Member States have to do will result in the Commission having an overview of all the elements – not only growth and jobs but also social inclusion. However, yesterday’s presentation was mainly a wake-up call: do what you have committed yourselves to do.
I think it is clear from the discussion this morning that we have an enormous challenge ahead of us. As Pascal Lamy said, this is not something which you can undertake today and consider completed tomorrow. I noted the same thing in the context of the intercultural dialogue which, after the disaster which took place on 11 September 2001, we have been trying to develop: we cannot consider this to be a one-time operation. It is about creating an attitude, a way of life which needs to be kept alive. That is an enormous challenge in the sense that, given their electoral time span, it is somewhat difficult to mobilise politicians to really throw their weight entirely behind such a long term goal and to throw the necessary money into the funds. So it is a very difficult challenge, but a necessary one.
We are going to end the meeting now. Thank you for all your input this morning.
(Lunch)
29 Three parallel sessions on lessons learned from past experience:
I - Workshop on Town Twinning Activities
Mr Jeremy Smith Chair General Secretary of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, and Secretary General of the International Union of Local Authorities
Good afternoon. I am Jeremy Smith from the Council of European Municipalities and Regions.
Alongside me is Richard Arnold from the Representation of the Land of Baden- Württemberg to the European Union. I am delighted to have Richard with me from that Land. Baden-Württemberg has more twinnings within its boundaries than anywhere else in Germany – and perhaps more than any single region in Europe – with over a thousand twinnings.
The aim of this session is to make a report for tomorrow. It is a consultation meeting, so we need concrete results regarding what we think of the experience so far and what we want from next time.
You are asked to look at and speak on two sets of questions today. The first set of questions is set out in the programme, where the organisers are asking what has been done and what results have been achieved. In short, as far as the programme relates to town twinning, has it been useful? In your view, has it achieved real results? What lessons have we learnt, have we encountered any difficulties (I am sure that the answer to that is no, no difficulties at all with any of the financial regulations, but you may have a different view), and how useful has the European Union’s support been? Looking to the future, what are the specific needs and basic elements of the future programme?
Those are the general questions, which you also have in your pack. Discussion paper no. 1 is on twinning and contains some useful figures, thanks to Risto Raivio from DG Education and Culture, who has looked at the number of people applying and which percentages are successful.
At the end of this short paper there are a number of discussion points that I think are worth addressing as well. The questions there are: how well do the current types of actions meet the needs of our municipalities and towns? Does the definition of applicants correspond with the situation on the ground? What are the main experiences concerning the current procedures? What are the main new developments and trends in the field?
In other words, are there changes in the types of activity over the last two or three years? How important is the financial support for the beneficiaries? (I suppose the real question there is: Could we do without this financial support, or what would happen if we did not have the financial support for our twinning action?) Has the financial support from the European Union been a catalyst and an important means
30 of creating new twinning relations, or has it largely been used to keep existing ones going? How far has it helped to get new ones? What is the impact of Community action on the actual substance of the twinning actions? Has the Community action had an impact in local participation in town twinning – in other words, are we getting to new target groups or broadening local involvement? One or two examples are people with disabilities or other groups of people who may have been less involved or more excluded – are they getting involved, is it helping at all?
Those are some of the questions, but this is your session and the main task is to say how successful the existing programme has been, what lessons we have learnt from it and what lessons we can draw for the future.
I have been asked to inform you that there is a box in the hall where you can propose a title for the new programme on a piece of paper. The prize for the best suggestion has not been given to me so far, but CEMR is willing to offer a bottle of champagne if anyone from this session comes up with a successful answer, and Baden- Württemberg has just offered another one!
For the first part of the meeting I think I should insist that the forms saying “What is your question or theme?” must be filled in – the Commission staff have ordered me to stick rigidly to this system. If it breaks down in practice, however, I am willing to be more liberal with it, but let us try and stick with this for the moment because it is helpful to try and group comments to some extent.
We have quite a lot of these forms and I may need help from my rapporteur in grouping them. We will then try to identify a set of issues that has emerged. While we do that I would like to take the first speaker. Rolf Fehrenbach from the German Association of Counties, the Kreistag, wishes to speak.
Rolf Fehrenbach Kreistag
Thank you very much. The problem I wish to raise is rather specific. In fact, there are three areas I think we should deal with.
First of all, I think that all local authorities, at both municipal and county level, should be included in the EU’s support programme. I do not think that certain authorities that are clearly local are in fact included. I would like to make a specific proposal as to how to make sure all local authorities are included. The Directive on municipal electoral law for foreigners living in a new Member State includes an annex which defines what a local authority in Europe is. I think that this has now been revised because of the arrival of the new Member States, but this is the only place where European law defines exactly what a local authority is. I think that that definition should be used to determine the number of local authorities eligible for support, and which ones they are. That was my first question.
My second question concerns short-term and long-term activities within the support programme itself. Up to now, only relatively short-term measures have been funded – a trip by a delegation, for example – and the measure was subject to a time limit.
31 Now the Commission is saying, probably with good reason, that there should also be funding for long-term measures; networks need to be built up and we should achieve some kind of continuity; we need to have a stable network supporting European citizenship in the future.
However, I do not think that we should throw the baby out with the bath water and I think we should also remember those very small local authorities that do not have sufficient funds to finance fairly long-term projects. There is a risk that those local authorities would not be able to provide sufficient co-financing, and so those local authorities may be shut out. Here I am talking about very small local authorities or those on the periphery, which are precisely the ones we want the programme to cover. That is what happened in the 1990s, however, and I am just pointing out that because of this longer-term perspective they should not be forgotten. That was my second point.
My third point is this. I have my doubts, but I am also wondering about how a balance can be struck between continuing existing partnerships on the one hand and creating new partnerships on the other, particularly in view of enlargement. We will probably have to create new partnerships, now that we have 10 new Member States, but old partnerships already represent a very lively network, and 10,000 Europeans are already involved in a partnership. It is a very large network. I think we should remember that there are two conflicting interests here, but both of them need to be taken into account, new and old partnerships alike.
Chair
Thank you very much. You had three points: firstly, that the Kreise, and similar types of quite local authorities which do not quite meet the present rules, should be eligible for the present programme; secondly, that we need to allow longer-term partnerships providing more continuity while holding onto the needs of short-term activities, without forgetting the smaller new municipalities; thirdly, the problem of how to balance the new and existing partnerships and the need to develop the movement further. Thank you very much for those key points.
My advisers have come up with three categories of contributions and points. The first one is drawing on the successful and interesting experiences from existing partnerships, the second is the lessons we have learned, and the third category is what our conclusions are for the future. These three categories are interlinked.
I understand that Leo Antonio, the Mayor of La Specchia, wishes to speak on the first category.
Antonio Lia Comune di Specchia
Good afternoon. Perhaps I could report on the twinning experience between my municipality and other towns in 2003. My town is near Lecce in the south of Italy and we were in involved in a town-twinning project with other municipalities: a town in
32 Finland, in Germany, in Hungary and in Poland. I have to say that our experience has been extremely positive and I do not think we encountered any problems. We proposed our project, it was welcomed in Brussels in a very intelligent way and helpful support was provided.
Regarding points of strength, we think that this was a very important experience because we have been able to establish new human relations between the various countries. We have also established relations between schools ranging from primary schools to secondary schools – young people in our schools have already gone to Hungary to exchange ideas and experiences with their counterparts in that country. We think this is something that needs to be done, because this twinning is important.
However, the first thing we need to do is to secure more funding. With more funding we will be able to have more twinning, and the more twinnings we have the more integration there will be in Europe, which is the main aim of all of us.
I also think we should have multi-annual twinnings. We had twinning event with these municipalities in 2003, and it was repeated in 2004 in Hungary. We are preparing to have an event again with a Polish town. This is necessary to build strong links with these countries, particularly the new Member States.
We think there should be a network of twinned municipalities, which would create opportunities. We think that a very useful proposal was made this morning to have twinnings between primary schools, because that is where understanding must start.
The meetings we held in Hungary led to a proposal for a fair of twinned municipalities, so I think that we should have a fair of twinned towns, and we are willing to host one in my region in order to demonstrate what has been learnt. I think this would create even more friendship between us.
So what have we learnt? Primary school integration has been very important, particularly exchanges between students. However, it has also been very important for trade relations, particularly for Hungary, where there has been an increase in trade between the two municipalities. On 13 March there will be an electronic vote in Hungary, and that has also played a part in twinning. We think that we have also been able to show the way to our colleagues in other countries in some areas.
Chair
Thank you very much for those very important and interesting points. I think the schools point is very important, but we need to note that in other parts of DG Culture there is support for an e-twinning programme between schools as well.
Risto Raivio European Commission
Yes, this can be in the framework of cooperation between schools, but it is not necessarily linked to town twinning.
33
Chair
This is a very important point, as is your twinning fair point. I think your main point is that your experience has been very positive, which shows the ability, when the will is there and a good quality project is put forward within the existing rules, to do something very helpful.
We can pick up on more experiences later, but for the time being we move on to lessons learnt. We now have Kathy Cameron from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Scotland may not submit as many applications as the rest of the UK, but we believe the current programme has encouraged a culture change for twinning associations. Kathy, do you want to expand on that?
Kathy Cameron Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
Yes I will, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Scotland may not be quite as active as neighbours in the rest of the UK in submitting applications to the twinning scheme, but I believe that in the last couple of years there has been an increasing culture change within those associations in Scotland towards addressing the issues that will pick up on the citizenship agenda that is addressed in the proposed programme.
I have some examples of efforts that have been made by associations in Scotland to look at issues around the environment that fall within the categories of the current programme. My concern about the suggestion made before lunch that twinning should be mainstreamed in other programmes is that that would actually serve to diminish the power of twinning to address citizenship issues.
Twinning does cut across many EU policy themes, but it finds no financial support directly in any of these associated programmes. It is therefore vital that the twinning budget should remain within the Active European Citizenship Programme, and I really would encourage the Commission to take that view.
Chair
Thank you very much. Anne-Sophie Parent in the last speech in the morning session on behalf of the social NGOs suggested that whilst giving full support to twinning, she felt it should be “mainstreamed”, which meant that it should become the responsibility of other Directorates-General and should not, as I inferred, necessarily be included in this programme, which of course would create space for more social NGOs by coincidence.
I wanted to know from those of you in this hall whether you support the ideas that she put forward, or whether you do not. I hear Kathy Cameron saying that she does not support that idea and that she believes this programme remains very important. I
34 think we do need to reach a view on that interesting idea put forward this morning, so thank you for that.
The next speaker is Joanna Kurzawa from Poland.
Joanna Kurzawa Foundation for the Blind and Disabled People “You can help too”
I work in an organisation for visually impaired and disabled people and I would like to ask you a question and get some information. Is it possible to increase the age of disabled persons, by which I mean young people, in this category to 29 years old? This question relates to the fact that young disabled people need a longer period of time for rehabilitation and education than people without disabilities. So is it possible for this category to be extended to the twenty-ninth year for young disabled people? Normally, for non-disabled young people it is up to 24 years old. Is it possible to extend the period to 29 years old?
Chair
Risto, do we know if there are any age barriers in this programme?
Risto Raivio European Commission
There are no barriers. In the current call for proposals for 2005 we have a couple of categories where special attention is given to projects in these categories. We have one category involving projects for young people, and another one involving disabled people. If you are in one or the other you get special attention, so the question of an age limit if you are young and disabled is not really that relevant. You would get priority if you were in one category or the other.
Chair
So if you put forward a project that could include both young people in general and also people with disabilities, you could in effect put together your own age group, you could choose to put forward a project without having this problem?
Risto Raivio European Commission
Yes, you can always put forward a project, and if your project involves young people or disabled people, of whatever age group, they will get priority.
35 Chair
Are you satisfied with that answer, or do you want to come back? You obviously have a problem.
Joanna Kurzawa Foundation for the Blind and Disabled People “You can help too”
I would like to make sure that those people would be treated as young people. Would those people of around 25 still be covered by this category of young people, so that they could also benefit from those programmes addressed to young people? Is that possible?
Chair
We have taken note of that. I believe there is no problem, I think you can do it, but we have noted the problem and we will make sure that it is considered.
Joanna Kurzawa Foundation for the Blind and Disabled People “You can help too”
Thank you very much.
Chair
We now move on to Spain and Mr Gustavo Lopez Cutillas from the delegation of the Murcia region. Your question is why the percentage of regional authorities participating in actions, seminars and conferences is so low. I do not know if the answer lies in the word “regional” here, but do you wish to add a little to the question?
Gustavo Lopez Cutillas Office of the Region of Murcia
Thank you, yes I would. Good afternoon. I would like to thank everyone for holding the conference and particularly this forum on twinning.
I would like to refer in particular to type B actions: the holding of seminars and conferences designed to create or foster active European citizenship. In the case of my country, which is about to embark on its referendum, I think it is very important to ensure the participation of local and regional authorities in organising these conferences. However, the statistics we have received recently seem to suggest that very few regions request a subsidy to organise these conferences. It is really just a matter of curiosity on my part, but is there any particular reason why so few regions feature amongst the applicants here?
36 Chair
I do not know if any statisticians can help us or if we have any conclusions on this. I think it is connected with the nature of the programme. I note your question but I do not think we can give you an answer. We are not sure, but I suspect that the regional authorities do not pay so much attention to it because this is mainly a local programme.
Gustavo Lopez Cutillas Office of the Region of Murcia
Nevertheless, regional authorities are entitled to submit an application. I do not know why it is particularly difficult for regions to organise such a conference or whether they just do not apply because they are regions. I do not know why they do not hold these conferences.
Chair
We have a regional advisor here. I think Risto can help.
Risto Raivio European Commission
Currently, and for many years now, regional authorities have been fully eligible to organise conferences and training seminars and to present projects. Some countries sometimes submit such applications but, as you said, there are not very many from your own country. Generally speaking, we can say that we do not see many training seminars that could typically be organised by regional authorities for the municipalities in their region.
Chair
Thank you. We now go back to Germany and Mr Jakob, who is asking two questions, one of which relates to financial issues. You have the floor, Mr Jakob.
Günter Jakob Partnerschaftsring Braunfels E.V.
It is a very practical question. We only discovered half a year later that this excellent project was actually going to be supported, but we did not get the money for 13 or 14 months. This is terribly discouraging for people who work hard. That is my first point.
My second comment is about themes. Do you know what the best themes dealt with in the last year are? Could you give us a bird’s eye view of this so that it is easier for us to invent new projects?
37
I have the impression that when a given theme is dealt with, you will find that other projects with similar themes that year are unlikely to be given any attention, which is a handicap. We have had this experience. We had a relatively good project in the pipeline but it got nowhere because someone else had already dealt with the same theme. I just wanted to say that it is not always a good idea to stipulate themes.
Chair
Thank for you. We know that the financial flow has been a significant issue. As I understand it, the Commission thinks that it has been improving in this area. Do you wish to say anything about this first problem, or about the second issue about themes?
Risto Raivio European Commission
Regarding the first point, we do feel that there is a lot of room for improvement. We are trying to speed up all parts of the project life cycle so that we can handle all projects as quickly as possible and handle payment as smoothly and quickly as possible.
Turning to your second point, the spirit in which the current call for proposals has been drafted is that it leaves themes open. We set a framework in which we explain what we mean by meetings of citizens and what we mean by a conference. We then leave it open for the municipalities to choose the themes that are important for them. We say that you can take European themes and treat them in a local context, or you can take local issues and treat them in a European context. We do not want to impose themes; we want to keep it bottom up.
Chair
Thank you, we note your points. You are saying that there are problems at present of excessive delays regarding financing, and some questions about whether you have problems getting funding if you choose the same theme as someone else.
Risto Raivio European Commission
Could I elaborate on this a little bit more? On your second point, were you saying that somebody else had the same theme and that you felt that your proposal had not been accepted for that reason, or that you yourself had had the same theme? Anyway, in either case I would say that that is not the policy. If your application is good, it is good. It is currently evaluated qualitatively by external experts. Of course they know it is hard to coordinate things and that it can happen that many towns come up with the same issues.
38 Chair
Are there any final points?
Günter Jakob Partnerschaftsring Braunfels E.V.
You just said that the theme is a framework, and if that is the case, that is fine. However, it would not be right that if one theme had been chosen, other projects on the same theme were not accepted.
Chair
Thank you. I would like to call Darie Dorin from Moldovita. The essence of your question is whether the candidate countries can take part in the programme. At the moment, I think they have done, but this depends on an agreement with the government of the country in question. Mr Dorin, you have the floor.
Darie Dorin Moldavita City Hall
The issue is whether it is worthwhile for the candidate countries to take part in such programmes in the future. I know there are a number of important social and economic problems to be solved, but this could help to bring European ideals and values into these countries.
There was also a second question about the financing of the Moldovita/Kruibeke project. We received financing for the years 2002 and 2003 but then it stopped, although the activities continued and the project goes on as planned. We do not know why the financing of the project was stopped.
Chair
As I understand it, Romania has been involved in the past and may now be again, but this depends on specific agreements with the governments of the candidate countries in question, which must enter into an agreement and make a financial contribution towards the programme, if I understand correctly. From our point of view, it is important that future candidate countries should be involved in this scheme, and if that view is shared, that is one of the comments we can make. Do you have any points you need to make from the Commission?
39 Risto Raivio European Commission
Technically speaking, I can just repeat that up to the end of 2003 the candidate countries – at that time there were quite a few – were covered by the town-twinning scheme. Since the beginning of last year, when the town-twinning scheme became part of the Active European Citizenship Programme, it has been covered by the same rules as programmes in general in the European Commission.
Regarding the three candidate countries, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, an agreement has now been negotiated for Bulgaria and Romania which has been officially transmitted to those countries for signature. It is very likely that in a couple of weeks Bulgaria and Romania will be eligible under the programme.
Chair
Thank you. We have a comment along very similar lines, I think, from Dorothee Fischer of the Association of Local Democracy Agencies, which is based in Strasbourg.
Dorothee Fischer Association of Local Democracy Agencies
I just wanted to stress the same aspect that you have already mentioned this morning. The programme should also be extended to other countries in Europe, such as the Balkans and other neighbouring countries. I would also like to know what developments have taken place with regard to Croatia, because you did not mention Croatia among the candidate countries.
Chair
We have now had two contributions saying that we think this should be open to future candidate countries. Is anyone against that point of view? If not, I propose that we should make this one of the consensus comments.
Is there anyone in the room who is opposed to the future programme in principle covering candidate countries, and perhaps also neighbouring countries? First of all, what is the view on candidate countries? No one seems to be against, so we have that as part of our acquis communautaire from this meeting.
We now move on to a slightly different point, which relates to paternalism. Garry Poulson from Newbury Twin Town Association has made a few comments. It says at the end that twinning should be encouraged but not controlled.
40 Garry Poulson Twin Town Association Newbury
I am very proud to be here today as chair of an independent twin town association. We are about 40 years old, we are as strong as we have ever been, we have a committee of 14 very active and independent people from all walks of life, of all ages and from all backgrounds, and I am even prouder to be here today with our twin towns from Feltre in Italy, Braunfels in Germany and our friends in Carcaixent and Kiskunfélegyhéza.
We regard our association in Newbury as being very successful. We have about 80 family members and we have a supportive town council, which gives us a little annual grant. However, I must say that all the activities we have been involved in from our own perspective have been as a result of a determination to get to know one another and be friends. I think it may well be just a general theme from Britain – possibly because of our slightly Euro-sceptic stance – but we just want to get on with it. We are very grateful for the support we do get, but I think we would be opposed to specific themes, so I think what we are saying is that we should be supported but not controlled.
Chair
Thank you. The next point is from Hugo Casaer from Belgium.
Hugo Casaer Mayor of gemeente Beersel
We have all had the experience of meeting and working far away from home, but the distance was also important for the actual subsidy we received. There are a great many Member States, including nationals of the new Member States, who actually live in our local commune and who we do not manage to meet. I think that we, as municipal authorities, should be stimulating Europe on our doorstep; we should not necessarily have to travel a lot. The local population is perhaps unaware of the people who are working locally to get Europe going. How about subsidies for meeting or organising meetings of people from different countries who happen to be living abroad? I think that is a subject we should not overlook. It would be a pity if Europeans missed out on an opportunity to meet each other when they are living abroad.
Another very broad question that occurred to me about new Member States was that there are countries, such as Romania, Bulgaria and Bosnia, where there are no projects with us. Perhaps in the case of Bosnia, and also after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, there may be some very interesting ideas about promoting the idea of Europe.
41 Chair
Thank you for that second point. I agree that Bosnia, for example, would open another door. On your first question, you have the right to respond.
Hugo Casaer Mayor of gemeente Beersel
It means that people who come to live here from Finland, for example, and other distant countries, see us setting off for Finland and say, “that is odd, because you are not getting to know us at all, and we are here”. We think that bringing people together would certainly be a very good idea. We do not seem to know the foreigners who are on our own doorstep, that is my point.
Chair
Thank you, we have noted this idea and I am sure we can discuss it later.
I would like to finish on the theme of current problems. Can I now ask those of you here who have experience of the programme to raise your hands? Do you have any problems or does it work perfectly? The Mayor of La Specchia said that there were no problems; someone else, I think it was a German colleague, said they had to wait a long time for the money. So are there any problems that you find with the existing programme? Otherwise the message is that everything is wonderful as it is.
Could the next speaker please indicate his name and organisation?
Daniel Garnier Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
I am from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. We have not had any serious problems, but the subsidy coming in only just before the project starts is something we have had to cope with as well. We organised everything, but right up to the last day we did not know if we were going to get the money or not, and then we waited more than a year to actually get the money.
Chair
Thank you. Anyone else? The comment was made this morning that the existing programme is somewhat bureaucratic and that the financial regulations may not be perfectly adapted to our type of project. I do not know if you share that view or not. There will be a note and a report, so if you have any views, now is the time to express them so that they can be included in the report back tomorrow morning.
42 David Linse European Office of the Local Authorities of Baden-Württemberg
I am David Linse, from the European Office of the Local Authorities of Baden- Württemberg. We have got together with the various local authorities and are very active in this field. We have a number of town twinnings. About a week ago we sent out a questionnaire to ask people where the major problems were and can confirm that one of the problems is very late payment.
Another problem is that the content and the teaching advice given by the Commission are very difficult to implement, and I wonder what the Commission’s view is on that. I think that the basic problem is the degree of bureaucracy involved here. This is a generalisation but there are some practical problems here, for example all the lists of participants that have to be drawn up, which does take up a lot of time and resources.
Another problem is that there is a long lead time for the application, and that probably means that you do not get much spontaneous cooperation. Some of the smaller communities do not find producing an English summary of applications so easy. It may be run-of-the-mill in a place like Brussels, but it is not in some of the smaller places.
Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. I feel that is important because it reflects a survey that you have done.
We now have a representative from Dordrecht.
A participant
Yes, I come from Dordrecht in the Netherlands and I would agree with what the previous speaker said.
About two years ago under the overall umbrella of town twinning, we dealt with a theme – the employment of disabled people – which could then become a programme or a computer apprenticeship. We give our support to this sort of thing through our staff, but we do not have the resources to buy the computers, for example. Does that mean that we have to make this application through a different programme, or can this all be brought under the same heading of town twinning?
Chair
That is a good question, I have no idea what the answer is. I will pass it to Risto.
43 Risto Raivio European Commission
As far as the call for proposals for 2005 is concerned, we currently support two types of action. One is citizens’ meetings, where what counts is the number of people, the number of days and the number of kilometres. The subsidy is based on a calculation of the people who meet, and that is simple. It is based on daily rates, and the reporting process afterwards is very simple. We do not want to have receipts for what you consumed during the project; it is just a simple subsidy enabling people to meet.
The other category – conferences and seminars – relates to bigger events, and for those you can include in your proposals those expenses necessary for organising an event, but it cannot include buying computers and financing infrastructure. That is not part of the programme.
A participant
I think you may have misunderstood my point. When meetings take place between participants from partner countries, ideas often emerge – ideas that the partners should perhaps go further in a particular area under the aegis of their town twinning. That can be one of the results of this twinning – they may decide that more should be done in a particular area – and as an example I mentioned the running of computer courses for people with disabilities. Could this then be financed under the town- twinning programme or should it be financed under another European programme? Where should the application be made?
Risto Raivio European Commission
If you can implement the new ideas within the two categories that we have, you can do it under the town-twinning programme. If you have new ideas where you need more money or more material, or if you need long-term personnel costs to be covered, then you have to apply under other programmes. You are right, there are certainly examples where we have seen that twinning has been a starting point for cooperation in other areas and the preparation of EU projects under other programmes. There are cases of that, but what is covered depends under which programme you apply.
Chair
If these ideas occur to you during your twinning meetings and you decide that you would like to run a course with other countries in Eastern Europe or Southern Europe, you could perhaps use programmes such as the Interreg programme and Strand B. That would be another way of getting financing for such courses.
Thank you. Does anyone else wish to share any existing problems?
44 I would like to raise a bigger question. There is no guarantee that we will have this future programme, and there is no guarantee how much of it will go to twinning. So I want to ask a more fundamental question: would it matter to you if this programme disappeared or became very, very small indeed? In other words, do you feel passionately about this, or can we report back along the lines, “well it was nice, but it does not really matter”? I think we have to send a message here. The message may be that it is not really important. We need to hear from you if this twinning programme is important or not, because we need to send that message.
I now call Susan Handley.
Susan Handley Local Government International Bureau, Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)
I do not think the programme is merely important to twinning, I think it is vital to twinning and to all the beneficiaries of the grant. Twinning existed before the European Commission gave this grant and it will continue afterwards. I think we need to be a bit more sensible about this, however. What are we trying to do? What is the bigger picture? We are trying to integrate, we are trying to create a European Union that is peaceful, prosperous and a good place to live, where people understand each other. We know that twinning is one of the most effective tools to achieve this and therefore it deserves and needs to be funded, and this funding programme is vital.
There are a couple of reasons for this. With regard to the twinning programme, I work for the national association in the United Kingdom and when I get enquiries about twinning and where people can get funding for it, I have to say that this grant is the only pure source of funding dedicated to twinning, when you look at the true meaning concept of twinning, which I believe to be a partnership between the people in two or more communities. Twinning is something that is inclusive and involves every component of the community, and this really is the only dedicated source of funding.
We heard earlier today about mainstreaming and about using other programmes for it. One of the pieces of advice I give is that something like the education programme Socrates is an excellent way that something can be incorporated into twinning. Socrates can serve to promote twinning but it cannot be the essence. It cannot serve to promote the whole twinning movement; it can only really encourage young people to get involved and should be used to enhance twinning. None of these programmes that exist can promote the whole concept of twinning as an infrastructure for housing so many other things.
I worry about the suggestion that was made to mainstream twinning and to use other funding programmes. I fear that would really lead to a reduction in the twinning movement and even the promotion of it.
In the UK, the European Commission town-twinning grant goes to local authorities and community-led twinning associations. The grant is vital to both these organisations, because there is a great variation in the amount of money that local authorities in the UK are prepared to give to twinning. For those local authorities
45 where there is generous funding, that is fine – maybe they do not need the grant so much – but there are other local authorities where they do not have the democratic power to devote funds to twinning. Therefore, this sort of funding is vital to local authorities.
Regarding community-led groups – and here I think the picture is the same throughout Europe – many of these groups have to raise their own funds, and having this grant gives them a tremendous boost.
We heard earlier today about the media, and their not being very helpful in communicating European issues. I think that to ensure that partnerships are encouraged, actually having this sort of money does encourage twinning to take place. The grant provides an incentive to continue the twinning movement, and I believe that the European Commission grant actually contributes to the continuation and sustainability of twinning.
On a personal note, it is our experience in the United Kingdom, particularly with the new Member States, that funding like the town-twinning grant encourages a lot more activity. Poland is actually the UK’s third most popular twinning partner. That is not because we love Poland more than any other country but because some funding was made available for one-off links with Poland looking at particular themes. It is also because there was funding to encourage this initial stage, and a whole relationship developed around that. I believe it is same with the existence of European Commission town-twinning grants – not to fund 100% of activities, not to fund 100% of the relationship forever, but having that little bit of financial incentive leads to the formation and the continuation of partnerships.
I would also say that it is vital to twinning because it leads to more dynamic and successful partnerships. The comment from my colleague from Newbury was very interesting, and I have to say that I hear that comment very often, namely that people do not want to be controlled by the European Commission town-twinning grant. I believe that a lot of people feel like that, but I think a lot of people also recognise that the grant is not setting out to control people by suggesting these themes and by brainwashing you into following certain themes. What it is actually doing is saying that we are giving public money, and we are not trying to control, but we are trying to ensure that the activities that we fund from public money – my money, your money – are a legitimate use of public funds.
As far as my personal experience goes, I was a twinning officer in a London borough, and we had an excellent partnership with a German town. However, it is very tempting when people come over to visit you to go and visit Big Ben and Covent Garden, and Harrods and go shopping, but that is not twinning. I would work for Thomas Cook if that were the sort of thing I wanted to promote. That is not twinning, that is what I call leisure and holidays.
This programme is excellent because it gets people to come together and to really understand about contemporary lifestyles, culture and history. If you did not have themes – not laid down in a controlling way to dictate to people what they need to do – and if you did not have a framework and guidelines, we would spend all our time shaking hands and saying, “hello, this is rather nice”! You need to have some sort of
46 guidance on which to base your relationship, because the only way you get to understand citizenship, to understand each other and to understand lifestyles, is by actually starting to discuss a real theme.
I would like to conclude by reiterating that the programme is not just necessary, it is not just important, it is vital, and it must be continued.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Chair
I take that applause as indicating general support for your point of view. Thank you for that.
I shall now take one or two more speakers. What I am proposing do is to take any more thoughts about the existing programme and your ideas about how useful it has been, and then we will have a coffee break. After the break we can discuss what we want for the future programme.
Could I please have a show of hands for those who wish to speak? I see that there are three or four people who wish to speak. Let us start with the speaker over here.
Philippe Tarrisson Association Française du Conseil des Communes et Régions d’Europe (AFCCRE)
Thank you very much, Chairman, my name is Philippe Tarrisson and I am in charge of the Citizens Europe Department in the French Association of Communes and Regions in Europe. It is the French offshoot of a European organisation.
I am very familiar with the Community’s policy on town twinning schemes, because I have followed it since it was first created in 1989. Basically, what I do in my job is to put myself at the disposal of French municipalities and French twinning committees that would like to submit proposals to the European Commission for funding under this programme and who may be seeking information or advice, and perhaps some tips that I can give them. So they are generally asking for assistance in submitting their application.
The first comment I would like to make comes back to a point made this morning by Mrs Parent, the President of the Platform of European Social NGOs. When she spoke she made it quite clear that the Community budget is money that belongs to the people of Europe, and having paid homage to the role played by twinning in the construction of Europe, she went on to say that twinning is all well and good, but “they should go and play somewhere else” because there was Community money available elsewhere, and money needed to be channelled towards the NGOs.
47 I believe that was tantamount to provocation, I think it was virtually a declaration of war. I think we have to remind people who make comments along those lines that European citizenship is really in the hands of local authorities, it is really those authorities that have a great deal of experience in Europe. The difference between local authorities and other bodies is that at least they can claim democratic legitimacy. That was my first point.
My second point is about the content of the programme. Contrary to what Mrs Parent said, towns involved in twinning cannot apply under other Community programmes, principally because those other Community programmes are rather cumbersome ones that require a great deal of expertise and require a great deal of financing.
If in a call for proposals you see that the Community share will be a minimum of EUR 100,000, that means that the project leader will also have to stump up EUR 100,000. I know very few European local authorities who would be able to put EUR 100,000 into any European project, and that is why the Community twinning programme is particularly well suited to meeting the needs of twinned towns and cities.
That relates to the first question we have been asked, because to date the European Commission has been financing small-scale projects. I think that was the right action to take, because when it comes to trying to raise people’s awareness of Europe there is absolutely no need to spend hundreds of thousands of euros. We do not need to invest in building bridges or roads or renewable energy projects, so the investment involved here is not huge. That is why, since awareness raising needs to be done at grassroots level, it is quite normal that projects used for these purposes should also be on a small scale.
I therefore think that the programme does correspond to the needs of local authorities, and this can be seen by the number of people participating in the projects, more than 1,400 projects, which means that we are reaching out and touching tens of thousands of Europeans. I do not see any other European programme that can boast such fine statistics. I believe that we should stick to this micro project-based approach, so that we can tailor our proposals to the modest needs of local authorities and of towns that wish to become involved in town twinning.
Moving onto my third question on the impact of the programme, the feedback I have received from French local authorities that have been involved in this programme indicates that they are by and large positive about the procedure, which is seen as fairly simple. It is particularly welcomed by those with experience of the more complex procedures in 2000-2001, when very often filling in the application forms was like torture. So things are a great deal simpler now.
Regarding the fourth question about new trends and developments and where the programme goes from here, I particularly have in mind the danger of holding meetings outside the town twinning context.
Turning to point 5, the impact of Community funding, the first thing I notice when I discuss these with people whose projects have been accepted is that it is not just the money that is important, it is the fact that they actually got funding from the European Union and that their application was accepted. They see that as a recognition of the
48 quality of the work they are doing, and it is always very good to see that your application has been approved.
If a local authority official has spent most of his day drawing up an application, it is really gratifying for him to know that the project has been approved. If a local councillor from a small town really had to go into battle with his colleagues on the council to try to get his project through, and if it was made easier for him because he claimed that he might be able to get funding from the EU, then he is delighted to be able to inform his colleagues that he has got that funding in place.
Moving on to question 7 regarding the contribution of aid, it is very interesting to note that Community support does stimulate the people involved in projects and in town twinning associations, not just regarding the project, but also intellectually. It encourages them to use their imagination and that, I think, is a good thing. I have seen hundreds and hundreds of different projects being put forward, and they are all very diverse, a great deal of imagination has gone into them. I am talking not just about the serious subjects addressed by these projects but also about the way such projects are tackled in an open and friendly manner. I think that that is one of the main advantages of these schemes, the fact that people can work together on serious topics whilst getting to know each other and actually enjoying themselves.
There are a number of points about citizens’ participation. Has the programme enabled a greater number of citizens to participate in European projects? I have had a look at French projects and at the beginning of the programme, in 1990, French projects that were accepted on average involved 53 people per project. A few years down the road the number had increased to 87, so I think that basically there is a positive impact on increasing people’s participation in European projects.
Chair
Thank you very much. I think it would be better to conclude this part of the debate. I would like to call a speaker from the Rhône-Alpes.
A participant
Thank you very much. I have just a couple of brief points.
Sometimes I think that it is not a bad thing to go back to the origins of this programme, because I think there were twinning links even before the signing of the Treaty of Rome. Historically speaking, there were twinning schemes which were intended to assist Franco-German reconciliation. I do not think we should ever overlook why such schemes were set up in the first place, namely to try to ensure that the citizens of two countries that had been at war could be reconciled with each other.
I think that amply demonstrates why this programme cannot be integrated into other programmes. It is like no other programme, it has its own specific features and it is very much a programme that focuses on the people of Europe. What they basically
49 reproach Europe for is the fact that they do not actually see money from Europe trickling through to them at grassroots level – and here I would like to refer specifically to the Structural Funds.
For once, European money is visible to the people of Europe, so please do not hide it within a much vaster programme where the citizens of Europe will not see that they are getting value for money. This makes Europe visible and gives it credibility in the eyes of its citizens. I think that a history lesson is always a good thing, it is good to remember why such schemes were set up in the first place – to reconcile the nations of Europe with each other – and also to see that European money is visible to its citizens.
Dieter Schmidt Partnerschaftsring Braunfels E.V.
I think that by and large I can go along with the previous speakers. My name is Dieter Schmidt and I am the Mayor of Braunfels, a town that is a Europe Prize winner1. I do not know whether there are other towns here that have been awarded that prize. We have been heavily involved in town twinning since 1959 and, as one of the previous speakers said, there were some town twinning arrangements in place even before the European Community was created at the beginning of the 1950s. I think that I should speak on behalf of those towns and say that a great many of these questions are highly provocative. Perhaps you are seeking to act as a devil’s advocate and are trying to stimulate those present in the room to react to the questions.
I think it is quite clear that this money is necessary. It is absolutely essential to have this money to ensure that small towns can become involved. Large cities are somewhat different, as I know from my own experience. I was the chairman and vice- chairman of the Association of Towns awarded the Europe Prize and over the many years that I sat on the board, we came to realise that you really do need a great many skills at your disposal if you wish to ensure that a twinning arrangement works properly.
Money is of course also very important to enable to you to do this, but I think it is true to say that these towns do more than is required by the EU and if any cuts were made to the funds available, then that would be a stab in the back for all those towns and cities which have put in such a huge amount of laudable effort.
I would just like to add a point about contacts with Eastern European towns and cities and their citizens. I think too little has been said about this and it is very important that we have contact with people at the lowest possible level in order to promote understanding between peoples, and also to promote reconciliation and trust for the purpose of building friendship.
Friendship is, after all, the main goal towards which we are striving. That is why it should not be too much to ask for a contribution towards building friendship in Europe. I really do not think that Europe should ever feel that the money it is
1 The speaker refers here to the Europe Prize awarded by the Council of Europe to local or regional authorities in recognition of their Europe-oriented activities.
50 spending on these schemes has not been used properly, or that the true worth of it has not been appreciated. That is why I really do think that this point should be recorded and that we should in fact ask for more money to be put at our disposal so that we can continue to perform these essential tasks.
Chair
I am told that there is a lady in red who wishes to speak.
Marisa Solana Cabrera Asociacion Alherba
Thank you very much indeed for having invited us. My name is Marisa Solana and I am from Granada, in Spain. We have received an award for our town-twinning project. Could I start by saying that I agree with a great deal of what has been said, but that I would also like to add something on the basis of our own experience.
We have a twinning link with a town in France called Bagnères de Bigorre, and our two municipalities are about 1,200 km apart. We have had a great many projects that have received financial support, but there have also been a great many projects, run either by us or by Bagnères, where we have had to find other sources of funding and we have had to work to finance these ourselves.
One of the previous speakers was saying that even within the same community we do not always know each other very well, but yet we often travel long distances to meet other citizens from other countries in Europe. I think that twinning associations can also help to make sure that people within the same town or community can get to know each other better.
I think that if we can encourage people to provide assistance for partnership programmes, this is another way of ensuring participation by citizens in our own municipalities. This can involve young people, but also older people. I think this is a movement that Europe should continue to finance as far as possible. It should put as much money as possible into projects that it deems to be of interest.
Our community is a small one, with 5,000 or so inhabitants, and the main problem we have encountered is that of language. There are a number of young people who start learning French when they are 15 or 16 years old – and some of them do speak English, of course. However, the older people who are also members of our association – and there are a great many of them because they are very keen on the idea of fostering links – have the problem when they are working with the association on a day-to-day basis that they have not mastered other languages. This is perhaps a question that I could raise. I wonder to what extent we could apply for funding for a language course, a beginner’s course perhaps, so that the older people involved in our work can learn some French.
51 Chair
Thank you very much. The point about languages is a very interesting idea. I am assuming that you would allow other languages, not just French, to be included in your idea.
The final speaker in this session is Mr Fehrenbach, who opened the questions and will now have the last question.
Rolf Fehrenbach Kreistag
I have to say that I think there is far too little money available. With regard to the total budget, we would not be talking in thousands, we would be talking in terms of decimal places in the overall budgetary context.
One speaker referred to the historical background of reconciliation between France and Germany. I have to point out that the benefit from this programme in this area is much greater than in other areas. In October we had a seminar with the French Association of Mayors to celebrate 50 years of partnership between Germany and France, and at that event it emerged very clearly that the town twinning movement has to move on.
We have to move on from questions that were relevant during the immediate post- war period and the problems we had to overcome then, which was the need for reconciliation between peoples. We need to involve more young people. At that seminar we also pointed out that language really is a decisive factor, and that is why I would like to support the point just made by my Spanish colleague.
We also have to fight against English becoming the lingua franca. You have to learn and experience another language because only in that way that can you make progress using a language other than English – French, for example. That is one area where I think these support programmes can represent an opportunity for us.
Lastly, can I just add that the question of ensuring awareness of European citizenship is one of the primary objectives of the European Union – the very important concept of citizenship of the European Union is not one that touches all of our citizens yet. This programme to promote town twinning is a very important building block along the road towards achieving this aim, and that is why we have to try to develop a vertical concept of citizenship ranging all the way from local citizenship, to regional citizenship, to national citizenship, and then all the way up to the upper level of European citizenship.
The Committee of the Regions dealt with this topic some years back, when I myself served as an expert assisting them with their work. I think that this vertical understanding of what citizenship means is one which should be part and parcel of European Union policy, not just in words but also in deeds. That is a concern we should all share and I feel that any calling into question of this programme would be totally misplaced.
52
Chair
Thank you very much. My colleague Sandra Ceciarini, wishes to give some figures on the increase in twinnings thanks to, in her view, the European programme.
Sandra Ceciarini Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)
Thank you. I shall speak at greater length after the break about the programme itself, but I would just like to give some figures from last year about town twinning since the birth of the programme. It seems to me that in Mrs Fontaine’s report, which she wrote in 1998 asking for the programme to be put in place in Europe, she talked about 3,500 existing town twinnings in Europe. However, we now have about 30,000 town twinnings in Europe. I think that clearly reflects the impact of the Community programme on the number of town twinnings in Europe. It is quite obvious that without this programme we would not have had this huge increase.
Chair
Thank you Sandra, and thank you everybody for all of your comments.
After the coffee break we will go on to the most important part of our discussions – your ideas. We need a discussion about the need to continue with the programme – I think we are all agreed on that – but we also need your ideas for the future.
Thank you.
(Coffee break)
Chair
We have about one hour to give our views on the future of the programme from our perspective. Then, after a break, the Golden Stars award ceremony will take place.
I think we have already drawn some useful conclusions from the past and have reached a very strong consensus that the current programme has been essential and that we need such a programme for the future.
We have reached a very strong consensus that the imaginative idea of trying to mainstream the twinning budget – pushing it out of Active European Citizenship and into other places – has gone down rather poorly here. We all disagree with that very imaginative, but misplaced, idea.
Regarding the future, I am entirely open to your ideas. However, I think there are some questions around what the substance of the programme should be, what the
53 bureaucracy is like or what the regulation of the programme should be. Are there any points you wish to make with regard to the future? I was talking to some of you who have been working under the existing programme, and you told me in private discussions that you thought the bureaucracy was better than it had been, but perhaps could be improved still further.
There are some questions on substance and some on form and regulation. Perhaps there is the issue of the size of the programme in terms of money. We know that overall this programme is unlikely to grow very much because of all the pressures on the EU budget generally, but I think we should perhaps form a view about what we think the scale of the budget should be at the end.
Within that range of topics we have a number of speakers, some of whom have already spoken. Sandra is a member of my own organisation, so I shall take her a little bit later. Who would like to open the discussion?
Giancarlo Scopel Comitato Gemellaggi di Feltre
I am from Feltre in Italy and we have long experience with twinning. We carried out our first twinning in 1961. Personally, on the basis of my own experience, I am rather puzzled about micro-projects. For many years I have been in charge of a town- twinning committee in my city and I have been very satisfied with my experience. However, I have recently had the impression that it has become the fashion, especially for some small municipalities, to be twinned with a city without creating the necessary tangible basis for that twinning to have any kind of meaning at all.
Very often, all they do is exchange politicians, and nothing more. I believe that twinning should be a marriage after a very long engagement. It should not be an end point; it should be a starting point and should continue over a long period. That is what I wanted to say to my colleagues. A twinning has to be a long-term relationship.
Chair
Thank you for that comment. In fact this has been the subject of quite a vigorous debate, certainly amongst the twinning officers from the various different countries, and there are some slight differences of perspective on this one. However, the essence of twinning has always been that it is based on a long-term relationship, and we have had that discussion before. Certainly, there is a consensus that it needs to involve the citizens, even if quite often it involves elected representatives as well.
I therefore thank you very much for that comment, which is really about the nature of twinning. There is a need, from our perspective, to be reasonably flexible on this, because different parts of Europe have different ways of looking at this, but I thank you for your contribution and fully understand the point you are making.
Let us move on now to other points about the future of this programme.
54 A participant
You just mentioned the problem of bureaucracy. I think this is something very important, because most of us working in the area of town twinning do this on a sort of honorary basis. In other words, we fill out forms in our spare time in the evenings. These forms should not be overly bureaucratic, the questions should be easy to understand and there should not be too many of them.
On a more positive note, over the last three or four years those forms have improved considerably, and the applications that have to be submitted are much easier to understand than they were 14 or 15 years ago. However, we think that some of the questions could be dropped. We do not think that a municipality needs to justify its existence. If the application is approved, you get a kind of compendium of 60 or 70 pages that all need to be initialled. Why, I ask, when we are basically just initialling printed matter?
Another recommendation I would make is that these forms, which are pretty good now, should not be constantly revised, they should be left as they are for a couple of years at least.
Another suggestion would be that all of the programmes should have a kind of quota for young people. It should be compulsory for young people to be involved – otherwise only older people will be involved in these twinning projects, particularly in larger cities where you have only people who hold some sort of office getting involved, rather than ordinary citizens. The whole point of these programmes is that ordinary people should take part rather than just politicians. So perhaps there should be some kind of regulatory body that ensures that a specific percentage of young people should take part in the programme or project – although then, of course, you have the problem of monitoring.
Chair
Thank you for that point, which reiterated what the previous speaker said – we do not want only politicians to be involved.
Regarding the issue of whether young people must be involved, that is clearly desirable, but I would like to throw this open. It clearly is a must.
I am very grateful to you for raising this point about having to initial thousands of pages of text. As Secretary-General of a European organisation I find that I spend a lot of my time pointlessly initialling lots of pages of text and I never understand why we have to do it, so I think that is an excellent question and one that is probably not only relevant here.
Annemarie, do you wish to answer this point?
55 Annemarie Bruggink European Commission
I think that the town-twinning programme is the most accessible of all the Commission’s programmes. We have limited the obligation to comply with rules to the minimum, but we cannot go any further. There is now a single set of rules applying to all Commission programmes, both large and small. It may seem very heavy regarding town twinning, but we cannot change that currently. However, it has recognised that we have probably gone a little too far by making the same set of rules for all programmes, ranging from EUR 100 million to EUR 2,000.
One of the reasons why all the pages have to be initialled is that people might, and this has happened in the past, apply for EUR 2,000 for a town-twinning grant and then swap pages and insert a new one. These are quite simple things, but there are unfortunately a couple of things that we just cannot change.
We are also working now on simplifying the contracts, so that we will not have to send you a 30-page contract for a small grant. However, all this needs work, and we need to adhere to the framework of the rules currently in force in the Commission.
Chair
Thank you for that explanation. We appreciate your attempts to simplify this. I think that for the future we are asking – and I think this would be unanimous – for the simplest forms and regulations that we hope are consistent with a simplified financial regulation.
Do we have any points on the substance of the programme? Should it be the same as it is now in terms of substance or do you have other ideas? I have one, if I can throw this open from the chair. When going onto the consultation website form I wondered what distinction was being suggested between programmes covering several years and short-term, one-off actions. I was not clear whether this division applied inside a twinning programme, or whether the multi-annual ones were a separate thing outside the twinning programme. I do not know if we have any views on that. My personal thinking, but this is up for discussion, is that there should be a single town-twinning programme, but within that programme there should be a budget that might have one aspect for multi-annual, longer-term twinning projects and one for one-off, shorter ones.
That is just one question I would like to throw open, but there may also be other ideas. Does anyone wish to respond on that or on other points? I call Philippe Tarrisson.
Philippe Tarrisson Association Française du Conseil des Communes et Régions d’Europe (AFCCRE)
Regarding the Commission’s idea to make it possible for twin towns to present multi- annual projects, it is an interesting idea on the one hand, but on the other, I think we
56 should avoid any adverse effects of this kind of approach. We see many local authorities, big and small, who know each other very well and are used to working together, and they come up with projects which will continue in the longer term, over one or two years, for example.
I think that if we make it possible to submit multi-annual projects, that will not only result in new projects but also in new sponsors – local authorities who are not playing any part in this programme at the moment because they only have small projects, or because it is very difficult for them to decide on a particular project. So they might become more involved.
Secondly, there are many initiatives taken by the twinning towns which fall through the current net of the existing measures, for example artistic projects such as exhibitions, or sports events, or media projects. This might include cycling relays or walking relays between towns, or exchanges between ordinary citizens that fall through the net at present. I think they could be incorporated into a multi-annual approach, so you could have a local authority that put forward the whole programme, or they might just be responsible for Action 1, artists and exhibitions, Action 2, exchange of trainees, or Action 3, exchange of local officials. I think this is something that could be fitted in with multi-annual projects and we could still have shorter projects at the same time.
However, there is a potential downside. There has been a lot of town twinning in the past and I think that if we place too much emphasis on a multi-annual approach then local authorities may become too dependent on the EU. Once they become dependent there is a risk if, for example, the EU cuts funding or gets rid of the programme.
I think that if we have a multi-annual approach, it should be limited in terms of funding so that local authorities do not always include their European or international projects in European co-financing. I know that this approach is somewhat theoretical, and I am saying this as one who comes from a country that does have funds available for international relations. I also represent a medium-sized town. I am very much in favour of local autonomy, and I think that when it comes to an international level, local authorities should not totally depend on external bodies such as the EU, they should only part-fund the projects.
Chair
We now have a speaker from Romania.
A participant
I do not know if we can ask questions about local authorities becoming dependent on EU funds for such projects. They should have some realistic policies for their own activities. As far as town-twinning projects are concerned, I imagine that most of them, if not all, are multi-annual. For example, the Moldovita/Kruibeke twinning has projects in investment, children’s studies, in the promotion of tourism and in social
57 care for the elderly. These cannot be short-term projects, and I guess that many other projects are the same. Maybe those projects that concern leisure, as mentioned in the paper we received, can be included in these short-term activities.
Chair
Thank you. I call the next speaker.
Vanni Resta Comune di Specchia
My name is Vanni Resta and I took part in the La Specchia town twinning. The topic we are discussing is multi-annual projects. In a sense I agree with this approach, because we are in practice implementing multi-annual projects. We are now reaching the third edition, and we are pretty convinced that we will get to the fifth edition, involving all the countries that originally participated in the first project.
What I would like to propose here may seem very shocking, but it could be taken into consideration for the future of the programme. In a multi-annual project, it would be possible to adopt an approach common in other EU programmes, such as the “integrated projects” in the Fifth Framework Programme. With this new financial measure for the integrated projects, the consortium in place can propose to the Commission a call for proposals within the consortium so that more money is obtained for specific activities. This approach could probably boost the multiplier effect of town-twinning projects.
I do not know if I am making myself clear, but those were just a couple of thoughts.
Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. I call the next speaker.
A participant Partnerschaftsring Braunfels E.V.
Perhaps I could just briefly respond to what was said by our Romanian colleague. I think he gave the right answer to the question from our French colleague, and I would like to stress that we obviously do not want to be dependent on anyone. I think that being dependent on the EU could only result from over-generous financing on the part of the EU. However, knowing the financial situation of the EU, I think that the idea of getting too much money from them would be wishful thinking, and so we can forget that idea!
58 I would also like to make a proposal. We have been discussing specific projects for quite a while now and I think there is one aspect that we have not paid enough attention to, and that is young people. If you look at Braunfels, you can see that our young people initiated a project, and we asked them how they imagined Europe would be in the future. We also asked them what they thought about the Convention and how it should work. I think you would be absolutely amazed to see what these young people’s ideas are, and how they view the EU. I think it is particularly important that a youth forum should be created here to which Europe’s young people can be invited, and so that the discussions we are having here today can also be held by our young people.
We have very good experience of involving young people in our European award- winning towns, and of inviting young people so they can talk to one another and pool their ideas. If we want to have the right sort of Europe in the future, a Europe in line with our forefathers’ ideas of 50 years ago, then I think that it really is time to look to Europe’s future, and to do that you need to involve people. So we should put in place a youth forum with sufficient funding. We all know that young people do not have any money, so they do need support. To my mind, that is the right way to ensure a successful Europe in the future.
Chair
Thank you for the idea of the youth forum. I think I can feel a kind of consensus emerging again, which is that even if it is not absolutely mandatory in the programme, we should make the involvement of young people a priority, especially young people from different kinds of backgrounds in the Community. That is something that deserves greater financial support from the Community. Is that the general view? I think we all agree that your point is a very good one, young people are the future, and there is some anxiety about their not being sufficiently involved. Thank you for that contribution.
We have several people wishing to speak. First, David Linse from Baden- Württemberg.
David Linse European Office of the Local Authorities of Baden-Württemberg
Thank you very much for giving me the floor again, Chairman. Perhaps I could just come back to the question that you asked earlier as to whether we actually need this programme. I particularly agree with a previous speaker who very clearly stated that for most towns and local authorities this programme is the only one in which we they can take part, particularly when you are talking about small towns and local authorities. I think Annemarie Bruggink is absolutely right when she says that this programme is still one of the simplest support programmes offered by the European Commission. There are still a few problems, of course, but I think it is true nevertheless.
59 Perhaps I could say a few words about consultation now and the questions that have been specifically raised. There was a question in the consultation paper about accompanying measures. Apparently, these are supposed to be something new. I think they would be a useful addition. In Baden-Württemberg we try to come up with a project with an Internet platform. There is a forum where the local authorities in Baden-Württemberg can talk about the substance of their twinning arrangements, and through which they can also create new partnerships. I think that this kind of measure is something the programme should support; that would definitely be a useful addition.
I would also like to come back to a point referred to several times now – multi-annual programmes. It has been said that this could be a useful addition to the programme as well, and I understood the Commission to say that they want to make the support programme more professional and align it more with other support programmes. There is nothing against that as such, but if we do have a multi-annual programme I think these small projects, these simple citizens’ meetings that account for the majority of the projects supported, are in danger of being allowed to fall by the wayside.
Earlier on, Mr Chairman, you said that we could not expect to have more money in the future. That really is a problem we have to take on board. We have this paper before us and I believe that, up to now at least, the consultation results demonstrate that those involved see things in the same way. Of those questioned, 90% think that short-term activities are important or very important, and I think this is confirmation that we should try to stick to the current framework, as well as the multi-annual programme.
Let me come back to what Mr van der Pas said this morning. He said that if there is more money available for town-twinning activities, that is something positive, but obviously it increases the workload of his Directorate. That has to be right, but it is unbelievable how many small projects are supported. I would just like to propose an idea for discussion, and that is whether, like other programmes, we could decentralise the programmes, especially in those areas where we are talking about small-scale projects. By decentralisation, I mean that perhaps regional or local authorities should be involved in the actual administration of the projects. That is just an idea. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. I think decentralisation needs to be handled with care. Unless you decentralise to a national or regional level, I am not sure what it means. If you do decentralise it to a national or regional level, then there has to be a financial calculation about how much goes to each. You can then get the historic pattern of spending, which it actually seems from the figures is rather “lumpy”, it is heavily concentrated in certain countries, and that can be fixed for a long term. I think there are some issues around decentralisation or more involvement, but I think that we need to be a little careful and think it through quite carefully. However, that is just an immediate response from the chair on that very interesting point.
60 I wish to call Daniel Garnier from Basingstoke in the UK. He makes a very simple point – why change a programme that works well?
Daniel Garnier Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
We have been talking all afternoon about making changes to the programme and we have all said that it may be a bit too bureaucratic. However, it is one of the easiest ones to apply for. I have actually applied for many other programmes – national programmes in the UK; Youth for Europe, for example – and the application procedures are a lot more demanding and complicated. We can certainly improve on what is happening at the moment, but we have all said that the programme works well, we are all happy with it and we want to carry on. It really helps us – every city, town and village in Europe – to further our relations and partnerships and extend them to new countries.
So that is my point, why change a programme that works pretty well?
Chair
A very simple point! I take that to be a very strong vote in favour of having a new programme but roughly along similar lines and as easy as possible. Thank you.
We will give one or two more people a chance to speak. Does Ailsa wish to speak?
Ailsa Spindler Independent Expert
I would like to respond to Daniel’s point. My name is Ailsa Spindler and I am going to be chairing the plenary tomorrow. One of the tasks I have been given tomorrow is to get some new approaches and new ideas. So although I completely understand why you are asking why we cannot just carry on, the reality is that several different small programmes are being amalgamated into one. There are less resources and it is not an option, I am afraid, for town twinning to carry on as it has been. I think you have to start thinking about making other links, using links like youth groups, sport, volunteering organisations, and those sorts of things. I would like some of that to get into what you mull over tonight so that you come back with some ideas tomorrow. I am afraid that just staying as we are is not an option.
Chair
Yes, but I think that is in a context where good practice across Europe is that those groups are involved. To be honest with you, I think our colleague was saying succinctly what I think we would hear from other colleagues, and that we could go into more detail on. However, I think there is a profound debate to be had. It would just be a political difference to say that town twinning should be merged with all the other aspects of NGO life, and we think that is entirely the wrong way to go. That
61 seems to be the consensus of this workshop. I think that we need to explore quite carefully what the sense of your contribution is, because the NGO world is actually a different one with its own interests and should not be confused with ours. I think there is a near unanimous view on that.
Do you wish to make a further contribution, because I think that this a very important issue?
Ailsa Spindler Independent Expert
I do not want to interrupt too much, but I will expand a little. What I meant was not that you are not doing these things already, but that you should be more innovative in your approach than just saying that it works, so let us carry on doing it. Politically, that is not an option. If that is not what you were saying, then I misunderstood. This is what often happens when you try to make a helpful intervention – you end up setting several hares running!
What I am trying to say is that this group is one of three discussion groups that are going on, and tomorrow we have to make a synthesis of all these points into some sort of cohesive recommendations for the programme.
Chair
Susan Handley, do you wish to speak?
Susan Handley Local Government International Bureau, Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)
I would just like to make a couple of comments, and I actually agree with the speaker before last. I have only been involved for about eight years, but I think the programme has improved a lot because of the efforts of colleagues in the European Commission.
However, we do need to look to the future. This is an opportunity for all of us involved in twinning, not just to come along to a talking shop, but to actually contribute to something quite exciting and innovative.
The most important thing about the town-twinning programme to my mind is that we ask people applying for a grant to come up with aims and objectives for their activity and for outcomes that can be measured in some way. I am not going to propose to you the criteria for the aims and objectives, and I am not going to demand that people come up with some quasi-political aims and objectives, with the outcome that ten people sign up to the idea of a European constitution. I do not mind what the aims and objectives are, or the outcome, as long as they actually exist.
62 However, I would say that the programme in the future still needs to have clear aims and objectives, it needs to have outcomes, and it also needs to be accessible to the small municipalities, the tiny communities that have not got such large resources, and the larger ones.
I would also, however, say that we need to remember that even large cities and large local authorities that we perceive as being well off may not have the political power to put money behind twinning – just because they are big, you cannot automatically assume that they have loads of resources.
A couple of the more tangible suggestions are these. I would like to see the town- twinning grant used for more awareness-raising activities – Europe Day, for example. That is an ideal opportunity for twinning associations and local authorities to really get to grips with many European issues, and to raise awareness of what they are doing within twinning, the partnerships they have, and many other issues. So the twinning grant could be used in the same way that it is used for conferences, but perhaps also for awareness-raising activities to increase membership and participation.
Maybe we could also look at funding programmes that are in two parts, the first year being an activity based on a certain subject, but also giving funding in principle for the following year for a dissemination seminar to actually follow up and build on what has already been achieved and discussed, but to disseminate it to a wider audience and maybe even go to the second phase.
The final thing would really be, again, to have a project in a similar way in two phases but, unlike the first phase with the dissemination phase afterwards, this would be a project where, for example, we look at sport and the impact it has on the community, and compare and contrast it in two communities. We could ask the Commission, within its funding programme, to fund a second phase the following year which looks at exactly the same subject but in a different way, not just the impact of sport on the community, but that perhaps takes it a bit further and looks at the impact of sport on people over the age of 50, or young people.
I have to say that while it is important to involve young people, it is also very important to remember that all age groups are important. Young people can learn from older people. I would like to see the grant programme continuing in terms of recognising the importance of young people and the ideas they bring, but still respecting the range of ages and trying to encourage people to have activities where we do not just have a group of a certain type of people, but rather have a mix of ages, genders, social and ethnic backgrounds. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. I now have a question from Veronica Krausz, of the Hungarian national association of local authorities.
63 Veronika Krausz Hungarian National Associations of Local Authorities (TÖOSZ)
I work as an international affairs officer at the Hungarian national association. I thought I should make a contribution as a representative of a new Member State, and also because when I look at the statistics that were printed out for today, I can see that Hungary is very much involved in this town-twinning programme, and we can speak from experience. I can also see that despite its size it ranks seventh in submitting applications, and we have also been successful in gaining support from the Commission.
At the same time, among the Golden Stars awards made today, there were two Hungarian towns that were very active – Kiskunfélegyháza and Szigetszentmiklós. I was very pleased to see that and think that for this reason I can legitimately say that Hungarian municipalities are very much interested in town twinning. I can also tell from the calls I get every day that they are increasingly looking towards the Commission to support their activities.
What I think would be very helpful in the new programme – and in this context I would like to stress the importance of coming from a new Member State – is that a sense of European identity is not yet very highly developed in Hungary. I think that for this reason we need very good tools to emphasise European identity. The Hungarian public is not yet very aware of the identity involved in belonging to Europe – they are not even very sure about their Hungarian identity!
If you consider the elections we had for the European Parliament, voter participation was very low. We are at the very beginning, and that is something we need to change. It should therefore be one aim of the new programme to promote active European citizenship, and I think that would be a great help for the people of Hungary. I also agree with what Susan said about outcomes. I think that a multi- annual programme should not be a chain of unrelated activities, but I do think it would be a good thing to develop a very deep programme in which the various aspects of a problem can be looked at and different layers of society can also get involved. That approach could perhaps enable a more subtle change to be achieved than would be the case with a single event, where we start something, there is perhaps one report on the conference and they never meet again, or the relationship becomes more formal. That concludes my comments. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you very much for that very useful contribution. I have about three requests for the floor. You have the floor, sir.
Leo Nys Een dorp voor een dorp Kruibeke
I am Leo Nyz from Kruibeke in Belgium, and we have been working very closely with Moldovita in Romania. I would just like to tell you something about our cooperation.
64 As you heard, we have two projects, which are youth projects. We helped to set up a youth movement, and there was also investment in study.
Investment in study involved sponsoring young people who do not have the financial means to study, and this has yielded good results. After three years, the young people in Moldovita have started to organise a monthly activity for children, and they have done this themselves without our assistance. The other result is that my young colleague in Moldovita, Darie Dorin, who is also here, was able to study thanks to our financial help. He is now a teacher of English and history and is responsible for our tourism and youth project in Moldovita. He will be an important man in the future – in fact, he already is!
Chair
Thank you for that information. So I presume your point is that you want to keep that sort of activity going in the future?
Leo Nys Een dorp voor een dorp Kruibeke
As a result of our cooperation, yes.
Chair
We now have another speaker from Belgium.
Hugo Casaer Mayor of gemeente Beersel
I would like to come back to the statement made by our French colleague, when he talked about the multi-annual approach. I do not know what the most recent version of the financial regulation is, but unless the budget line is multi-annual, then I do not see how you can make a multi-annual commitment. You can only talk in terms of appropriations for the current year, and you would have to come back with a another request for the second stage – unless, of course, the system changes, and it is decided that this budget line is to be a multi-annual line, in which case the commitment will cover a number of years and be renewed year after year.
Unless the system for entering appropriations is changed, you cannot have a legal commitment by the Commission over and above the first instalment. Some solution has to be found – maybe you could ask some Commission officials who are still working on this to give us some assistance here.
Secondly, we have been talking about programmes that last over a number of years, and you have to have some kind of vision about how things will develop. I think that
65 applies to the multi-annual calculation. You have to be careful, because I believe that you will be raising expectations that we are not going to be able to meet.
Another point I wish to make is that there are some very interesting projects, and we are going to be seeing some of these this evening. However, it is possible that in the future the criteria that have to be complied with might make it clear in our local commune that a certain type of approach has more merit than another.
A great many ideas have been bandied about in this room – and I have in mind things other than traditional twinning, things like “my friends’ friends are my friends”. In cases where you meet people in different contexts – and I am thinking now of those towns that do not have a direct link with one’s own town, for example – maybe the programme could be extended a little. In some cases we may have too much, and in others not enough.
Are we going to continue along the traditional lines of twinning, or are we going to find time and money to do a little more than that? Perhaps extra points could be added if applicants were to go for an extra category, perhaps a profession or an age group. You need to be organised transparently, and that will provide extra motivation for those people who are in charge of the programmes.
Chair
Thank you very much. Regarding your points of detail about the multi-annual programme, for the time being all we have is on the web site as part of the consultation process. We shall have to see if the Commission wants to carry on along those lines, and we shall just have to see how people react.
I first call Mr Jakob, and then my colleague Sandra Ceciarini.
Günter Jakob Partnerschaftsring Braunfels E.V.
I would like to make a practical suggestion. You have a very good overview of projects that have taken place and which are planned. Would it not be possible for you to provide a list for us so we can see those projects that have been carried out and those that have yet to take place? In that way, things could be modified by people planning projects. That is our proposal.
Chair
Thank you. Given that about 2,000 projects are carried out each year, that is quite a big task, as I understand it. We have a list of the main thematic content of each project somewhere, do we not?
Risto Raivio
66 European Commission
At present what we publish each year is just a list of projects with the names of the municipalities and financial details, so we do not have a catalogue of good practice and so forth. If I may also refer to Mr Linse’s earlier contribution about possible accompanying measures in the future, some of them could of course be implemented in a decentralised way, but some could be centralised at European level. We have noted that proposal.
Chair
I just want to check, as we need to reach some conclusions. Who else wishes to speak? We have Sandra Ceciarini and Philippe Tarrisson, who I would ask to be very brief as you have already had two bites of the apple! Does anyone else wish to speak? If not, we can then sum up and finish this session.
Sandra Ceciarini has the floor, and then Philippe Tarrisson.
Sandra Ceciarini Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)
I am in charge of twinning in the Council of Europe and I coordinate the group responsible for twinning. Anders Knape is the chair, and we will hear what he has to say during the awards ceremony.
We are very pleased indeed that there is a Community programme for town twinning, and for the consultation process that the Commission has launched. We have already responded to your questionnaire, but there are just a couple of points that I would like to mention. Jeremy Smith has already mentioned these in fact, and I have to say that there are things that worry us a little when we read this questionnaire.
There is just one item entitled “town twinning”, whereas there is a separate item for multi-annual programmes. The first point I wanted to make was to seek some reassurance about the multi-annual programme. Is this part of twinning or is the European citizenship initiative categorised somewhere else? We need to get that straight, because otherwise I am afraid there will be some competition between the two.
A previous speaker was saying that it is very important for the future of the twinning programme for there to be a multi-annual phase, which could no doubt bring in a great many new cities and a lot more resources for the programme. However, we would like some reassurance that the multi-annual approach is part of the twinning operation itself.
Having said that, we would also like to seek some reassurance that a balance will be struck in the programme budget between multi-annual projects and micro-projects. We do wonder, as our colleague mentioned, what thought has been given as to how
67 the budget will be allocated when it comes to micro-projects, which are probably exchanges between towns, and that is part of the very vitality of twinning.
Regarding the multi-annual programme, we do think it is very important for the Commission to be as flexible as possible in managing the programme. Medium-sized or small towns might find it difficult to enter into a long-term commitment, by which I mean a financial commitment and the difficulties experienced by small communes.
This year, I understand that the Commission is setting up an agency to manage the European citizenship programme, and maybe that covers everything, including education, but I imagine that this will not have an adverse effect on the twinning programme. It would be most unfortunate if monies were taken from Peter to pay Paul. I do hope that the budget for the programme will be increased in any case.
Lastly, I would like to say a word about the role of young people in the twinning programme. Several people have spoken about this point this afternoon. About a fortnight ago I was present at the launch of the new programme on e-twinning, which Jeremy Smith mentioned earlier. Here again, much importance has been attached to the participation of young people still at school in the construction of Europe, and I think that those projects should be given some attention, and that we should not take on too much and dissipate our energy. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you very much for that. I now call Philippe Tarrisson.
Philippe Tarrisson Association Française du Conseil des Communes et Régions d’Europe (AFCCRE)
Thank you for giving me the floor for the third time. I have just one short comment on what our German friend was saying regarding these themes that are to be developed in future programmes. It strikes me that at the moment the programme is fairly flexible and it puts some faith and trust in the project leaders with regard to awareness-raising in different ways.
If, in the course of the call for proposals, people are directed towards certain themes, then I think another difficulty will arise, as our British friend was saying. I mean that tabs will be kept on twinning and it will be forced into too rigid a structure. That would mean that the actions would also start to follow the same model. I think it is better to give people a free rein. That would lead to a much more creative and inventive approach.
Chair
Thank you very much, and that is the final comment from the floor.
68 I would just like to try and synthesise one or two points. As I understand it, we have looked at the current programme and I believe that there is a consensus that the current programme has certainly been improved, that it works quite well, and that it provides a unique and essential basis in this field. There is no other European programme or way of bringing people, especially in the smaller and medium-sized towns, cities and communities of Europe, into this kind of trans-European activity and allowing them to learn from each other in the same way. Most people who have spoken have indicated that there are some problems with the bureaucracy but that it has improved, and that generally there seems to be quite a positive feeling amongst those present today in this respect.
As I understand it, there is a consensus – a very strong one – that in future, twinning must continue to be a key part of the programme, and not merged in a general sense and into all other aspects of a future programme, even though there perhaps needs to be a reasonable degree of flexibility in what comes under it. For example, as we think that twinning is very important in involving citizens, it can also form part of that type of activity, bringing together the concerns of municipalities as well.
It seemed to me that there was certainly a very strong rejection about mainstreaming twinning into other programmes. It was considered totally and utterly inappropriate to look for twinning in other programmes, and totally appropriate to see it in the context of this programme. I think that was our consensus view.
Regarding themes, we did not go into great detail, but I think there is a clear feeling that the programme needs to have a significant content, but that we should not try to lay down too many rules at general European level about what that content should be. We would also certainly make it a priority to give a degree of support to the involvement of young people, as they represent the future.
I think that when it comes to multi-annual versus short-term projects, a fair degree of clarification is still required. There is some sense that the multi-annual approach could be helpful for quite a lot of municipalities, but certainly not for all, and the budget needs to be carefully considered in respect of the balance between those two approaches. From our point of view, this balance between multi-annual or short-term activities, while it may apply to other types of project, should be considered as part of a given budget for twinning.
With regard to resources, we have not made any very firm recommendations. However, I think we have inevitably implied that resources should not be less than at present, and we are well used to having a political fight over the budget for twinning. Certainly, I imagine that our view is that we would like the budget to be somewhat increased because we would like to do some new things, but we are a realistic group of people as well.
My last point is that there was a consensus about the definite need to involve the new candidate countries and, possibly, although this might come under neighbourhood policy also, the need for twinning the neighbouring states including perhaps the Mediterranean ones as well, where the original purpose of twinning could also be a vital tool, certainly for the Balkans, and for other countries in the future.
69
That is just my attempt to sum up from the chair, and I must give a right of reply to Richard, the rapporteur, to say I am wrong, or if any of you feel that I have got something wrong. Richard, do you wish to comment briefly?
Richard Arnold Rapporteur Representation of the State of Baden-Württemberg to the European Union
No, Mr Chairman, I do not. You have summed up perfectly, and there is nothing to add at the moment. We will meet again tomorrow morning. Thank you very much.
Chair
Thank you all and thank you to our very kind interpreters, who have stuck with us through our very long meeting. Thank you very much indeed.
(Applause)
70 II - Workshop on Research/Reflection by organisations of general European interest
Stephen Boucher Chair
Two aspects of the current programme provide the main focus of this afternoon’s session. First, the conclusions that can be drawn from research on the European Union undertaken by a number of institutes in order to see what lessons can be learned from the past. Secondly, what contribution can networks formed by Not-for- Profit Organisations make towards the concept of active citizenship. Since the majority of funding is on the latter issue, it will be the main focus of the discussions.
First we will look at new ways of funding specific activities in terms of calls for expressions of interest, the criteria to be established and the required level of funding.
We will then look at the role that think tanks can play via their intellectual contribution to civil society and through acting as an interface with European institutions.
My role is to ensure that as many people as possible have an opportunity to take part in the discussion. We want to look at what has been done in the past and the lessons that can be drawn from it. However, we do not want to dwell on what organisations have done in the past but rather on what can be done in the future.
The points made will be grouped by subject and questioners will be asked to take the floor.
We will start with two questions that have already been received. Both deal with the new forms of funding for the activities covered by the programme and in the calls for proposals.
Ellinor Haase European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA)
I want to deal with the structural funding for Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Our organisation receives core funding from the Commission. While such funding is welcome, it is small and is insufficient to fund even one single person.
In exchange for this funding, we have to produce lengthy reports covering all financial and funding details. This is not a good balance in cost/benefit terms and I would like to know if this situation will be improved in the future.
The other question concerns the need to take account of the differences between NGOs. Some are well funded through having large publicly-funded member organisations, for others funding is much more difficult.
71 The third question concerns the difficulty of showing that our core funding does not overlap with funding for other projects. This leads to a supplementary question about the Commission’s request to NGOs to take part in joint consultation, give advice and introduce best practice etc. We wonder how this can be done in a climate of reduced staff costs.
Chair
I would just like to clarify the purpose of this discussion, which is to gather a wide range of new opinions rather than putting questions to the Commission. The Commission’s representatives who are here today want to hear your views.
Fernand Herman President of the Pegasus Foundation, President of the Union of European Federalists (Belgian Section)
I am President of the Belgian section of the Union of European Federalists. I am also the President of a foundation, and I have been active in European affairs for forty years. Allocating funding through calls for tender may make sense for industry and businesses, but I think it is less effective for voluntary organisations.
I do not envy anyone who will have to look at this solely on the basis of financial criteria. My own experience is that the most efficient organisations are the ones with lots of enthusiasm and which have the most volunteers, but they would come across as less attractive if they were analysed simply on the basis of their profit and loss accounts.
The Commission appears to be focusing more and more on economic aspects. For example, asking for information on things like bank guarantees. This is a shame, because this is not the way in which European citizens can be encouraged to become more involved with Europe.
If you want to engender greater enthusiasm for the Constitution, this will not be achieved through commercial organisations. A different way is needed. When asking organisations to justify funding, a zero financial value seems to be put on the contribution of volunteers.
My NGO involvement and my experience of several inspections and audits have left me absolutely appalled. The Commission sub-contracts auditing to commercial companies. Their approach is to conduct rigorous audits of publicly quoted companies so that all expenditure can be accounted for and any fraud detected.
However, when the same methods are applied to NGOs (for example, turning down photocopying costs because it cannot be shown that a given number of photocopies can be allocated to a specific project) the outcome is that volunteers’ time and effort is diverted from core activities to work on satisfying accounting and financial requirements.
72 Finally, I think that we should pay more attention to outcomes. The Commission’s concern is simply that money has been spent in accordance with rules and procedures rather than in terms of the results that have been achieved.
Mathias Jopp Institut für Europäische Politik
I have two main questions and a follow-up question related to points covered in the Discussion Paper.
My first question concerns what the Commission envisages in terms of the budgetary headings 15.060/103 to 108. If expenditure under these headings is not doubled or tripled how will the Commission manage future research into citizenship activities? Serious consideration needs to be given to increase expenditure under these headings.
My second point is whether grants for running costs will be available; or will it simply be confined to specific project funding. This is a very important consideration for think tanks like mine. Running cost grants for 2004 to 2005 are necessary so that the Institute has the stability to plan ahead in terms of its work programme, and I am interested in finding out if this will be the case in the future.
Chair
Can I stress once again the importance of your own contributions as opposed to simply putting questions to the Commission. We want to know what criteria should be adopted in calls for proposals and the needs that they should address. Please be as brief as you can.
Irnerio Seminatore European Institute for International Relations (IERI)
I agree with the points made by Mr Herman and Mr Jopp concerning day-to-day management issues. I would like to pick up on a couple of issues before making a suggestion. The first is that there are two part-time employees in my organisation who have benefited from funding. However, their time has been used up during the last few months in preparing the supporting documentation for the 2004-2005 budget.
These are two young people who want to work in our organisation because of what we do. However, a minimum level of funding is needed to enable them to develop their careers within the organisation. They are part of the infrastructure and logistic resources which are essential to my organisation’s growth and development.
The Commission funds 20 per cent, but in-kind contributions can also be made. Volunteer work is a case in point. We have benefited from the work of seven researchers over the past couple of years who have done some important work (their names appear on our website).
73
With regard to the comments made by Mr Herman concerning the demand for bank guarantees, I have to say that banks are no longer prepared to give such guarantees, and this is the reason behind the organisation of this session. It is a matter of concern for everyone. Banks no longer wish to provide letters of guarantee, so we are obliged to provide the required security. Some of my own personal assets have been earmarked to back up guarantees. If you are asking for an amount of less than 80,000 (euros) there is little point to this…
Chair
Please be brief.
Irnerio Seminatore European Institute for International Relations (IERI)
Staff are paid on the basis of an agreement where the contract runs from 1 January to 31 December. The way that the legislation is framed requires us to spend the budget by 31 December, while waiting to be paid in the following year. Like us, the staff concerned have rent and other costs to pay and the funding gap means that we end up losing them.
The legal framework for voluntary organisations stretches back to 1901 in France and 1921 for Belgium, yet we are being asked to operate in the exactly the same way as a normal company. Hence it is difficult for us to bring forward or carry over revenue spending when budgets finish on 31 December. This has an adverse effect on good money management.
If we have to take account of programmes in the following year does this mean that we need to look at budgets for 2006 now?
Chair
We will take a few more questions and then the Commission will reply to the points that have been made.
Giampiero Alhadeff Solidar
Solidar is a Europe-wide NGO concerned with social and development issues. We have links with the Social Platform, Concorde and the Civil Society Culture Group. I strongly support the proposal that think tanks should be funded under the new programme. However, I also believe that such funding should be extended to European-level NGOs working in the social and development fields, the majority of which are currently not being catered for.
74 I also support my colleague, Ellinor Haase of the EAEA, that core funding should be part of the programme.
I would like to put forward a slightly innovative proposal. Instead of funding total costs on a percentage basis, as is currently the case, there should be a specific total. Funding on a percentage basis is increasingly problematic, and many large funders such as the Department for International Development (DFID) in the UK have abandoned this approach. Percentage funding imposes a straightjacket on both the Commission and NGOs.
The aim of this programme must be to bring Europe closer to its citizens. It needs to be remembered that many of the organisations here today do not have the resources to support the costs of interpreters and to meet travel costs when attending meetings. This is where the programme could make a real contribution. If it does not, there is a risk that the field will be left to well-resourced organisations, like those in the Nordic countries, and to predominantly English-speaking organisations.
I also want to echo what other speakers have said regarding the Commission’s procedures. They are overly rigid, not just for us but for the Commission as well. Application procedures are incredibly cumbersome. According to some estimates that we have made, application-related costs are phenomenal.
The Commission should consider adopting the system used in some countries, which rely on concept papers. Concept papers would do away with things like 15-page long budgets. Instead, four or five lines are all that would be needed.
My second point is that a major innovation would be to fund projects for more than one year. Single year funding creates enormous difficulties. Contracts may not be signed until April, but staff already need to be in place. It is also unfair, especially when core cost funding is low, that core costs, such as administration costs, cannot be charged to a project. It is in the Commission’s interest for projects to be administered properly. This means that we must be able to draw on the input of core personnel like accountants, so that all the forms can be completed and all relevant documentary evidence provided.
Finally, the Financial Regulation that was introduced a few years ago is a bane on all our lives. The Commission’s Vice-President, Margot Wallström, said recently that it is a disaster and that things need to be changed quickly. NGOs are cooperating closely to put proposals forward to the Commission that will improve the current system, thereby allowing us to move away from some of the complicated rules and regulations that are currently in place.
Tony Venables European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)
In relation to the point raised in the last remark, the basis of the Commission’s programme to promote active European citizenship should be one where there is no conflict between its objectives and the way they are funded.
75 The Commission should consider more radical options. If my organisation wants to try out something new, or undertake a quick research project, we no longer go to the Commission. It is difficult to be innovative given the current rules, so we only go to the Commission if something is already established and accepted.
One possibility is for the programme to obtain a derogation from the Financial Regulation. This is not as radical as it sounds. I was reading proposals for the future youth training and education programme and I saw that one was being sought in order to make the ERASMUS programme easier to run.
I noticed an interesting proposal in the European Parliament’s budget for rural development. This would involve mixed funding arrangements, where decisions on projects would be made by a partnership of foundations, the Commission and other players.
Based on some research that we have carried out on the Financial Regulation, we believe that the Commission, in conjunction with the European Parliament, should establish objectives. Setting objectives is a role of political institutions, but we doubt if these institutions should be the ones which decide who gets what – especially when allocating small grants.
It is a very difficult area where flexibility is essential, and I imagine that the programme will involve a lot of small grants. A possible solution might be to set up a European Foundation which redirects grants towards think tanks and NGOs.
Chair
One final point before the Commission responds.
Marie Ranty European Council for Non-Profit Organisations (CEDAG)
I completely agree with what Mr Alhadeff from Solidar said about including NGOs in financing arrangements. My comments concern the programme, the elements within in it and how funding will be allocated.
My organisation is very pleased that there will be calls for proposals starting in 2006. We were extremely shocked by what happened in 2004/2005, when a list of organisations appeared out of the blue. When organisations are named in this manner with no reference to selection criteria, it creates problems for democracy and transparency. If European institutions want to come closer to their citizens, this is not the best way of achieving that objective.
Let us forget the past and just say that we are very pleased that the Commission is going to organise calls for proposals from general interest organisations as of 2006.
76 I also agree with Tony Venables of ECAS. We need to think carefully about the issues surrounding the Financial Regulation, as there may be many practical problems at a later stage.
Cécile Le Clercq European Commission
As Mr Boucher has said, the purpose of this meeting is to hear your views, so I will comment very briefly on one issue, namely the call for proposals. Also, many of the issues raised relate to tomorrow’s session 3 on financial means and conditions.
As you know, we are operating in a framework determined by the Financial Regulation. This is very cumbersome for both sides. There are certain rules where it will be impossible to obtain future derogations. One of these is the principle of equality of treatment for all organisations interested in receiving funding from the Commission. This is a very important principle within the Financial Regulation, so the position on this is very clear. For this reason, the Discussion Paper poses a number of questions, and we are interested in finding out which criteria you feel will help us to identify the best projects in terms of value for money.
Earlier this morning, someone mentioned that the amount available for the programme would not be very large, which means that efficiency will be crucial.
The issues remain the same, regardless of whether funding is for operational purposes, whether it is given on an annual basis, or whether it is spread over several years. For organisations, it concerns the need for transparent criteria to enable them to know how best to submit a bid to maximise the chances of success. For us, it is about selecting the best bids on the basis of objective criteria.
Some of you also emphasised the need to generate results. That is why we want to get your views on the criteria required for selecting the best projects. We are listening and are open to your ideas.
Chair
Before continuing with the other topics, I wondered if there were other concrete suggestions that people wanted to make.
Sebastian Kurpas Centre for European Policy Studies
One of the criteria that I would endorse is that of determining which projects would bring an additional European dimension through additional funding for developing networks. As a Brussels-based organisation, we find that national funding goes to national organisations, making it hard for us to apply.
77 I am largely responsible for a network where 20 different institutes collaborated in producing a newly-published paper on the European Constitution. Sustainable financing for this type of activity is very difficult. In a Europe-wide context, a value added criterion will help to maintain these types of networks. It is an issue that the European Commission should consider.
Professor Albert Biesinger Tübingen University
I specialise in religious education. It is evident that projects have to be scrutinised closely. There are questions of relevance, ranging from the survival of the EU to a greater understanding of religious beliefs. Throughout the EU, millions of people belong to religious groups and communities.
Misunderstandings between Christians and Muslims have already been mentioned and we need to get to grips with this problem; otherwise we could see riots in the streets.
The real themes need to be examined in greater depth prior to being incorporated into the criteria for evaluating projects.
From my experience, the ethical dimensions of vocational training need to be taken into account. On several occasions I have been involved with training apprentice butchers in Tübingen. Some of those in my classes were Muslims and some very lively discussions ensued. There have been occasions where I had to intervene when students started threatening each other.
Failure to take this issue on board would be a grave mistake. This is equally the case based on my experience of lecturing on family matters. There is an important need for better parental education.
Chair
There are a couple of minutes left to discuss issues related to criteria and possibly needs.
Ellinor Haase European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA)
Projects that have been carried out to date should be evaluated. Evaluations are occasionally carried out, but I am unaware of any long-term evaluation strategy.
It is very important to assess the current and longer-term impact of projects before identifying new issues and setting out new priorities.
This means not changing priorities every year. In my own area of work, new developments and requirements crop up daily, making it harder for me to keep track
78 of what is going on. If this is my experience at a professional level, I wonder how those NGOs which rely heavily on volunteers are coping.
Chair
Please bear in mind that the contribution of think tanks to the issues that have been raised will be discussed later.
Giampiero Alhadeff Solidar
I would like to put forward a number of criteria. First, value added at the Europe-wide level. Second, taking account of an organisation’s track record in terms of project delivery.
An organisation’s structure of governance also needs to be examined: who is involved in decision making, how representative are they and are decisions taken democratically? Other important issues are the financial soundness of organisations and their commitment to European values in areas like equal opportunities.
As to my final point, it may surprise some of you to learn that Solidar is a funder. We fund NGOs in over twenty countries worldwide. As such, we attach great importance to “institution building”. This means that we take a longer-term view because we want the institutions that we fund to grow stronger and become more effective. I do not see much in the way of evidence of the EU adopting a similar position, and I hope that this matter will be given greater consideration.
Chair
Thank you for those very relevant suggestions.
Fernand Herman President of the Pegasus Foundation, President of the Union of European Federalists (Belgian Section)
As president of an association covering 300 schools numbering 400,000 pupils, my view is that the fundamental criterion should be the strength and extent of a network. This criterion has never been taken into account, and it is important that it should.
Chair
Thank you for being brief.
79 Mathias Jopp Institut für Europäische Politik
On the issue of criteria, I can only speak from the perspective of think tanks and running costs. I envisage three types of criteria. The first are formal criteria focusing on how well established an organisation is, its experience in the field, and that it can be trusted to spend money properly through having sound procedures.
The second concerns content, and focuses on topics that should relate to the European Union and its responsibilities, so that the wider public has a greater awareness of what the European Union is and what it does. For think tanks, this means linking the academic and policy-making processes as a way of reaching a wider audience.
Thirdly, criteria which focus on a “multiplier” effect. By this I mean “audience reach” – type measures like numbers of publications and seminar and workshop participants. Measuring success is difficult in this area. For example, if we take the town-twinning activities mentioned this morning, we may ask if it is a success to have 1500 twinned towns and cities meeting each other. Maybe we will only know the answer in 10 years’ time.
My point in raising these issues is not to strive for perfection, but to achieve a practical solution through selecting criteria which are capable of being used.
Chair
If nobody has any objections, I would suggest moving on to the remaining points. I see two further points. Can we briefly deal with these and then move on?
Irnerio Seminatore European Institute for International Relations (IERI)
A good criterion which partnerships can show is that they have been effective. A further criterion is to focus on looking at future policies, specifically the European Constitution, but also seminars and conferences concerning European foreign policy. The specific nature of these issues makes it difficult to measure their impact.
Claude Leclerc Club UNESCO de Metz – CRISTEEL
We have not discussed the timetable for the call for proposals. In November, you start working with your European partners, and then in April, you get a negative response to your proposal from the Commission, so all your efforts have been in vain. There is a major problem of timing in this process. It needs to be addressed so that the maximum number of projects can be supported.
80 There is also a problem when you are outside the networks that do receive support. I would also ask the Commission not to send standard letters to unsuccessful applicants. It is galling to read standardised wording like “we are unable to give you any money, but we wish you every success”.
Chair
We will now move on to the contributions that think tanks make in a number of these areas. One of the questions was how can think tanks contribute to European policy making by putting forward innovative ideas?
A second question is what contribution can they bring to the debate on civil society? Thirdly, how can those in civil society become involved in European policy making, and what role can think tanks play in terms of an interface between Europe and its citizens?
Finally, what can think tanks do in terms of adapting and developing partnerships and what added value can think tanks contribute through their networking activities?
Hans Martens European Policy Centre
I want to endorse previous comments made in support of think tanks. If we compare the situation in Brussels with other parts of the world, there are comparatively few think tanks here.
Those that are here do not have much money and there are, unfortunately, very few rich people who want to use their wealth to finance research into European integration. I will discuss the institutional weaknesses this creates shortly. However, there is an upside: think tanks are non-partisan and enjoy a high level of independence in terms of their contribution to the debate on European integration.
This not only enhances the quality of the debate, it also contributes to today’s topic for discussion, namely bringing Europe closer to the people. It also has to be stressed that core funding and the ability to secure funding for more than one year at a time are also important in terms of maintaining the independence of think tanks.
If we look at the question of stakeholders, the EPC has nearly 400 member organisations that, as stakeholders, represent a broad range of civil society. A powerful synergy exists between think tanks and civil society through combining ideas with action.
In fact, the programme forces us to work together since it is partly about translating ideas into action. The quality and independence of think tanks’ input is important, not only in terms of improving the decision-making process but also through their communicative role in terms reaching a wider spectrum of society.
81 It is also important that our activities go beyond the Brussels elite. We need to get out and about and visit member states, particularly the new member states. Our networks will only be effective if we can reach all levels of civil society.
Issues such as Turkey’s application to join the EU and the proposed EU Constitution highlight the need to raise both the quality of the debate and the degree of understanding.
The need for this was illustrated only yesterday when the Luxembourg Premier, Mr Juncker, mentioned Lisbon while addressing a meeting in the Grand Duchy. He was wildly applauded by Portuguese guest workers who thought that he was talking about the delights of the Portuguese capital rather than something known as the “Lisbon Process” – hence the need for greater interaction.
Think tanks, by virtue of their independence, can be effective conduits of information. They can spread the good news and contribute towards developing the effective communication strategy that the Commission desires.
Difficulties over financial double counting in relation to core financing remain an issue. However, it is the loss of independence that will threaten think tanks and their networks. On the plus side, however, if we can improve coordination along the lines that I have suggested, the ability of the Commission to reach out from Brussels to other European capitals will be greatly enhanced.
Chair
I notice that there are no questions concerning the first point, namely how European think tanks can contribute to European policy making through contributing innovative ideas. So I would welcome practical suggestions on this issue.
Giampiero Alhadeff Solidar
I think that there is a false and unhelpful dichotomy between think tanks and NGOs. My organisation collaborates with a number of think tanks. We all work in the same field, so it seems odd that they do the “thinking” and that no-one knows what the others do.
In fact we are all engaged in thinking and acting, so the line between the two types of organisation is much more blurred. A lot of European level organisations are heavily involved in thinking about policy. There is, in fact, a mutual relationship between what are traditionally called think tanks and organisations described as NGOs.
This relationship needs to be supported. My organisation, along with the Social Platform and several other organisations, collaborates actively with think tanks. For this reason, the division between think tanks and NGOs within the programme is not particularly helpful.
82
Chair
So your suggestion is for greater collaboration as a means of generating more innovative ideas.
Tony Venables European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)
I definitely agree with point about greater collaboration. It can be very dynamic, especially in an area like European citizenship, the subject of today’s discussion.
One very important thing that can be done is to bring diverse research strands together. There is a deeper problem within the Commission and I agree with Giampiero Alhadeff’s point about the false dichotomy between think tanks and NGOs. Some NGOs like to think that they “think”, but neither they nor the think tanks are looking far enough ahead in terms of coming up with new ideas that can be put to the Commission.
The Commission is seeing a lot of recycled ideas. We should be at the leading edge and be involved with initiatives so that we can be prepared for what are going to be the big issues in ten years’ time.
Professor Albert Biesinger Tübingen University
First of all, we should be preparing now for those issues that are going to be important in ten years’ time. Secondly, looking at the research scene in Germany, there are many groups of researchers who do not take the European dimension into account. So maybe it should be you who should be playing an active role rather than waiting for others to act. You should get an overview of the things that we are interested in.
Maybe a “homeopathic” approach, so to speak, is needed. Using the internet, you could link up groups in places like Italy, Munich or Paris as an inexpensive way of creating synergies and spreading ideas.
In my field, which is education, alliances and networks need to be created, so maybe you should be taking an active role in such a process.
Gaëtane Ricard-Nihoul Notre Europe
I would like to comment briefly on the subject of innovation. It is difficult for think tanks to go off the beaten track in terms of producing innovative ideas.
83 Successful innovation requires two factors. The first is time. You can only be innovative if you have the time to think in detail about certain subjects, and time spent on administrative matters is detrimental to this process. It would be useful if part of the programme could identify funding for innovative projects. Included within this would be support for networks of think tanks which are geared towards innovative thinking and new ideas.
The second factor concerns the bringing together of groups with different philosophies and backgrounds. Too often, groups with the same way of thinking and who deal with the same problems are the ones that come together. If ideas are going to reach civil society, a horizontal approach rather than a clustering of like-minded groups may be better. By this, I mean a think tank working with a large NGO or even a local authority. This could be a very interesting and useful way of generating innovation.
András László EuroVisioning.org
I want to follow up your comments and the remarks of Mr Venables. We live in an increasingly fast-paced and globalised world, and very few think tanks have a concept of the broader picture. You need to combine your energies. It seems that think tanks want to shine individually rather than work together.
Nothing will change unless think tanks, NGOs and other similar groups come together. To use an analogy, it is a situation where everyone wants to be a soloist rather than a member of the band.
Fernand Herman President of the Pegasus Foundation, President of the Union of European Federalists (Belgian Section)
I would like to pick up on comments made by some of the senior Commission members. There are those who say that the Commission can only fund purely information-related activities. This misses the point. To achieve greater citizen involvement in European life, it will be necessary to go beyond merely providing them with information.
It is essential that Europe’s citizens are well informed on matters such as the proposed Constitution and elections to the European Parliament. That is more than just about supporting the activities of a think tank. The average elector will not be prompted to vote in a European parliamentary election because of some theoretical discussions emanating from a think tank. Consequently, the Commission will have to accept that it will have to fund movements which encourage citizens to play an active role in European life.
84 A participant Styrian Office
I also represent the Centre of Competence for South Eastern Europe, a small Graz- based think tank. The biggest problem that think tanks face is how to communicate with ordinary people. Projects must reach out to this constituency. For example, until I came to Brussels I was unaware of the existence of the European Policy Centre (EPC).
All too often major European issues are presented in ways which fail to reach the ordinary citizen. Adopting the right language for communication would represent added value on the part of think tanks.
Ellinor Haase European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA)
The importance of more direct involvement by NGOs and civil society in general needs to be emphasised. Think tanks have an important role to play but, as we have seen, many excellent ideas never reach the general public because the language used is difficult to comprehend.
As practitioners, I believe that NGOs have much closer links with civil society. The majority of innovative ideas are coming from small NGOs, because they are the ones who face the problems and have to find immediate solutions. They cannot wait ten years for a solution to come along.
I would also like to know why links between the various initiatives within the European Union cannot be better. I think that the initiative put forward by Margot Wallström is a very good one and it is a matter of regret that there is no input to it from this conference.
Mathias Jopp Institut für Europäische Politik
Think tanks can – and should - contribute to European policy making in three ways. First, they have to generate ideas and forecast what the issues will be over the next few years. I am not suggesting that they have to look ten years ahead, but their forecasts should cover a period of several years. They also need to analyse past policies on particular issues (structural policies or EU enlargement for example) and draw lessons from them.
The second point is that, having made their analyses and formulated their ideas, who will be their target audience? This has to be clarified. Do they want to get their message across to the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament or to a national government?
85 Sometimes it is necessary to criticise a national government, but if that government is also a source of funding, that can create difficulties. This is the reason why additional funding from the Commission can provide the freedom that is needed.
The need to address the wider public brings me to my third point. This concerns the necessity of thinking about a communication strategy. In some, but not all, cases this can be carried out in conjunction with NGOs. Mr Hans Martens spoke earlier about the need to translate ideas into actions. However, we think tanks cannot act directly. We can produce the ideas and the policies, but we cannot engage in direct action in order to put them into practice.
Irnerio Seminatore European Institute for International Relations (IERI)
We are discussing innovation and evaluation. Given our area of work, our interlocutor is the Council rather than the Commission.
The debate we are having is one of strategy. This is the Commission’s weak point. Who can we contact when there is no technically competent committee to deal with this issue?
Through being closer to the United States’ position, we may disagree with the European Union’s security policy, but who is going to take the decision in a debate of this nature?
Strategy – and very often strategy is military strategy – is about anticipating events, but there is no institutional infrastructure capable of supporting this. We seem to be in a vacuum where we do not know who will take a decision. It is an extremely complex matter.
The first thing that needs to be settled is the issue of how European policies are constructed.
Hans Martens European Policy Centre
I did not want to imply that NGOs are incapable of thinking about issues. I know that they do and that is why they are a valuable part of the dialogue. Nevertheless there is a difference between horizontal structures and the more vertical type of structures represented here.
I view civil society in rather broad terms, encompassing NGOs and possibly other structures such as those based on regions. When I spoke about linking ideas with actions it was primarily to say that think tanks are less involved with civil society compared with other groups.
This is the reason why I want the programme to make us work together. Naturally, we want to ensure that our ideas reach the upper echelons of the policy-making
86 community such as the Commission and the European Parliament, but we should not confine ourselves to the Brussels elite. We also need to be made to go out to member states and to the regions within them to promote our ideas.
Someone said that we did not mention a communications strategy. I did mention such a strategy, and I stressed the importance of having a debate about it and the initiatives that Margot Wallström will be working on over the next four-and-a-half to five years.
Agnès Hubert European Commission
I am part of the Commission’s in-house think tank (“GOPA”). Because I arrived late, I am not sure if I am addressing the right point, but I would like to pick up on the point about raising awareness levels among citizens and the role of think tanks and other organisations and movements.
Regardless of whether we use “awareness”, or some other term, all parties have a role to play. One of this morning’s speakers highlighted the necessity of being far more attentive to what citizens want.
There is a potential synergy between the process by which think tanks put forward ideas and methods of communication. I believe that this potential can be harnessed. There is a need for a better flow of information. The Commission attaches great importance to the need to provide information.
Sebastian Kurpas Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
The debate over the European Constitution has been mentioned several times. This debate is potentially one that is capable of reaching people who generally have little to do with European issues. Our experience is that the expertise that exists at the European level could make a valuable contribution, but its contribution has been largely absent from the debate.
The level of debate varies between member states, but there is a risk of the European dimension being lost if the debate is hijacked by other issues. By coming together we can avoid missing the opportunity to raise awareness levels.
Professor Albert Biesinger Tübingen University
I would like to make a brief comment. The debate here has led me to consider in greater depth the link between think tanks and NGOs. The experience of my own organisation is one where more associations want to use our results or attend one of our training sessions.
87 This opens up further possibilities for networking. Perhaps think tanks could be given the task of exploring other ways in which information can be used.
Giampiero Alhadeff Solidar
Many of us are members of think tanks and we work closely with the EPC. In terms of flexibility one of the best things we did in terms of collaboration between NGOs, think tanks and Trade Unions (and Trade Unions should not be forgotten) was over the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) was able to get easy access to funds from the Commission, which enabled us to run seminars on the Charter in twenty countries, including the new member states.
Picking up on Tony Venables’ point, it would be good if we could find a way of funding innovative ideas which avoids too much bureaucracy. If we can do so now, rather than a year or so ahead (where we have to guess what the political landscape will look like and what the needs will be), that will be a real advance.
Cécile Le Clercq European Commission
I would like to clarify one point. As a number of you have mentioned, there are very clear links between our programme and the information policy mechanisms that Commissioner Wallström is setting up. There have already been contacts between the Directorate General for Education and Culture and Mrs Wallström’s office.
The two Commissioners are fully aware of the need for greater synergy between the programme and Mrs Wallström’s initiatives. It will be taken into account. Both are complementary, and we will be looking at participation in the debate, but we are not responsible for information-related activity.
Chair
We will break for coffee and resume at five past four.
(Coffee break)
Chair
Speaking personally, I would like to stress the need for a clear distinction to be made between think tanks and NGOs. In the earlier sessions, several speakers noted that both types of organisation engage in research and advocacy, but a think tank’s raison d’être is surely to reflect on issues.
88 For example, the work of the Centre for European Policy Studies involves researchers developing new ways of thinking about public policy, which can then be considered by the Commission and other interested parties.
By contrast, while there is an element of research in the work of an organisation like the Red Cross, most of its work is carried out on the ground.
This session will focus on what contribution think tanks can make to civil society, the synergies between think tanks and other organisations and ways of networking.
Tommi Laitio European Cultural Foundation
The European Cultural Foundation is based in Amsterdam and has been promoting European cultural cooperation through the arts and the media for fifty-one years.
I want to look at the programme in relation to the work that EU Commissioner Wallström is undertaking.
There was some confusion earlier between promoting the EU and finding better ways of formulating policy and providing information relevant to encouraging active citizenship. It is not always the case that the two are one and the same.
Think tanks could play a role akin to psychotherapists by acting as “cultural translators”. In this role, they would act as intermediaries between groups such as the so-called elites and the so-called masses, new and old member states, or Brussels and member states. If we consider the issue of creating new public spaces and arenas, then there is a need both for this programme and the contribution that think tanks could bring to it.
This would be a two-way process. Think tanks would voice the concerns of those on the margins to those in Brussels. They would then “translate” the response from Brussels. At present, there is too much emphasis on getting Brussels’ views across rather than on the more difficult task of feeding views through to Brussels.
Concerning the selection of projects, mention was made earlier about a lack of money. The Commission also said that value for money should be the criterion for selecting projects.
The outcome of a strong emphasis on value for money will be the selection of highly conventional projects. In other words, there are no failures and support will be confined to projects generating predictable results.
In the opening plenary session, there were many references to youth issues. There were also some comments in the previous section in favour of selection criteria which took account of an organisation’s track record. This approach risks denying support to new think tanks and to experimental and youth projects.
89 Chair
Thank you for making some challenging points.
Ellinor Haase European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA)
I want to stress the need for closer cooperation between think tanks and NGOs. I also want to reiterate my point that innovative ideas mostly come from grassroots organisations and not large ones.
Chair
Perhaps we could have some views on the respective ways in which think tanks and NGOs can work together and how this can be improved under the new programme.
Tony Venables European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)
I can give an example from my own programme of work that cannot be completed without the input of a think tank.
It concerns a feasibility study for a European tax relief scheme for a global fund. On the one hand, it draws on the expertise that NGOs have developed in areas like fundraising and giving mechanisms as a result of working within civil society. It can then be harnessed to the expertise that think tanks possess in areas like economics to see if a new fund would divert money away from national causes as opposed to creating additional finance to meet major global challenges.
Active European citizenship can be promoted through these types of mechanisms. While small projects may generate the original ideas, they will have to be part of a larger scheme if they are to have any impact on European policy making.
In a nutshell, we in the NGO sector have potential research projects but we do not have the expertise to develop them.
Fernand Herman President of the Pegasus Foundation, President of the Union of European Federalists (Belgian Section)
Although I admit that think tanks and NGOs need each other, the distinction between the two is useful for financial reasons. My main concern, when discussing active citizenship, is citizens’ indifference and lack of knowledge.
90 If we want act, we need to go right to the roots of local life. This means that organisations working at the local level ought to receive support from the Commission.
From my involvement in the campaign for European Monetary Union, I was struck by the huge amounts that the Commission spent to promote monetary union. In this regard, it is no accident that monetary union carried the day in the face of negative attitudes that were present from the very start of the campaign.
This contrasts with the Commission’s hesitance and reticence in other areas. If we take the European Constitution, the Commission itself will be the first victim if there is no constitution.
Hardliners argue that taxpayers’ money should not be used to finance propaganda, and that is certainly a position adopted by the eurosceptics. I do not believe that the Commission should be too concerned about this. We need to invest if active citizenship is to become a reality. Mr Lamy made the same point earlier and I firmly believe that the benefit of such investment needs to be stressed.
Chair
Can I put the points that have been raised to the think tanks’ representatives? Do you think that the Commission should foster and support cooperation between think tanks, NGO-type organisations and, more broadly, groups representing citizens?
Sebastian Kurpas Centre for European Policy Studies
Our experience underlines the need for this sort of cooperation. There is no point in a think tank having the necessary expertise if other organisations with the capacity to transmit it are not brought into the process. NGOs have a wider reach than think tanks and, by virtue of this, are one of the most important means of passing on the expertise that think tanks possess.
With regard to the media, think tanks are able to reach specialist correspondents based in Brussels, but it is by no means certain that what they tell them will find its way to national, regional and local levels.
Irnerio Seminatore European Institute for International Relations (IERI)
I believe that NGOs and similar associations should be able to select their own partners. They will know, based on their own objectives and strategies, who are likely to be their ideal partners.
In our case our partners may be drawn from the academic community. However, partnerships with NGOs whose work is more “activist” in nature may be less
91 appropriate. We may also want to develop partnerships with other like-minded organisations.
In developing these approaches we need to be certain about how we can interact. There are limits to the number of people who can be invited to a meeting, so communication and information technologies like e-mail need to be looked at to facilitate alternative methods of involvement.
Through working in Paris for fifteen years, my experience leads me to suggest that think tanks could give more thought to the scope for joint action. When communicating ideas, considerations such as the logistics of transmitting information and the nature of the target audience are important.
In short, organisations should be given the opportunity of specifying the forms of cooperation that are likely to work best for them.
Mathias Jopp Institut für Europäische Politik
It would be wrong to say that linkages between think tanks and NGOs are invariably a good idea. It will depend on the issues. For example, if we as a think tank are working on issues like veterinary problems or the Schengen Agreement, it is very difficult to link it to the work of an NGO. (In the latter case it stems from specific issues in areas like computing.)
By contrast, for a campaigning issue like the European Constitution, activities like putting arguments for and against on a website or running training programmes in relation to national referenda are ones where contacts and linkages make much more sense. Not just with NGOs but also with journalists and other parts of civil society.
Tommi Laitio European Cultural Foundation
We should look at linkages not just in terms of organisations but also in terms of projects. In my view, links between projects could represent the value added element that is being sought.
I would like to clarify some of my earlier remarks about small organisations and new organisations. It is sometimes thought that initiatives emanating from grassroots organisations are ipso facto better than those originating from large organisations. I did not want to give the impression that I subscribed to this view.
My main concern was to ascertain the relationship between this programme and Margot Wallström’s strategy. I may not have got that point across in the earlier session, so I would like to clarify it now.
92 Tony Venables European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)
It is sometimes assumed that NGOs, being insufficiently specialised, are not qualified to participate in some projects. Given the size of the sector, I think that it is important to challenge assumptions of this nature.
Some NGOs are highly specialised and are major funders of research – medicine is one example of this.
We also need to avoid a situation where funding mechanisms coerce organisations into forming partnerships. That can lead to biased results and difficulties in working relationships.
Nevertheless, there is both scope for, and interest in, partnership-based working arrangements. In this regard, there are some interesting possibilities for organisations funded under this budget.
At last year’s meeting we developed some relationships which have subsequently aided our work. It would be useful if part of the programme, perhaps through a seed funding mechanism, could help organisations to explore the potential for forming partnerships before proposals are submitted.
NGOs are often at a disadvantage compared with industry when trying to argue their case, so it would also be useful to develop a system along the lines of legal aid. This would be a sort of “scientific aid”, enabling NGOs to build up their expertise. Under such a system, the Commission could fund secondments from think tanks and other research organisations to NGOs - provided, of course, that NGOs were free to choose the secondees.
A participant
There are real challenges in carrying out quantitative assessments of an organisation’s performance and efficiency in areas like the effectiveness of their communication and information strategies and procedures.
Right from the start, organisations should specify on paper their objectives and their target audience. They should also state the number of partners they hope to work with. This would help to create a climate of mutual trust and transparency.
Not all organisations enjoy the same degree of power and influence. There are some organisations that wield maybe ten times the power and influence that my organisation possesses. In the end, their influence – in terms of information – comes down to the field in which they work.
Chair
Would Mrs Anastopoulou of the Commission like to respond?
93
Maria Louisa Anastopoulou European Commission
My role in the Commission is to assist in the preparation of new programmes. The reason why we raised the issue of cooperation between think tanks and other parts of civil society was that, within the current programme, both parties have so far not been called upon to work together.
Our aim in raising this issue was to introduce a measure of flexibility in terms of partnerships being able to help all parties to achieve their objectives and reach their target groups. The objective is thus to enable organisations to benefit from the contribution that think tanks can make and to make it easier for their ideas to reach a wider strata of society.
The second point I want to make is in relation to the programme of the Commissioner in charge of press relations, as it also concerns European citizenship. Commissioner Wallström’s activities are based on information and awareness-raising activities. This is a vast area involving different DGs within the Commission.
The approach to NGOs is for the most part sectoral. In the areas covered by the DG for Education & Culture there are NGOs which promote European citizenship, either directly or indirectly. Our purpose in holding this forum is mainly to try and reach out to groups which are not involved in the current sectoral approach.
Each DG tries to complement the work of other DGs as a means of avoiding duplication. In our case we are trying to promote the idea of living, working and being active together.
Providing information to citizens is important, but our aim relates to another aspect that is to reach citizens through, for example, promoting town-twinning arrangements involving exchanges of citizens. There was always a European interest underlying these types of activities.
Irnerio Seminatore European Institute for International Relations (IERI) You mentioned town twinning. Why not take this concept and apply it to organisations via a contact portal for NGOs, centralising information on their activities and results?
At the end of 2004/2005 we could present our activity report for 2004 and send it to the Commission. Citizens could find out, via the Commission, about the activities we had undertaken. As a central point of information, the Commission would have an overview of all activities and it could use this to facilitate “twinnings” between groups working in the same area.
94 Chair
Let us turn to another issue, namely the programme’s ability to assist think tanks in networking.
Sebastian Kurpas Centre for European Policy Studies
As a Brussels-based organisation we would be interested in giving advice and sharing our experiences of the difficulties we have encountered as a way of helping to establish and maintain networks.
We believe that it is important for us to have partners in various member states who can bring a European dimension to projects.
Not all projects require a European dimension and it is not always appropriate to have a multiplicity of partners. Nevertheless, there are areas where a vital element of added value can be created through inputs which reflect the diverse backgrounds of network members. It is in the Commission’s interest to create the structures that will help to achieve this.
Chair
I imagine that the Commission will be interested to hear about your experiences with regard to these issues.
Sebastian Kurpas Centre for European Policy Studies
There have been some very notable successes in terms of establishing networks which work well – especially when they have been able to attract funding from private sources. However, issues such as the European Constitution and, to a lesser extent EU enlargement, are of less interest to the private sector. Our experience is that it is difficult to secure private sector funding to examine these issues. Consequently public funding is the only feasible way of enabling important long-term projects dealing with these issues to go ahead.
However, the fact remains that there is a common European interest in ensuring that these issues are covered. When we did some work arising from the Convention on the Future of the EU we received good funding, but this ended when other issues came to the fore. This made life difficult for us. These difficulties have not gone away, but we continue to survive. Nevertheless, the degree of cooperation that was established needs to be maintained.
95 Christian de Fouloy EULobby.Net
I am the founder-publisher of a portal launched last October called EULobby.net. Its aim is to promote transparency in the area of interest groups and the European parliament, so that citizens are aware of who represents whom.
I need your support so that citizens are aware of lobbying activities. Coming from the United States, I am appalled at the lack of information within Europe on lobbying activities.
While I am not suggesting that Europe develops the same reporting requirements as the United States, I am shocked to find that Germany is the only country whose parliament has a register of lobbying interests that is open to its citizens.
Not everyone wants to be visible and transparent, which amazes me. I am confused by the terminology used here. We use words like “dialogue”, “consultation” and “participation”, and this wonderful word “involvement”.
We need to know how relationships with citizens will be developed. We should not tell citizens that we want them to participate when there will be no scope for them to do so. This will have a detrimental effect because citizens will feel that they have been duped.
Speaking as someone who trained as a lawyer, we need to think about ways of developing citizens’ advocacy skills. This is an area where think tanks could make a real contribution. A practical step forward would be the creation of a Citizen Participation Centre, along the lines of a USA-type governance institute.
In terms of dialogues with citizens, the work discussed here is a step in the right direction, but it could be expanded through being backed by a centralised information system.
Tony Venables European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)
I support this idea, although I do not think that information should be centralised.
I want to comment on the discussion about networks. It is good that the programme relates to the information strategy that is being developed by Mrs Wallström. However, it should also relate to the Commission’s major research programme, which contains vast networks that are really too big. As well as covering information and research, the programme also needs to take account of the issue of delivery.
The difficulty with European citizenship is that issues arising from it are scattered across the Commission. There is a danger that this programme will be just another ad hoc initiative. It needs to be linked to the work being carried out by other DGs in areas like the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the internal market and qualifications
96 and EU enlargement. In this way the programme’s priorities will reflect the work being carried out across the Commission. The benefit is that results can be achieved, and this will encourage involvement. Therefore I hope that the programme will state clearly how it fits in with other areas of work within the Commission. This is very important. Although the Commission is putting questions to us, this is one question that needs to be put to the Commission.
Ellinor Haase European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA)
The paucity of relationships between the different programmes is a matter of deep regret to me. A case in point is the issue of social inclusion.
The DG responsible for employment says that it is important to promote active citizenship to achieve greater social inclusion. Another DG, the one dealing with education and culture, stresses the importance of learning to achieve the same goal. Yet there is very little cooperation between the two of them.
The programme for accession countries touches on programmes concerned with education and Europe. Yet the seeming lack of visibility, in terms of any relationships between them, means that there is a lot of similar work going on, but no linkages between the projects.
When I read the papers that appeared yesterday about the new Lisbon Strategy, I was slightly confused over what they were trying to promote and who had written them. Were they written by a single DG or, as I suspect, by all the DGs?
The issue of linkages goes beyond links between think tanks and civil society. It also covers linkages between think tanks as well as those that think tanks collectively have with the Commission.
Mathias Jopp Institut für Europäische Politik
With regard to an earlier comment, the Sixth Framework Programme for Research is mostly concerned with Networks of Excellence. It ranges from 1.2 million to 3 or 4 million euros.
That programme falls into a different category. It is task-oriented, focusing on single issues involving a combination of between forty to fifty think tanks.
By contrast, my understanding of this programme is that it is about subsidising institutes’ and NGOs’ running costs. However, I do not know whether the ideas they generate, the projects they will work on and the ways in which they will work together are on the present agenda, or whether they will be considered in a subsequent phase.
97 Irnerio Seminatore European Institute for International Relations (IERI)
The Commission could start from the basis that the ten million euro budget for this year will be shared out among the organisations working in each of the thirty policy areas (such as social policy and transport).
The basis for allocating the budget would be the priorities set by the Commission: 500,000 euros for education, 200,000 euros for social policy etc. The criteria for setting priorities would thus be determined at the highest level. The European Parliament would also have some control over the process through proposing amendments to the priorities that had been identified. In this way, pointers could be established for setting up networks.
Chair
We appear to be returning to an earlier point, namely the criteria for allocating resources following the call for proposals. Are there any reactions to the points that have been raised? Perhaps the Commission would like to say something.
Maria Louisa Anastopoulou European Commission
I would like to clarify the nature of working relations for projects within our DG (i.e. Education and Culture) and the DG responsible for Research and Development.
Last year, under Priority 7 of the Six Framework Programme (which is still running) there were projects covering European citizenship. Both DGs worked together, have analysed the selected projects and have asked for the results to be published.
For the coming year we have identified a number of areas that would form the basis of research policies. The sheer size of the Commission’s staff means that it can be extremely difficult to cooperate. Nevertheless, we do try and work together.
Chair
Are there any comments or further points that people want to make? If not, I would like to raise a more general question about the future contribution of think tanks in promoting citizenship.
We have looked at the role that think tanks can play in terms of being facilitators, of spreading information about Europe to its citizens and in raising levels of involvement in European affairs within groups where there has hitherto been little engagement. Given this, are there other, specific contributions that they can make?
98 Tony Venables European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)
Think tanks have a very clear role to play as the interface between in-depth research work and policy making and action. One of the difficulties with European citizenship is that there are different groups of researchers. On the one hand, there are lawyers looking at European citizenship rights, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. Then there are political scientists looking at issues such as the citizen and the EU and the European public space. Other groups are concerned with issues and data concerned with demographic factors and migration – an important area given freedom of movement within the EU. There are also groups looking at issues from a philosophical, even religious, perspective, notably the question of European identity (often concluding that more research is needed to examine this issue further).
This leads to highly compartmentalised research, which reflects the way that universities are organised. What we need is a thinking process which can cut across specialisms. It is a lot to ask of us, but if think tanks can draw together research from a range of disciplines, we will have the tools to enable us to do our jobs.
I cannot work with current research on European citizenship. It seems to be pulling me in different directions. From experience of dealing with citizens who come to us for advice, their approach to life is much more holistic; and this is something that the wider programme could follow.
Tommi Laitio European Cultural Foundation
In his opening remarks, the chairman said that the role of think tanks is to think. I believe that this is a somewhat conventional view of the nature of a think tank. In the Netherlands there are several small think tanks which carry out pilot projects in order to test ideas and to put them into practice.
We have been working with a media centre in Zagreb, which looks at new and unconventional ways of developing networks. For example, networks which are not reliant on huge annual gatherings and congresses. Some support should be given to organisations that are willing to test new ways of contributing to public life and policy.
Chair
Thank you for that added contribution. I applaud the European Cultural Foundation’s efforts to bring journalists from different countries together and to encourage newspapers to share articles. My comments were general rather than specific, and I acknowledge that the distinction between thinking and doing is sometimes artificial.
If we look beyond the proposed changes in the tendering process, I am interested in finding out if think tank representatives here believe that new measures are needed:
99 specifically, the issue of a statute for new channels of funding for European foundations and associations.
A participant
With regard to foundations, about fifteen years ago I visited an organisation called the Future Institute in France. My purpose was to get some information for training in this field.
A foundation is required by its statutes to meet certain legal requirements. However, the main constraint was that a considerable amount of money (at the time around one million French francs) was required. The foundation’s aim and the way that it spent its money also had to meet certain conditions.
My suggestion is that disciplines that would be the source of ideas and suggestions for the Commission would be specified in the statutes for a European foundation.
One of the fundamental differences between a foundation and a think tank is that the former is self-financing. Think tanks are limited by the budgetary constraints imposed by the financial year, and this causes problems. However, because a foundation is self-financing, these problems can be overcome. Consequently, setting up a foundation would be more conducive to generating ideas and information. Large foundations have an advantage over smaller institutes in terms of having the resources to recruit and retain the researchers who will produce the ideas.
Chair
I raised this issue of setting up new organisations because several people had referred to it. Funding is a consideration when organisations are established and then linked through networks. There are also opinions about set-ups operating at the European level.
Mathias Jopp Institut für Europäische Politik
I support the point made by an earlier speaker concerning the importance of an interdisciplinary element in the way think tanks work. The ability of think tanks to act as an interface between academics and politicians and journalists is also important.
I would also stress the importance of bringing administrators into the process, together with business and other elements of society. There should equally be a trans-national dimension to this work.
When my institute hosts public discussions, it is always useful to have a speaker from Brussels, but it is just as important to have a speaker from another country. The latter can be a source of new ideas through providing a different perspective based on their country’s history and geo-political experience.
100
Chair
Should the points you have raised be part of the criteria for the programme?
Mathias Jopp Institut für Europäische Politik
They could be part of the statutes, but it is important to regard them as guidelines so that they do not become a straitjacket.
Irnerio Seminatore European Institute for International Relations (IERI)
I think that foundations are a very good idea. In the United States there is a very successful tradition of private individuals endowing and creating foundations and research libraries. There is no comparable tradition in Europe. If EU representatives were to put the idea of setting up a foundation to leading businessmen, then it could lead to a change in attitudes.
However, it is not just about soliciting support to endow a foundation; it is also about showing that benefactors can also be beneficiaries.
A list of research activities on a discipline-by-discipline basis would allow all interest groups to see what work was being carried out and how it was being funded.
Chair
That concludes the session. Thank you for your contributions. Tomorrow we will look at the three main issues in the future programme: its raison d’être, financial considerations and strategy.
101 III - Workshop on Actions/Projects
Joël Decaillon Chair European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. This is the parallel session on projects and actions. In our discussions we are to define what results have been achieved, concrete proposals, financial evaluations and any new ideas.
We have tried to pinpoint certain suggestions. You have a document outlining the questions. There are eight types of question. If we take the first two more general questions, like targeting. How can targeting of society be improved? What about the lack of clear definitions between NGOs, associations and federations of European interest? The second type of question: what actions are more adapted to EU citizens and the organisation of civil society?
I call Ruth Friedman of the European Association for the Education of Adults.
Ruth Friedman European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA)
My question concerns the project results for people who become active citizens but who do not necessarily support the aims or objectives that you would like to see: citizens who are pro-European or who support the ideas of freedom, diversity and equality. I would be interested to hear what you have say about that. Thank you.
Chair
I invite Mr Michel Mortelette of the European Trade Union Confederation to speak.
Michel Mortelette European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
I want to speak on behalf of the ETUC and make some important points which we feel are essential to the new programme.
Firstly, we have several different types of organisation within the European trade union movement; we have inter-professional organisations, professional organisations and regional organisations.
Our concern with regard to the existing budgetary line is to ensure that this line guarantees that sector-type organisations, like the inter-regional trade union committees that have been working on mobility and citizenship, are taken into account as eligible promoters in the future programme. That is crucial. That includes
102 all of the European Trade Union Federations that have written to Commissioner Figel’ about the subject. That is the first important point.
The second point concerns difficulties we have with the budgetary line. I would mention three. Firstly, there is too much time between the date of deposit of the project and the decision taken by the commission – four months is too long.
The second point I want to make is that for some years we have only had one deadline, and this is not dynamic enough for our organisations. After all, they are made up of men and women who have to try to put together these projects for European citizenship. Often they encounter difficulty in understanding the calls for proposals, which are not always crystal clear. If we were to refer to the original system of two deadlines per year, that would enable us to make good the errors made by the selection committee set up by DG EAC, and I think that would lend a new dynamism. If you have one deadline and you miss it, you have to wait a whole year. So that is important too.
The third point concerning our difficulties is that if we are going to conduct various actions, they are limited to one year, so I think we need to give more thought to various multi-annual projects. We, as union militants in policies we conduct on European citizenship, would have more time and more resources to be more effective with the projects we submit.
I think that in the future programme we should consider partnerships between civil society organisations and DG EAC. These partnerships could be focused, but they would enable us to work in the longer term and enable us to work with a spin-off and added value in terms of visibility for the European Union.
We have tried to do so, even though we only have one call for proposals a year. For example, we have done a lot of work on our national integration committees which we set up in the candidate countries, and that was a big success as a resource centre for citizens in those countries.
We have various proposals. First of all, we should leave the door open to all those who are knocking at the European Union’s door. The four candidate countries are a priority. It is also essential in terms of cultural exchange, citizenship and life within our various countries to consider our neighbourhood policy concerning our friends in the Balkans, for example, or our friends in the Maghreb, the Euromed and the Balkan stability package. Perhaps we could pay special attention and take initiatives for them under European citizenship.
There are certain aspects we would like to pinpoint – mobility, for example. Mobility is an important factor in cultural and transnational exchanges.
We had in mind transnational exchanges. There are grants which could help people from the UK, for example, to go to another country for training. I think this too would help to develop European citizenship.
103 My last point is that youth is going to make Europe. In the context of the programme on European citizenship, there should be a dynamic element concerning youth organisations and those convening youth organisations.
Chair
Now, Francoise Jurion from Pegase.
Françoise Jurion de Waha Pegasus Foundation
Our foundation deals with projects in the European Parliament which are educational and cultural and concern young people’s citizenship through schools. The Commission often tells us that our projects are basic ones. They are very cost- effective in the long term and they are aimed at rather limited numbers of young people, by definition.
Apparently, the existing programmes have favoured one-shot programmes covering several thousand people in one go, but they did not have a lasting effect in the long term. How can we ensure that we reconcile our long-term projects, which have a lasting impact on young people, and the Commission’s concern with aiming at the greatest number possible?
Chair
That is an important question. Next is Mrs Carmen Pellicer from Spain.
Carmen Pellicer Kalos kai Agazos
We belong to a very small association in Spain. Our first European project comes from a small group of people who decided that we needed to do something on cultural dialogue. We started a project on inter-religious dialogue as well because immigration in Spain in the last five years has changed diversity from an ideological concept to a reality that is challenging our practice in schools, immigration associations, and so on.
The main difficulty would be how a small association with no connections (and we are ordinary citizens) can get support, tutorials and continuous assessment from Europe, which is far away. We are working alone, worried about the economic justification, but with no tutorial system that could actually assist us in the ongoing process. That would be one contribution.
Now that we have started this project, we have had an incredible response. The congress we are holding in two weeks’ time has about three hundred people coming
104 from all over Spain. We are overloaded with work and we would like to have a continuous effect. We now see the project as something that could grow.
Is there any chance of actually ensuring continuity and some support in an open- ended project that does not tie us to dates and just one activity? Thank you.
Chair
Mrs Frittoli from Italy.
Lucrezia Frittoli CGIL
I have been anticipated by my colleague Mr Mortelette of the European Trade Union Confederation. I fully agree with him. I think that as a union, we work at every level in sectoral and regional Europe. I also agree that just one call is not enough. Very often, the time between the call and the deadline is very short, so we do not have enough time to reflect and prepare projects.
I would even add that as an Italian, language is sometimes a difficulty. I know that very often the documents and application forms are only in English, German and French. Thank you.
Chair
Mr de Fouloy.
Christian de Fouloy EULobby.net
The reason I am here is because I believe that this group is a group of advocates, and I happen to be an advocate. I am still confused and I think the Commission owes us some kind of answer as to what we are talking about.
This morning I heard about dialogue, participation and consultation. I think it would be very meaningful for citizens to know what we are talking about. If I had just come in off the street, I would have asked what they are talking about. They want me to be involved but what does this involvement mean?
I think we have to be clear as to what we want. If we want participation, it is not the same thing as having a dialogue with the citizens. The wise thing would be to choose the most appropriate terminology.
The second thing I would like to emphasise is the need to make the system transparent. This is what I am trying to do and I need your support. We are talking about openness, transparency and accountability.
105 I happen to work at the Parliament almost every day. There is a portal there of all advocates – not just lobbyists representing business interests, but anyone. Yet at this portal we do not know who is doing what or with whom.
I have developed a portal called EULobby.net, but so far the response has not been good. People do not wish to be visible. As long as people are not visible, the citizen will be in the dark as to who is calling on whom and for what. Any support you can give in making the system transparent will be welcome.
The third factor I would like to talk about is the creation of a citizen participation centre. Why? Because if we are all advocates in this room, we have to help the citizens to develop appropriate advocacy skills so that they can have a say in the issues. This has not been talked about at all this morning.
Chair
Virginie Goeren from Luxembourg.
Virginie Goeren LCGB
I have a few questions and proposals. Mr Mortelette took the words right out of my mouth, but I would like to pick up a few ideas he aired. First of all, for years now we have been submitting projects from Luxembourg. We have specific characteristics for Luxembourg.
I would like to repeat that the representation of unions in companies is important. We affect a lot of people at regional and local level and at inter-regional level, particularly in Luxembourg, where we have two inter-regional union councils. I would like to know about the eligibility of these union committees compared with the DG’s calls for proposals.
The unions have a lot of training centres, non-profit making bodies and corporation centres. Are they eligible as non-profit making bodies or foundations? What is the legal form required? Or do they only qualify as partners and not project leaders?
What I have noted in the last few years is that projects are becoming more and more difficult and highly technical. They are very difficult to carry out by so-called volunteers because we have to do this beside our day job, and it is very difficult for small structures to draft and carry out these projects.
Another thing I have noticed is the duration of projects, which is very limited in time. You are looking for high quality projects with a span of no longer than one year. Could we extend the project for two or three years?
Concerning themes for consideration, in my experience in the discussion at present concerning the European situation and the new constitutional treaty, people are sceptical. We need to bring the European Union closer to them and its policies too.
106 There is a huge lack of knowledge and major mistrust among all European citizens, even in Luxembourg, where there is a lot of discussion about the referendum which will take place on 10 July.
A further point I would like to make is that we have to ensure that the old unions, compared with the new unions, get to work – the old members of the EU and the new ones knocking on the door. The old ones have a huge burden and they still have a lot of work to do for these new member unions of the European Union. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. I give the floor to Mrs Avgeri of the European School Federation.
Parthenia Avgeri FEDE
The European School Federation is an NGO which has participated in the Council of Europe for several years now. It has been organising projects on the mobility of teachers and students in order to promote learning about the European Union and everything related to it at secondary and third level, right up to masters.
One of the resources used recently was the drafting of publications aimed at this public by teachers in the law faculties in France. I wonder how this action could be supported by European Union institutions. How could it either be financed or gain more credibility? Because education remains a national competence, of course, and member states do not always recognise private education.
Based on court rulings in these programmes, the EU is heading for liberalisation of access to education, so could we have more cooperation between the public and private sector in terms of complementarity, and not competition?
Chair
At this stage in the discussion I would like to make two comments. The commission will not be able to answer all questions because they are so varied. However, interesting comments have been made and experiences shared. This is of interest in considering the future and your comments are worth taking into account.
I now give the floor to Werner Oesterheld from the German trade union congress.
Werner Oesterheld DGB Bildungswerk
It is absolutely right that unions should take action at various levels, but in our experience it is rather difficult.
107 It is important to ensure that European day-to-day activities are accessible to our citizens. We in the unions have noted that today’s events are influenced by other things, such as fear. This is due to a development process that is making people afraid of losing their jobs and income.
That is why it is important for us to get support from Europe to discuss these matters more effectively and develop a dialogue to ensure that the European level we always try to represent is linked to the development of more recent models.
It is not always easy. We have heard about inter-regional cooperation and the important need to explain to people what Europe means. It is not enough, however, to make resources available at centralised European level. These means have to be available to the regions as well.
The difficulty, as I see it, is that there are very small bodies that should get this money on the spot. I do realise it is a problem for the Commission to have to deal with these tiny projects and it would be necessary to cluster these projects rather than treat them individually. They should not be at European level only, they should also be focused at national or, if possible, regional level.
Chair
Thank you. Miklos Barabas, Hungary.
Miklos Barabas European House
Thank you for the floor. I am one of the representatives from a new member country and I am delighted to see that even before the full accession of ten new countries, the Directorate General for Education and Culture was open-minded enough to start working and supporting projects from the new member countries. This is a very welcome development.
My question is brief. What experience do the appropriate units or people who have been working or dealing with projects or proposals from these new countries have? What experience have you gained and how do you evaluate this experience? Thank you.
Chair
That is a question for everyone. Thank you very much.
A speaker from the Force Ouvrière union in France. Thank you.
108 A participant FO
Looking back in time, in 1952, Jean Monnet was elected president of the ECSC High Authority, and his primary concern was that there should be an information section for the trade union movement. He knew he could count on them to guarantee European citizenship and guarantee that Europe could be built.
Without the trade union movement, Europe could not have existed. He was quite right and I think that the Commission should continue in the same way. Yet nothing has changed over the last fifty years – more than fifty years now. I think we should listen to the trade union representatives here and the Commission should see to it that the red tape can be dismantled.
I think all the comments that have been made are apposite and the Commission should do what has been suggested. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you very much. Christian Franck of the TEPSA.
Christian Franck Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA)
I am the general secretary of TEPSA, which is a network of institutes and think tanks throughout the EU. In each and every country we have an institute, a university institute, a think tank or a studies centre that is a member of our network.
Speaking in think tank mode, let me say that we are very interested in what Mr Lamy said this morning, stressing the role of these networks in keeping the diversity idea fresh, bringing the academics down from their ivory tower to a certain extent, and serving as an opportunity for useful ideas to be fed into the debate.
Obviously, we have a very lightweight structure in Brussels. We have a structure in all European countries and we too have had to enlarge our network. The paradox is that we have tried to get people in from the new member states of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries.
Of course, this has involved more cumbersome procedures. I can understand the Commission’s concerns because it has the European Parliament on its back too, but I would say that these more cumbersome procedures are reaching a rather critical point. I think that at some stage we have to come up with a solution to this problem. We have to be more relaxed about it.
My suggestion is this. When organisations have proved their worth – and I think this applies to a lot of people represented here who have proved their credibility – you have to have very specific calls of tender. Can we ask them to make proposals on clearly defined topics, defined by the European institutions, of course, whereby we
109 would simply ask them what they think they would like to do? What sort of initiatives would they want to undertake? How creative could they be? Maybe in that way we could reconcile the need for strict checks with the need for creativity and spontaneity.
NGOs are no more perfect than public institutions, let us be clear about that. However, I think we do have to make do with less funding and it is very difficult for us to be perfect when we are being asked to be more than perfect.
Chair
Thank you. Mr Luigi Cal, Italy.
Luigi Cal CISL
I am particularly concerned about the budget, and here I would address the Commission. I think that you will have to get a message across to the European Parliament and the Council making it clear that civil society wants an increase in the community budget. The EU is expanding but our budgetary allocation is going down.
This morning, Mr Lamy told us that a think tank cost about 20 million euros, which was the total amount used on citizenship issues. No comment.
Of the 20 million euro budget for the whole operation, 1.3 million euros – the same figure for some five years now – is earmarked for trade unions. When all is said and done, I think this is not a great deal, given all the work the unions do at all levels. I think our trade union colleagues who have spoken this afternoon have made this clear.
A great deal of work is being done to increase awareness of Europe, but Europe is sometimes not really understood by workers and unions. When we hear about work opportunities going to other countries, longer working hours, foreign workers coming in and the whittling away of workers’ rights, the unions have a lot to do here. It seems to us that the budgetary allocation should go up.
Finally, on the percentage of one’s own contribution (this may not apply to a major trade union like the Italian trade unions, but it applies to other NGOs as well), if you put in 40% of the budget yourself, it seems that is quite remarkable. I think we should try to bring it down to 20% on average. Thank you.
Chair
Isabel Caño from the UGT, Spain
110 Isabel Caño UGT
A lot of colleagues in the European trade union movement have already spoken, so there is not a great deal that I can add to what they have said. At the same time, I would like to underscore the commitment of European trade unions to building Europe and to European citizenship.
As you may know, on 20 February we will have a referendum in Spain on the European constitution. Our two confederations will be working in the factories and on the shop floors and campaigning very hard to see to it that all workers and all citizens participate. We are particularly keen that they should vote yes on a matter of such great importance in the building of Europe.
Having said that, when we go back home and look at all the bureaucratic hurdles we have to try to overcome in these projects, you need to be virtually a professional in the field to know exactly how to put it together, how to sort out your budget, and it becomes more and more difficult each time. The Commission is always promising to simplify the bureaucratic aspect of this but we are not seeing much progress on that front.
I would be interested to hear what the Commission thinks about this, as we look ahead to future programmes. Do you think that it really is going to be any easier, because we have serious difficulties with this? Luigi Cal has also raised the problem of budgets in general and our own contributions in particular. I think we need more money for more actions.
There is also a problem with the duration. Sometimes we embark on a particular campaign and then suddenly find that we do not have the money to continue on our own. If you have 1.3 million euros – the annual allocation for four or five years – I think it is maybe time that we consider increasing that. As to our own contribution, 40% is a lot. So I would like the Commission to think again about this and suggest a solution in the future action programme. Thank you.
Chair
Mrs Viguier, representing IPSE.
Catherine Viguier IPSE
I agree with a great deal of what has been said about the complex business of putting together the files. We operate within a very small structure and it is very time- consuming and expensive for us to do this. It is all very well to go on about simplification in the future. I am beginning to wonder if form is going to significantly outweigh content in the future.
111 Regarding the 10% difference authorised between the forecasted budget and the definitive budget, the problem from a technical viewpoint is that when you are trying to forecast your budget, there are so many unknown quantities. You do not always know where your income is going to come from. Very often when you put the definitive budget together, you find there is a bit of a gap.
Then there is the fact that it is very difficult to know what goes under which heading. It is very difficult to put together the budget on that basis. These are major problems for small associations.
Chair
Thank you. Tünde Vazna, from Hungary
Tünde Vazna SZEF
Like one of the previous speakers who said that he was from one of the new member states, I represent the trade union cooperation forum involving the public sector. Other speakers have already stolen my thunder because a lot of trade union representatives have talked about how complex it was to put together a file and the high financial level of own participation.
I do wear another hat as well because I am a teacher. Listening to the presentations this morning, I was wondering who would be best placed to wake Europeans up to the idea of European citizenship. Who could be better placed than teachers? It goes without saying. However, if you take teachers’ unions in countries like Hungary and the new member states, we have only our own subscriptions to live on. How can we ask the Commission to help us with the finance if we have to cough up 40% ourselves, it is simply impossible.
I have not looked at all the figures. I do not know to what extent unions have made use of these funds in the past. But I think that this is the key to solving the problem. Our organisation would like to be involved in a cross-border project with Romania and Bulgaria because we share the same kind of past – we have the same sorts of attitudes, if you like.
Even if we go beyond our forecasted budget by 10%, if you have to take into account different exchange rates involving different countries and so on, it is out of the question. So I would ask you to have another think about this.
Chair
Thank you. Benigno Orlandini.
112 Benigno Orlandini Comune de Specchia
On the budgetary front, it is a complex business. I would like to thank your departments because every time we have consulted them they have reacted as best they could. Nevertheless, it is true that the system is complex.
On the other hand, we have a problem with the time it takes to get the money. If I programme my operation for a year and I do not get the money until 10 August, as was the case in 2004, I only have four months left to carry out a twelve month project. Maybe you should coordinate the beginning of the project with the time the money is allocated.
Secondly, if you are going to develop a programme of active citizenship for the future, I have a practical question. We do have some new communities in Europe. I am not talking about the new member states, I am talking about something like the Chinese community, let us say. I try to act as a go-between. There are some communities that do not want to be involved and it is very difficult to engage them in dialogue.
Maybe I can make an appeal here. I think the important thing is that if people have experience in this field or contact with the Chinese community in their respective countries, I would be very happy to talk to you and see if we can get on with something similar to what we are doing in Italy.
While I have the floor, may I also say that one of the topics on the agenda for today was the difficulty of drawing a demarcation line between the NGOs and the associations and federations of European interest – I think this was in the preparatory document.
In the voluntary sector we very often adjust the structures to take account of the situation in the country where you have to work. In a country like Italy, if you oblige us officially to become an NGO, you are going to destroy us because it is impossible for us formally to become an NGO, given the legal system in Italy.
So please, let us continue to be flexible. Let us include potential partners rather than excluding them so that we can guarantee that we will be a reliable partner. Do not focus too heavily on our strictly legal form. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you.
A participant
First of all, I also think one-year programmes are far too short, for smaller organisations in particular. It is extremely difficult to put together a project, send it and go over all the various hurdles.
113 Although I have every respect for large organisations like the trade unions, I think we need a lot more small-scale projects. I think that is the best way to reach the ordinary citizen. It is very difficult for small groups to put together these projects. There should be more opportunities to get funding and a more appropriate method to enable us to do that.
Thirdly, I come from Austria and I think there is an ever-increasing gap between the old member states and the new member states. I think a new programme should focus on the need to bridge this gap, which is getting wider. I really do think that getting into contact with ordinary people is particularly important, bearing that in mind.
Different things have different meanings in the new member states and the old member states. At the end of the Second World War there was liberation for some countries, but it began a forty-year move towards liberation in other parts of Europe. I think it is very important to bear that kind of thing in mind as we work towards the concept of active European citizenship. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. Mrs Ann Wouters, FGTB.
Ann Wouters ABVV-FGTB
In the past, the overall budget available for trade unions was rather limited. We are in touch with an awful lot of people, so I would like reassurance that in the future there will be some kind of correlation established between the budget made available and the multiplier effect that our movement can provide on the subject of Europe. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. Jacqueline Hocquet.
Jacqueline Hocquet International Coordination of Young Christian Workers (CIJOC)
Our organisation helps younger workers in ten European countries. A lot of you were saying how complicated it is to get projects together. We often need to be professionals if we are going to understand these dossiers.
I have been a coordinator of European movements myself, so I can just about do it, but usually, the national associations just read the project and they are rather discouraged. I think that help and support are necessary, even if we do not always use Community jargon and key terms.
114 In financing a project, you send in your idea, you get a response, you send in a written assessment of some kind of idea of the required funding. It never seems like a give and take operation, however, and we seem to be just providing a service. It never seems that we are working with a real partner. I just wonder how that could turn into more of a two-way process in the future. You have people doing excellent jobs in their own corner, but no one ever gets to hear about it, which is a pity.
Let me also say that I agree to a very large extent with what a number of people said about the time we are given to put together a project – putting out a call for tender, getting partners in other countries and so on, really is a bit of a nightmare.
If it is a project meant to last for a year, it takes so much time to get the costing done that if we had two or three years at our disposal, it would have a sounder foundation, and partners would be able to think more seriously before they decide to invest. By the time they have worked it out, it is very often too late, which is a pity. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. A speaker from Belgium.
A participant
For the future framework programme, I think it would be very useful if truly innovative pilot projects could be launched which take into account new methods involving ordinary people.
Given the crisis of legitimacy of our democratic systems, not just at European level but in all our various countries these days, I think this is an important opportunity to try to renovate our democracy and look ahead a little. I think this question will arise at global level and Europe should be pointing the way.
If you are going to innovate, you have to take risks, and if you are going to do that, you need a bit of self-confidence. I think the directorate general here might be in a good position to do this, working together with other DGs. It could also get into partnership with civil society, private foundations for example, that the European Union does not always seem to know very much about.
I think this is a very good testing ground to see how our new view of democracy can work. Bringing in various conferences and panels or ordinary people at European level is entirely innovative and would be an avenue that could very usefully be explored. There are other avenues opening up in the future as well because democracy is renewing itself by the day.
Chair
Thank you. One of our Polish colleagues.
115
A participant
I represent an NGO from Poland, but this is my own viewpoint. We have heard that the new youth programme has to close. From our own experience helping disabled people, we know that the rehabilitation and education process needs much more time.
Is it possible to raise the age to twenty nine years old? If you could consider that we would be very grateful. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. Nella Condorelli, Mediterranean Women’s Press Network.
Nella Condorelli Mediterranean Women’s Press Network
Good afternoon. I am from a small Italian association, the Mediterranean Women’s Press Network, representing female journalists from throughout the European Union and the southern coast of the Mediterranean.
We are faced with a major challenge in this area of citizenship – we are talking about Europeans of the future, after all. How can we tackle this challenge without using means of information, provision and communication? In this information society it is sometimes very difficult to get the message across unless you can use people in the media.
I wonder if you could take account of that in the upcoming programme. What about getting this programme across to the rest of the world? That is my point. In my experience, there have been some very interesting projects in the past but no one knows anything about them, only the group asking for the project to be accepted and only in the target group for each project.
What I am saying is, could we have something in the programme that would make it clear that the project would have to be publicised using media professionals – the press, television, and so on? What kind of support would you be able to give to an association like mine? We are not on our own in this. How could you help us so that the information can really get across?
Chair
Thank you. Sylvie Pittaro-Mennesson, La Poste, France.
116 Sylvie Pittaro-Mennesson IREPP La Poste
This is the first time for me here in this think-tank on citizenship and I must say I was very interested when I heard mottos we recognise and utter every day, which may sound commercial. Public services are concerned with words like confidence, proximity, solidarity and exchange.
I am speaking on my own behalf, but I also represent a European postal association. I was wondering whether the post office – which is intended to be a link between citizens and which alone in Europe represents more than a million people and has 70,000 officers throughout Europe – could act as a support to spread the notion of European citizenship. It does so in other circumstances.
This morning I heard talk of means of diversification to spread this message which is dear to our hearts. We heard about an experiment in the Paris area of France where we have made copies of the European draft constitutional treaty available to the public in all post offices. People come along and ask questions. They are very interested. We give them documentation. Our staff has been trained to answer their questions and it is working brilliantly.
This is just one example but it could be copied. My willing proposal to you is that we set up a project with European post offices so as to help out because we can act as a multiplier of the citizenship action which is so popular.
Chair
Thank you. Carlos Capa Gil from Spain.
Carlos Capa Gil Escuela sindical de CCOO
I think this is an important moment for the European Union, with enlargement and the European constitution. The European Union must promote the actions in training and social work.
I have two points: one is to simplify bureaucracy, and the other is to change the budget system. The forty percent level is not acceptable for promoting Union activities at this time. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. Martine Meheut from France.
117 Martine Meheut AEDE-France
Thank you. The AEDE is the European teachers’ association and exists in twenty-two European countries. I am convinced that teachers have an essential role to play with regard to European citizenship – they are close to young people, they are educationalists and know how to explain things, but they are not experts in compiling dossiers and requesting funds.
To give an example, recently the European affairs minister in France set up a project preparing for the referendum. He proposed this to various associations and we had to compile a dossier. To do so, we could consult with the ministry to make sure we were complying with their request.
My simple question is could we have the same possibility at European Union level? While compiling our dossier, could we be helped with regard to what is being asked of us? We are not specialists in dossiers, we are specialists in teaching.
Chair
Thank you. The Commission will try to give a few answers before the break. We will have a few words now, and then we will have various replies this afternoon.
Edith Genser European Commission
I wanted to thank you all for your comments. We would like to hear from you about your experience and your suggestions for the future programme. It is no longer a workshop replying to your questions about what the budget will be like, we now want to hear your opinions and experience with the project in the past. That way, we can take your opinions into account.
(Coffee break)
Chair
For this second part, on my list I have Luis Lopes from the Portuguese UGT. He will take the floor presently.
We would like you to concentrate your contributions on questions seven and eight of the background document, how can the programme become stronger and more ambitious and have a coherent identity? What forms of cooperation between civil society and the DG education and culture can help bring about a new and successful programme?
We want you to help in programme designing. What kind of ideas could you provide for cooperation?
118
Now we will hear from Luis Lopes.
Luis Filipe Nascimento Lopes UGT
Following the Commission’s statement, which really amazed me, it gives the impression that we have said nothing about what was important in the first part.
I think we said a lot of important things and we have touched on those points which are crucial and cause us most obstacles in compiling our programmes. I will respond to the Commission’s challenge and tell you about the handicaps confronting us.
To start with, procedures will have to be simplified because bureaucracy is not part of community acquis – quite the contrary.
We talk about organising civil society and the Commission will have to choose what it wants: either it wants to work with professional organisations which do nothing but compile dossiers for the Commission, or the Commission wants to work with civil society organisations which do a lot of other things and are frequently non-profit making organisations. Unions, for example, are not allowed to make a profit so they cannot pay extra to draft documents. The Commission will have to make a choice – either they want to work with professionals on projects, or they want to work with civil society organisations. For the latter, procedures will have to be simplified and made more accessible.
There is also a timing problem. Organisations need more time to draft their proposals because of the difficulty and complexity of the procedures. In my country, someone said that working on this is more difficult than anything else. The man who wrote the Da Vinci Code must have had a similar experience!
There are budgetary constraints as well. It is a real problem confronting our organisations in trying to draft projects. I will not even go into the problems of the ‘forty-sixty’ rule. We know that forty percent for the Commission may be nothing, but it is a lot for organisations that do not make a profit. For organisations not allowed to make a profit it is gigantic.
That is not the only problem. There are various different organisations – someone here mentioned private organisations, foundations and the like. Most of them have private funding, but the rest of us do not. You have to choose – either you want to work with everyone or just with a select few.
The Commission will have to choose the length of projects as well. For most projects, one year is not long enough. We need longer lasting projects. We do not have a year to carry them out. There are a few months between the granting of funds for the first part and the rest.
It is very difficult for us to get the 40%. It is even more difficult for us to make headway before we get the remainder. There are organisations which may have
119 private funding and can manage, but the rest of us cannot. Thought will have to be given to the length of projects. This is linked to the budget.
What about the objectives? The programme has very vague objectives. It is up to the entities volunteering to choose what they want to do. As we see it, the Commission has a very strict interpretation of what is inside or outside of the objectives.
Someone said that the Commission should be more innovative. We agree with that because there are two sides to this. Either the Commission has some idea of projects which should be submitted, but for budgetary reasons does not want to present them itself and wants the civil society organisations to present the projects, or the Commission could give us more leeway with regard to what projects the organisations want to put together for European citizenship.
European citizenship could be seen in a broader context than the Commission understands it. For my organisation, we are quite happy because we are involved in European citizenship every day, and we are not even asking the Commission for any money. When we do collective bargaining, we defend European citizenship. This is one of the pillars of modern European society.
I have made four points: simplifying procedures, budgetary constraints, more time, and the question about objectives. These are four of the most serious difficulties confronting us.
Chair
Thank you. Before I give the floor to the Commission, I think we need to get a clear idea of where we stand. I am sure our rapporteur will take this into account. We are putting something together at the moment. I think that questions seven and eight are important. We are trying to get a clear idea of what our objectives ought to be for the future programme.
Now that we have had the first part, where people have suggested what improvements might be made to the system, it is only logical that we now come to the second part, which is the actual substance of the project. Would you like to add something?
John Atkins European Commission
Maybe there is some confusion. It is unusual for a lot of us to be participating in a consultation exercise. The object is not that the organisation running the meeting (the Commission) is in a position to answer all of the questions. That is not because we are refusing to answer the questions. It is because the questions about the past cannot be resolved.
It is the questions that you have, which are based upon your past experiences, that are most important as they can affect the future. In these terms, we cannot give you
120 answers because there are three separate workshops going on all considering similar questions, and the purpose of the exercise is to help us prepare for the future. There are issues here for which we do not have answers. I am sorry if anyone has been a little frustrated not to receive a direct answer to their question. The important thing is that you have asked your question. It is noted and will be part of the final report which forms part of the process which the Commission will take into consideration in framing and producing the new programme.
Giampiero Alhadeff Solidar
I am from the NGO network, Solidar. I have a few suggestions about how the new programme could be more effective. I totally agree with the colleague from Commissiones Obreras who pleaded for multi-annual projects. I think the one-year project is very short and does create difficulties.
I would ask the Commission also to give up this quest for something innovative. The innovative is often the enemy of the effective. We find ourselves knowing what we want to do, but we start thinking that we have to find something innovative, because if it is not innovative it will not pass. It is a real pity.
I would suggest that in your search you look at the track record of the organisation – is this an organisation that has delivered in the past? – and its European credentials. It is very important that this programme does support European-level work. Often what we see as European projects are actually national projects with a little bit added on to make them look European, and I think that is a pity.
I totally agree again with the colleague from Commissiones that the financial procedures of the Commission are far too heavy and difficult.
In some countries, some funding authorities are working on the basis of a concept note. I notice with pleasure that some parts of the Commission are going that way. But please, when you go down the route of a concept note, make them very short. A two-page concept note with a three-line budget should be enough for the Commission to make the first selection of the organisations that they will work with and the projects they want to fund.
On what you might be able to do that is truly innovative. In DG Development, for quite a long time you have had block grants. I have had experience of dealing with them. It is organisations that enter into an agreement with the Commission that are able to spend a certain amount of money per year. It does not have to be an enormous amount. Then they select the projects they will fund.
In the case of DG Development, we were able to take a grant of about 100,000 euros and spend it on small projects in different countries. I could imagine an organisation such as ETUC, or some of the larger European networks, being able to receive such a grant and then spend it on very interesting projects that may be more timely than something they have to think of one year in advance.
121 Within that, the two ideas there would be to consider the framework agreement, as for example with a lot of the emergency aid organisations, and then to look and see whether the idea of a block grant, such as DG development has, could be useful.
Those are two ideas I think might be helpful. The financial procedures certainly need looking at. We, as NGOs, are working now with a coalition of a few of us who are looking to see how we can suggest to the Commission ways to make the financial procedures a bit lighter. In the meantime, I think it is best to find ways of making the existing ones work a little more easily than they do at the moment. Thank you very much.
A participant
There is one important topic here: European citizenship. DG education and culture has already been involved here in some of the work we, the ETUC, have been doing. It concerns the sustainable development aspect. That is part of European citizenship as well and a topic which must not be lost sight of when we look at the new programme. That is my first point.
I do not think that today’s meeting is just a meeting between the Commission and the various actors on the active citizenship stage. Somebody said earlier that we put forward a project, we carry out the project, we send in a final report and we never hear any more about it. I think it might be interesting to address this in the context of the future programme. Could we consider the idea of asking the promoter to draft, say, twenty lines of a report mentioning publications that might have been involved in the project? All of this could be placed online by DG education and culture, so there would be a certain amount of know-how on record that could be used by other promoters.
There you have the multiplier effect – that is surely what this is all about. I wonder could you consider setting up a very simple database of this kind, which would not require a huge amount of work, but would allow progress to be made?
On question eight, I would simply reiterate the proposal I made earlier, which I think we do need to take into account. What we need is discussions with the powers that be in DG education and culture on this concept of a partnership which represents an agreement, but which is binding on both sides. I think this concept of partnership, as far as we are concerned, is not just a question of financing an organisation’s operational costs. It finances an activity, a specific action, on a certain topic. I thought it was important that I should make that clear.
The very final point I want to make is also a proposal. I think it should be possible to use new technology in filling in forms – as a support at least. I think that would be very useful, particularly when you are trying to tackle budgets, because you can make mistakes. Wouldn’t it be easier just to move over from Word to Excel? Thank you.
122 A participant
I very much like how this discussion is developing because we can now have a lively discussion. I have four points.
Point number one is the proposal for the citizenship idea, which I think is very important. This can be, in my opinion, an important notion of how to have a kind of direct message to the citizens, explaining and developing the whole concept of citizenship and bringing it somehow to the citizens themselves.
In my opinion, this is especially important in the present situation, where there is the ratification process going on in various European countries. The citizenship idea can be an important tool in assisting ratification, especially in those countries where a referendum will be held. This is one point.
The other point is the involvement of citizens from another angle, and this is culture. I think that we would like to make the Europe of twenty-five a kind of unit, and culture in my opinion is a very important field.
Partly because this answers the question – and this is a relevant issue from the ten new countries’ perspective – to what extent can you keep your national identity? Would it disappear simply because you are part of a bigger unit?
I think that using culture can convey a very convincing and positive argument in this respect, using the fact that in many of the so-called old member countries, the cultural identity became the national culture and became even stronger than it was before.
Point number three. A participant mentioned one of the possibilities for how to make resources available for smaller organisations using reliable partners, the so-called national or European networks and organisations. This could be one of the solutions. However, we should not forget an alternative that follows the same logic – national focal points, which could fulfil the same function. It does not have to be just one organisation, but a kind of consortium of interested national organisations to put forward proposals and which could then be responsible for disseminating the resources available.
Reacting to our friends from Spain, who at the beginning of our debate described the difficulties they face, I do not think this is a practical way in which the DG culture and education would respond to each and every approach, regardless of their content. Let us try to be realistic and cost-efficient in that respect.
Let me make one additional remark in that respect. With regard to selecting the best proposals, I would be in favour of doing it in two rounds. There could be a first round, where you just put on one or two pages the idea of what you would like to implement and do. You do not go into detail at this stage, just indicating what you would like to do. There would then be a pre-selection process and then, on the basis of this, you would be invited to submit the full proposal.
123 My final point follows the same logic. I understand that today’s gathering is also a kind of demonstration that we – civil society and other organisations representing public opinion – are treated on a partnership basis, which I think is very good and very important. I think it important that this gathering should not only be one of initiative, it should be a process and there should be follow-up.
I am not excluding the possibility that perhaps there could be a kind of advisory body, or something similar, composed of those who are seriously interested in keeping in contact with DG Culture and Education in the future, assisting your work and at the same time following up all of the recommendations and proposals which come up today or tomorrow. Thank you.
A participant Cultural Association of Greece
I am representing the cultural association of Greece. First I would like to make a comment about what we heard before the coffee break. I think it would be a little unfair to talk about the Commission’s call for proposals and how complicated the things requested are. Having worked in European projects for many years, I think that this specific direction has the simplest procedures and forms. That is a general problem. All of the Commission’s documents are complicated and there are little challenges, especially with terminology. The existing terminology is very difficult to understand, even for people working with it.
Let us be fair, however. The main thing is the application form information, which is not so difficult. Nevertheless, it would be easier if the selecting committee were to be a little flexible. Perhaps they are not interested in little details, but mostly in the main issue of each proposal.
Coming to more specific details about the new projects, for me, one year is enough to prepare the work for a good programme. Even the budget is enough. You can have a good project with 10,000 euros, but a better project with 100,000 euros. The main thing is to have good projects with good outputs, and not the amount of money spent on each one.
I think the philosophy of this DG is to give the possibility for many people and many organisations to get involved. That means it is good to have a lot of small projects and try to emphasise the good benefits each time.
About timing: more time has to be given in the period between the call for proposals and preparation. Usually it is a bit of a surprise – you never know when it will come up. You usually give us a month or two to prepare and usually it is in the regional exchange of letters. There is not enough publicity.
I think for a local society, it is important to give a chance for more publicity at local level, to give the chance to local newspapers or television. This would need longer than a month to have more mature proposals and projects during the preparation time.
124 About the objectives: I agree it is a little vague, but let us hear the good part of that. This will give us a little flexibility. You have the chance to make things how you wish and to use your imagination a little. Being very strict with the objectives means that it is a straight line and nothing is beyond that line. Vague objectives give us a little flexibility.
The output should be a little more straight-up. Defining a report would be necessary to obtain more details. The only document you receive should be a little more detailed and with more demands, even for us.
We heard a good idea this morning from the lady referring to Erasmus. Erasmus is a successful programme and she said – and I agree fully – why should it be limited just to students? Why not young farmers, young people in industry, young scientists? Why not change it to wider categories of young people? All of this mobility in that period of time is very important.
To close, I have a question. Is there any kind of draft paper from the DG side? What is the direction? Do you have something in mind? Is it different or new?
Will there be a draft paper on any kind of ideas we have? Is there going to be any change? What are we doing now? You are trying to find out what would be good or bad. That is just a question in the back of my mind.
A participant
In our organisation we try to provide information and training and help small organisations, in particular in their dealings with Europe, to tackle the sort of problem we were talking about earlier.
I think this is something that should be supported in the projects financed by this programme, so that we can respond to what people are looking for in the field – information on European policies and on the various subsidised programmes.
Subsidies may be rather a taboo term for the European Commission. Sometimes information on subsidies and aid cannot be financed because we are supposed to provide information on policies. Very often, however, the organisations actually want information on the subsidies themselves. We try to inform them indirectly. Obviously subsidies are linked to policies, so we get the information across indirectly at least. However, organisations that are not involved in implementing European policy cannot get hold of any European money.
I think it really is important that we take account of these organisations in the field without necessarily tying their hands by imposing topics strictly related to European policies which are not of direct interest to them – at least, they do not think it would be of interest to them because they do not know about them. You need a carrot and very often, for the kind of organisation I am thinking of, that would be European subsidies.
125 The image of the European Union as a kind of cow distributing money rather than milk is a sort of El Dorado. We need very detailed information. I am not talking about a detailed brochure on the European budget. I am talking about something that will mean something to them in their everyday life: how the European Union works and how you can make use of it.
We tell them the European Union is not the milk cow they might think, of course, but they need to know what departments and institutions they can contact through their representatives in the Committee of Regions, the Economic and Social Committee, and so on.
This is very practical, specific information I am talking about that answers the questions these people have. I think we need to take account of their position without insisting on imposing the idea of think-tanks for European federations. I know those think-tanks must exist and they are important too, but the needs of the ordinary people in the field deserve to be met as well.
I would also like to say that I think the procedures need to be much clearer and more transparent. The programme we have at the moment is a bit of a mish-mash of different budgetary lines covering one single programme. It is a kind of patchwork quilt that is rather difficult for people to decipher. So we need greater transparency as to the selection criteria for projects as well.
I also believe that the Commission should trust us, trust the organisations’ creative ability and trust people. It is not that they are fed up with Europe or not interested. They have specific questions and I think that is what the Commission wants so they should listen to them more carefully.
We have talked a lot about very basic, non-professional organisations’ problems in understanding the European labyrinth. The way the programme is constructed at the moment is rather difficult to understand, even for the professionals.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. The current programme addresses the trade unions in particular. As I understand it, with the trade unions you are thinking of DG employment and social affairs. In the case of certain types of project you can go to DG Education and Culture as well. How do you know which one to go to? You need to be a professional to know where to draw the line.
We talk about exchanges of young people. As far as I am concerned, if I have an organisation talking about that subject, I would say that you need to go to DG youth. Well no, if it is a municipality it could involve town twinning as well. So it is all kind of mixed up. The people in the field come along to me and ask how to find their way through this.
What I am saying is that when you reflect on what should go into this programme, please try to get together with the various DGs within the Commission, and even within your own DG Education and Culture, and try to work out what goes to the youth programme, what goes to active citizenship, and what is covered by the various budgetary lines – social affairs, employment and so on. These things should
126 be presented in a clear and readily understandable fashion that ordinary people can grasp. Otherwise it is very difficult for them.
A participant
I completely agree with you on that. The Commission has no idea of the lack of resources. Teachers come to us and all we can do is go to the info point to get documentation and send it to them.
In the schools, the teachers do not even know about the basic services made available by the Commission to find information. As Pascal was saying this morning, the further away from the decision you are, the less you feel you belong.
Even if you are here in Belgium, Luxembourg or France – the countries where the European institutions are mainly based – you cannot get hold of the documentation you are looking for if you are a teacher in a classroom. The Commission will have to become aware of the lack of information in most countries in trying to find out about European institutions.
A participant
I forgot to make a point earlier on. I am wondering whether the Commission would like to reflect on whether the co-finance requirement serves any purpose at all. I have thought about this for quite a long time and I would be prepared to have a bilateral discussion.
I have come to the conclusion that it does not really serve either the Commission or anybody else. In fact, it is just a game that creates a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of time-wasting. It really works for big organisations that have a lot of money and they can actually co-finance everything they want. For small organisations, it is a big headache.
At the end of the day, if the purpose was to get finance from other sources, it never does that because the timeline is so short that you do not have time to fundraise for the project. If I have a project agreed in November, the chance of me getting funding either before or after the project is agreed is almost nil.
If I am very lucky, and I have noted this over eight or nine years, I might get five thousand or a hundred thousand co-financed from another source. Most of the time, it is our own money that we put into it. I think it might be a good idea to look at whether it is good for you, or whether you could have another system to determine whether the action is actually a good action when you can actually put your money into it.
127 Benoît Derenne Foundation for Future Generations
I am from the Foundation for Generations of the Future. I was talking about renovation and innovation in our democracy. We would like the Commission to find the means to innovate, not only by calling for proposals but also by taking the initiative and developing new approaches, without getting involved in cumbersome procedures.
We could renew the feeling among our fellow citizens of belonging to Europe. We could renew the links between the institutions, the deciders and the citizens by means of new procedures which involve citizens in debates at European level.
Just take one case. The project we are organising with a consortium of private organisations will probably not get a cent from the European Union, even though it is totally European. It will be involved in ten different European regions as a test project. It is a discussion panel with the citizens on the future of the countryside. Our goal is to show that it is possible to involve citizens by drawing lots through a highly transparent procedure of getting citizens involved in discussion with stakeholders on compiling an opinion from the citizens to the authorities. The procedure will take place at various stages on a regional decentralised level and at European level.
The advantages are that regional associations and European associates are interested in the results and want to get involved in these trans-frontier dynamics going well beyond local neighbourhoods.
This project is being assembled and the outcome is likely to be widespread, with citizens learning about debating, which is a major deficit at present. Both regional and European authorities will ultimately have an idea of citizens’ opinions about complex issues.
It will stimulate debate at regional and European level. Furthermore, it will promote mobility between all stakeholders on a given topic. So I would encourage the European Union to take a new look at this type of initiative. Thank you.
A participant
I would like to add to what my colleague said before about the difficulties of co- financing projects, which is the main difficulty for small organisations. I wonder if the Commission would consider co-financing the voluntary work we put in, all the hours we spend working on projects that nobody values and actually do not have a price. We cannot produce a bill to send you that says this costs so much.
As a small organisation, we find it very difficult to find cash. We cannot actually link with other sources of financing, like private organisations and free publicity newspapers. They would not give us two thousand euros to place an advertisement in the newspaper. We are not interested because we need a bill.
128 We are obsessed with getting cash, not in getting help or links. Maybe you could tell us a way to contemplate that forty percent co-financing. There are other types of contributions which have a very important value. That is part of what a small organisation can actually give to the project.
You were talking before about the success of the Erasmus project. Erasmus targets ordinary people who contribute time and effort and do not have cash. That is why lots of teachers in the past have worked with different programmes in Erasmus without risking our own pockets. Could you tell us of a way that does not require cash?
I think that co-financing projects gives us guarantees that you will get involved in them. Sometimes you get the impression that some organisations do not actually want to finance projects – they want projects to finance themselves. In that game, co- financing prevents that danger.
I think we will increase the number of small groups that actually want to produce projects. There is more praise for ordinary citizens if we could actually contemplate that.
Sian Jones Wales Council for Voluntary Action
My name is Sian Jones from the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. We are a regional organisation that represents over a thousand voluntary sector organisations and community organisations.
I want to pick up on the question of co-financing, which is obviously very central for small organisations. It is almost impossible to find that kind of money in the time limits that are set. I also think that forty percent is extremely high in comparison to other programmes, both under education and training and other DGs. The possibility of using voluntary work as an element would be very helpful.
I think we also want to take the examples of some other programmes. We are very centrally involved in structural funds and we can give technical assistance for small projects to develop. This is funded under structural funds. In this way we are able to offer a block grant scheme, which we call a social risk scheme, which provides one hundred percent funding for small projects.
These projects just fill in one sheet of paper, they get hand-holding, they get support to develop their idea and put it on the ground, with setting up their mechanisms. It is also a way in for bigger projects. Once you have done one, it is much easier to do another.
I think this is really crucial because it is not just about simplifying the forms or at the Commission level, it is actually getting down there on the ground. I do not think you can organise these things from the Commission. You have to actually build links with national, regional and local organisations to provide that kind of support.
129 The second point I want to make is about the question of good practice. I think that is vital. There is not enough information about good projects. A much better idea is a dynamic website with short information about practice. You also need to have a continuing dialogue and networking events which actually exchange information and get down to the groups on the ground, not simply Brussels-based organisations, which the majority of people here today will be.
I think this question of the structural dialogue is really crucial. We want to see the Commission actually curious to find out what the real issues are on the ground. Get out of Brussels, come to the regions and talk to the organisations on the ground about how to make these links and what kind of issues are important to them in building awareness about citizenship.
Another point we think would be very interesting in terms of content would be to focus much more on the big debates. We would like to be able to organise programmes around getting over the really big things going on in Europe, what people think about the Lisbon strategy, and what these things mean. How do we get that dynamic debate between the different regions?
We think that we should also build-in something about mainstreaming. These projects should not remain small little projects and one-offs. They should be part of the demand that is linked to raising it within your regions or linking it to national action. They should have much more ambitious aims.
Finally, we really want to be talking about methodology – new and innovative methodologies, participative methodologies – because that is what is very interesting in terms of actually developing an active citizenship programme.
A participant
One of the questions which is asked of us is how to make the programme stronger and more coherent. I believe that one way of making it more coherent would be to inform us of our respective programmes. I wish I did not have to come all the way to Brussels to learn that the lady sitting in front of me is doing something very similar to what I am doing in Rome or in Leicester.
If we could have some information about who is benefiting from Commission money in any one year, we could possibly build on the potential synergies between our respective bodies and actually bring about a more coherent and more ambitious programme.
I have nothing against the idea of working trans-nationally with other organisations with a similar remit to mine to try and do a common European project together, but I do not have the information. If the Commission could possibly act as a clearing house in this respect, that would be most welcome and very useful.
We have also spoken about budgets at length here. You may ask what forms of cooperation between civil society and DG Education and Culture can bring about a
130 new and successful programme. I think one aspect is to simplify the way in which we report back.
It is difficult for me to work with somebody who is not paid, who is flying Ryanair and gets to Brussels in the middle of the night, does not take a taxi because the Commission would not recognise it as an acceptable expense. That is a very irritating way of keeping us as partners, especially if you want us to be equal partners.
I think we should trust each other. I am sure it is not the objective of most us here to rip off the Commission and spend public money in an irresponsible way; we are here because in many cases we are volunteers and we are trying to carry on an activity we think is important. We do it in our own time and with whatever effort and capacities we can bring about to get this activity off the ground with your help.
Now, if your help has to be irritating, then of course it kills the dynamic of our relationship. I am not saying that this is common practice, but I must say that sometimes it is the little matters which make it difficult to cooperate rather than the big dimension on which, of course, we all agree. Thank you very much.
Chair
Thank you. Mr Moro.
Giovanni Moro Director, Active Citizenship Network
I work for the Active Citizenship Network. It is a very loose network of national-based citizens’ organisations of the twenty eight European countries which work together in projects without any other formal link or membership or daily relationship activity.
It seems to me that we all agree that without any precise decision, financial support by the European Commission tends to create a situation in which the strong tend to become stronger and the weak tend to become weaker. The impossibility of taking into account the ‘in kind’ contributions is only an example.
There is another point relating to financial methods regarding the outcomes and impacts of projects implemented by non-governmental organisations. I believe that a better way of designing a new operational programme for the European Commission on European citizenship should be to read carefully, study, evaluate and assess the outcomes of the funded projects as a feedback on the effectiveness of the European Commission’s policies on active citizenship.
I think it is very important to give more space and voice to nationally-based citizens’ organisations. Their voice has not been very weak in this assembly – on the contrary, nationally-based citizens’ organisations are the majority of citizens’ organisations and they are mostly directly involved in the implementation of European Union policies. I think that we have to find a way to take their voice and their actions into account more.
131
I would like the next programme on European citizenship to be able to recognise and give value to all the activities, projects and initiatives that are concretely carried out by citizens’ organisations throughout Europe. There are many of them. Most of them we do not know. We are not used to considering them as part of a process of building European citizenship. That is, in my opinion, much more important than imagining a new idea of citizenship different from the reality. Reality is better than we know.
Of course, all these nationally-based citizens’ organisations cannot be represented at European level in the same way as trade unions represent workers. That is something completely different. We must try to find different ways.
That also implies the matter of the content of article 47 of the European Constitution. In that article, the word ‘representative’ is mentioned twice, but with no precise meaning. I think we have to deal with this problem – otherwise people will increasingly distrust the European institutions, thinking that treatment of citizens’ organisations is unfair.
Finally, let me mention a technology that should be used in the new programme to bring citizens closer to the European Union. It is the ‘information of proximity’ – a technology was used by the European Commission for the introduction of the single currency in order to avoid distrust, disinformation and social exclusion coming from the fact that a lot of people do not trust official sources of information and need to be informed by trusted and directly known people.
This could be a good way, and much better than advertising campaigns, of diffusing and sharing information on European citizenship. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you, Mr Moro. Would anyone else like to express an opinion on question seven and eight?
A Jacqueline Hocquet International Coordination of Young Christian Workers (CIJOC)
Young Christian Workers is my association. When we tried to present a project, I noticed that it was much easier to explain and exploit one action, such as a big meeting or a seminar. We work in poorer areas with young people. We try to create groups, and sometimes it takes one year or two years to create a group identity and organise little actions at the urban district level.
It is a little difficult to know how long it would take us to carry out an action on European citizenship. We could design an action but we do not know if we would finish in time. We need some leeway regarding the eligibility of the project. We are afraid that we would not be able to finalise it on time. So I wonder, could we have more flexibility here?
132 Let us say we submit a project with the possibility of discussing it with the Commission and explaining why our project was progressing in a certain way. That would not downgrade it – it could be an advantage because sometimes we have to take a certain direction. However, the project loses value at times because it does not necessarily follow the objectives it ought to in order to succeed. Perhaps we could come up with some leeway.
We have heard a lot about the difficulty of putting together a project. Would it be possible once a year or every two years to have someone from the European Commission come to a particular country, where the various people presenting a project could meet that Commission representative and discuss it?
It might save everyone money because we all tend to send the same questions to the Commission. I am just airing an idea which might be helpful. Thank you.
Chair
Thank you. Are there any more questions?
A participant
I have a very general suggestion which ranges beyond the bounds of the programme. It has to do with the inability of the citizen in understanding the European Union. Foreigners arriving in Brussels, the capital of Europe, are very surprised not to find a big information or training centre which would enable them to understand what the European Union is.
There are all kinds of little centres in the European Parliament, like the information centre at the Rond-Point Schuman, but people do not understand the difference between the Commission and the Parliament. There is a representation office in Belgium a few hundred metres away, but they do not know about that.
Chair
I suggest we conclude now. We have had almost forty two interventions, Mr Moro tells me, so there was a lot of participation. Splitting into two parts meant we could focus on the necessary improvements. I am sure all these ideas will be included tomorrow in Mr Moro’s report.
Regarding continuity of projects, information, and so on, this was a useful discussion. I am sure the Commission appreciates this input. It was very constructive too. Everybody tried to see beyond their problems and make proposals.
We will see what the result is tomorrow, but I am sure that Mr Moro will draft an excellent and dynamic report of this debate.
(Coffee break)
133 Town Twinning Golden Stars ceremony
Ms Nicole Fontaine Member and Former President of the European Parliament
Mesdames et Messieurs, lorsque je fus élue pour la première fois au Parlement européen en 1984, à une époque où – il faut bien le dire – le pouvoir législatif de cette assemblée était encore très restreint, j’acquis très vite la conviction que ce que nous pouvions faire de mieux, c’était de favoriser l’émergence d’une citoyenneté européenne active. Or il apparaissait à l’évidence qu’une telle citoyenneté ne se décrétait pas, qu’il ne suffisait pas d’être baptisé « citoyen européen » si dans le même temps, la possibilité de circuler, d’étudier, de travailler et de vivre tout simplement dans un autre pays de l’Union européenne que le sien continuait à se heurter à des obstacles insurmontables. Autrement dit, j’avais l’idée que la citoyenneté européenne devait reposer sur des actes concrets.
Mes premiers travaux au Parlement européen sont très significatifs de ce choix résolu : un rapport sur le statut du jeune européen, les programmes communautaires d’éducation et de formation permettant d’amplifier les possibilités de mobilité des jeunes, la directive sur la reconnaissance mutuelle des diplômes en vue de l’exercice des professions, le projet d’association européenne. Au hasard de mes nombreux déplacements de terrain, j’avais pu en outre observer à quel point les jumelages de villes et de communes au sein de la Communauté étaient éminemment utiles pour construire cette Europe unie que nous appelions de nos vœux.
L’idée me vint alors que l’Europe, à travers ses institutions, devait s’y intéresser, non pas bien sûr pour les « régimenter » ni même pour les encadrer – ce qui aurait été tout à fait contraire au principe de subsidiarité – mais simplement pour permettre et accompagner leur développement. Il s’agissait aussi de leur apporter un souffle nouveau et leur permettre de bâtir des partenariats avec des villes et des communes de pays tiers, tant il est vrai que l’Union européenne n’est pas une forteresse fermée sur elle-même mais se veut au contraire ouverte sur le reste du monde.
Certains d’entre vous le savent particulièrement bien pour avoir participé à ce combat, le Parlement européen a voté à l’unanimité la résolution que je lui présentais et qui n’avait rien d’une « pieuse résolution ». Nous avons réussi en effet à l’assortir d’une ligne budgétaire spécifique, ce qui dans ce type de domaine était, je dois le dire, une grande première. Je remercie d’ailleurs très vivement la Commission européenne qui nous accueille aujourd’hui d’avoir bien voulu soutenir avec beaucoup d’ardeur ce projet et cette initiative. Je dois aussi vous dire que chaque année, au moment du vote du budget, nous avons dû engager un combat singulier contre le Conseil pour que cette ligne budgétaire soit préservée et a fortiori amplifiée !
C’est vous dire que vous avez invité une convaincue de l’utilité et de l’importance essentielle des jumelages. Je suis donc très heureuse de participer ce soir à cette cérémonie de remise des Etoiles d’Or.
La citoyenneté européenne active n’a rien perdu de son actualité, bien au contraire. Alors que l’Europe reste malheureusement encore souvent mal comprise, mal aimée
134 et perçue comme encore trop bureaucratique, quoi de plus efficace pour démentir ces attaques que de conforter une réelle solidarité entre les peuples d’Europe ? J’ajouterai qu’en cela, nous sommes profondément fidèles aux pères fondateurs : « nous ne coalisons pas des Etats, nous unissons des hommes ».
Les progrès au fil des ans ont été importants. Nous avons un drapeau, un passeport, un hymne et une devise européenne (« Unis dans la diversité »), nous pouvons voter et nous pouvons nous présenter les uns les autres pour les élections locales ou européennes. Les nombreux échanges de jeunes ont explosé et sont très souvent appuyés justement sur des jumelages de villes et de communes. La coopération inter-universités est une réussite et les diplômes sont mieux reconnus, encore qu’il demeure bien des progrès à faire et je puis vous dire que sur les quelque 100 000 pétitions que le Parlement Européen reçoit chaque année, une sur trois est justifiée par la non-reconnaissance de qualifications de citoyens.
Car le paradoxe est que tout cela a nécessité des efforts considérables, comme s’il fallait soulever des montagnes, comme s’il fallait abattre des incompréhensions, des préjugés, voire des méfiances. Ceci atteste s’il en était besoin combien en réalité la clé du problème était de faire évoluer les mentalités et cela, bien sûr, à travers des rencontres privilégiées de convivialités spontanées, d’intérêts communs comme les jumelages les suscitent.
Demain, il appartiendra aux jumelages existants comme à ceux à venir d’accompagner l’application de cet acte fondateur que nous avons signé et qui est celui de la Constitution, une Constitution dans laquelle je crois pouvoir vous dire que le citoyen trouve véritablement toute sa place et plus que cela n’a jamais été le cas dans aucun traité :
- à travers l’intégration de la Charte des droits fondamentaux : les droits du citoyen seront désormais reconnus et protégés ;
- à travers la consécration du modèle social européen ;
- à travers cette nouveauté qu’est l’initiative populaire collective : si un million de citoyens venant d’un certain nombre de pays et en nombre significatif demandent à la Commission une initiative, celle-ci devra voir lieu ;
- à travers les pouvoirs qui sont donnés aux Parlements nationaux, élus par les peuples, qui vont mieux contrôler la subsidiarité et qui vont pouvoir « sortir le carton jaune » si d’aventure, les institutions européennes empiétaient sur les compétences nationales ;
- à travers enfin le Parlement européen, qui voit son rôle amplifié.
L’importance de ces innovations ne doit pas être sous-estimée. Pour la première fois en effet, le citoyen va se trouver au cœur du projet européen.
Je voudrais évoquer pour terminer le rôle des jumelages au cours des années qui ont précédé l’adhésion à l’Union européenne de nos amis de l’Europe centrale et orientale, que je salue ici très chaleureusement. Le rôle de ces jumelages a été
135 absolument déterminant car même si ces pays étaient dès le premier jour – c’est-à- dire dès le 9 novembre 1989 – intégrés à notre Union, à la fois dans nos cœurs et dans nos esprits, la route était encore longue pour rendre l’adhésion effectivement possible. Les jumelages des villes et communes des pays membres avec celles des pays candidats y ont très fortement contribué par un travail quotidien, concret et ô combien efficace.
Je suis absolument convaincue que ce travail continuera avec la même efficacité. Je peux vous assurer qu’il aura le soutien du Parlement européen, parce qu’il est essentiel pour que l’Europe conserve son âme.
Je vous remercie.
Mr Anders Knape Chair of the working group on twinning in the Council of European Municipalities and Regions
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a great pleasure for me, as the President of the twinning working group of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, to be here today with you at this very special event: the Golden Stars of Town Twinning Awards Ceremony. I am also particularly humbled by following Ms Fontaine, to whom we, as twinning activists, owe so much. It is thanks to Ms Fontaine and the report she presented to the European Parliament in 1988 that the budget devoted to supporting twinning action was adopted.
On behalf of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, its national associations and all of Europe’s twin towns, I would like to thank Ms Fontaine for all she has done to support the twinning movement. I would also like to thank the European Parliament and the Commission for their continued support for town twinning.
The Council of European Municipalities and Regions, which has been actively promoting town twinning since it was created in 1951, is delighted by the success of the twinning movement. We have always considered town twinning to be the most concrete way of involving municipalities and their citizens in the construction of Europe.
In over half a century of European history, twinning has allowed citizens to share their daily lives, exchange their ideas, their professional experience, learn their partner’s language, know each other better, build friendship links, and even marry.
In a Europe divided by war, and the hatred between populations that the War guaranteed, twinning has given these people, who had just recovered from the grief and suffering of the War, the possibility of knowing each other better and understanding that after all, the reasons for uniting were stronger than those for dividing and opposing one another.
I have to say that I am sometimes confronted with people who are not convinced by the true advantages of the role of twinning in the European Union construction
136 process. In a world where globalisation has affected our daily lives, where we can easily travel from one side of the globe to the other, where cultural differences are not as apparent as they once were, twinning is considered to be outdated by these people. It seems to me that the presence today of the representatives of all these European cities which the Commission has chosen to award with golden stars is an answer to these kinds of observations.
Organised conferences have enabled hundreds of young people, local elected representatives and civil servants from different countries to meet and discuss important issues relevant to the daily life of European Union citizens – issues such as the environment, the problem of racism, and difficulties for the disabled. I am sure that when you travel to a country on holiday or for work, you do not have the opportunity to speak about such issues. Twinning enables people to engage in such decisions, discussions and actions. I think it is extremely important to publicise the added value of such initiatives, encourage other towns to follow the movement, and persuade other citizens to take part in these actions.
These citizen exchanges which have been awarded a golden star involve participants from all sections of society – students, teachers, the most disadvantaged members of society, the disabled and their families, elected representatives, artists, and many others. Through these actions they have been able to meet and take part in joint initiatives, get to know each other and discuss issues that Europe and its citizens face on a daily basis.
Each year these experts must choose from a large number of very different actions and initiatives, which are often innovative and allow a wide selection of citizens to take part in them. This is the twinning movement in Europe today. It is important to publicise the added value of such initiatives in order to raise awareness about what twinning is today and what it contributes to the European Union.
The national twinning coordinators of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, who promote twinning in their daily activities, consider this to be one of the priorities. We need to show that the Europe’s strengths can be seen in our daily lives and that such a Europe is built by all of us.
I would like to congratulate the European Commission for this yearly initiative which awards the best twinning actions with a golden star. I hope this event will continue to be organised every year. This award recognises the merits of the initiatives of twin towns and at the same time is proof of the qualities of town twinning as a tool of active European citizenship.
As you know, the European Commission has launched the programme for active European citizenship, which we have discussed today and will continue to discuss tomorrow. Your actions are a real answer to the Commission’s consultations. All of us want a Europe which is democratic, peaceful, and respectful of its diversities and prosperities. Your achievements are a real contribution to the construction of such a Europe. Thank you very much.
137 Mr Nikolaus van der Pas Director General, Directorate General for Education and Culture, European Commission
Thank you very much for giving me another opportunity to say a few words.
I have very much enjoyed this ceremony because I have seen only the smiling and laughing faces of people who have been happy with their experience across the borders and making citizenship in a European dimension a reality. It gives me great satisfaction to see this happen. Congratulations to all of you who have received a prize.
I would like to say a word also to some of the people who have been working behind the scenes. They are not going to get any prizes today but they have been working extremely hard to make all this happen. I am not only talking about the golden awards ceremony, which in itself is a major project, I am also talking about the management of the twinning programme as such. I can tell you that the fifteen hundred or so partnerships that are possible thanks to the twinning programme give us enormous satisfaction. It is also a considerable amount of work that sometimes has to be done in difficult circumstances. I sometimes see letters from cities that may not be as happy as you are tonight, due to procedural complications, but we always manage to make it work and make it happen. It is to those people in my Directorate General that I would say a special word of thanks.
They are not all here tonight, and I am not going to mention them all, but I would particularly like to thank Annemarie Bruggink for all the work she has done, and Mr Raivio. I know what it all means and I am extremely grateful for the very good work that has been done.
A word of thanks also to our presenter, who showed impressive qualities in getting all the names in all those languages right, and who showed great showmanship and great courtesy to all our prize-winners. Thank you very much.
A last word to the colleagues in the booths behind us who have been absolutely essential in this meeting: our interpreters. We cannot do without them; in their absence, such meetings would be impossible at the European level. They are always modestly sitting behind and I would like to thank them very much. I hope to see then again tomorrow, when we will again depend very much on their services. Thank you very much.
With all that, the ceremony is closed. I wish you a good journey home, and if you continue to follow our work tomorrow, see you then. Have a good evening.
138 Friday 4 February 2005 : Morning session
Mr Kosmopoulos European Commission
Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. I think we will have a very constructive but long day today so without further ado, I will invite the three rapporteurs of our workshops and then we shall move to the plenary.
I invite the rapporteur of the first group, Mr Arnold, to present the outcome of the first workshop.
Mr Richard Arnold Representation of the State of Baden-Württemberg to the European Union
I speak as rapporteur to the first session which discussed town twinning activities.
As a first remark, I would like to say that session one was a very good and lively discussion with a fair number of participants who demonstrated great interest in the topic of town twinning activities and activities at a European level in this area. I would like to stress that most of the participants in that session are highly involved in current town twinning activities and have amassed a great deal of experience in programmes on a European level, making them highly knowledgeable in this area.
Let me focus on the key results from session one. In doing so I would like to concentrate in particular on the following seven points, to which all of the participants were able to agree.
1. The activities of the European Commission to promote town twinning should be continued.
A number of reasons were given for this in the course of discussion. Firstly, the programme promoted by the European Commission to promote town twinning is unique and has been able to acquire its own identity. It is also tailor-made to meet the needs of our citizens who wish to foster town twinning programmes and is very well adapted to meeting their needs.
Towns and municipalities which have twinning links are not in a position to participate in other Community programmes, however, town twinning can also promote mutual understanding and awareness in a Europe which is coming ever closer together and also in a European Union which is set to increase in size.
It also involves a concrete project bringing together fellow citizens in Europe and these very concrete projects are what can make Europe visible and closer to its citizens.
It was repeatedly stressed that it is not only the European aspect of promoting town twinning at European level which is important. It is particularly important for the
139 participants in the programme to ensure that this programme is a way of recognising the work they do in fostering inter-town relationships.
Under the auspices of the town twinning programme, we are not dealing with any European measure which is artificially imposed from above, rather European promotion is based on a long tradition of town partnerships which started immediately after the Second World War with the aim of promoting understanding and reconciliation, so it can be seen as essentially the embryonic movement towards promoting a Europe before its people. This was stressed by many participants and this is a movement which is continuing its success to this day.
It was pointed out that a number of studies have shown a steady increase in the number of town twinning links since the beginning of the European programme. In 1988, when the programme was first established, there were approximately 3,500 town twinning links; in the year 2004 there were 30 000 town twinning links, a tenfold increase of which we can all be proud.
2. There was also agreement during the discussion that this is a programme which continues to be too bureaucratic for people wishing to participate in it.
Further simplification is necessary, as is an acceleration of the application procedures.
Particular criticism was made regarding the following points: payments are sometimes made very late in the day; a number of cases were mentioned where subsidies were paid one year after the measure had actually been implemented. This creates problems for the towns involved.
In practice it is sometimes rather difficult to ensure that the actual measures to be implemented can be based upon the pedagogical objectives set by the European Commission for the programme. Very often these objectives are seen as too alien to the daily needs of citizens involved in the programme. Furthermore, it is also claimed that the bureaucratic red tape is too voluminous.
It was said that during meetings under the auspices of twinning schemes all participants had to enrol and fill out forms and they felt that this was far too difficult because it meant that you had to chase up participants and ensure that they had filled in all the necessary paperwork.
A third point of criticism: it was also felt to be rather difficult to pursue a long term application. Before activities are launched you had to give notice to the authorities months in advance of precisely how many people were going to take part. A great many of these projects are very spontaneous in nature and very often it is difficult to predict in any detail how many people will be taking part a long time in advance.
Fourthly, the demand that an English summary be provided of the measure proposed is a particular problem for small towns and villages,
140 who do not have the necessary translation capacities to ensure this English summary.
It was also said that over the years forms have become clearer and easier to understand. This is due to the insight and good sense of the people working in the Directorate General for Education and Culture who have done their utmost to simplify things. Nevertheless, the participants felt that further simplifications are required; they felt it was not necessary to initial each and every one of the sixty to seventy pages of the financial agreement.
3. The workshop agreed that there should be no talk of mainstreaming or twinning in other European Union programmes. The European Union twinning programme should remain a standalone independent programme and should therefore not in any way lose its identity.
4. It is important to ensure that the twinning programme can be made accessible to towns, municipalities and citizens from the neighbouring countries of the EU. It was particularly underlined that tow twinning could contribute to bring towns and municipalities as well as citizens from Balkan countries closer together.
5. A warm welcome was given to the idea that more multi-annual projects could be included for funding under the auspices of the European programme.
A multi-annual programme would provide a level of financial security, but of course measures should be taken to avoid over-dependence on European funding. A multi- annual approach would permit people to follow a more strategic approach to drawing up a work programme for twinning programmes which would include clear thematic priorities which could be explored in greater detail as the years went by. A UK participant mentioned exchanges on given common topics such as democratic development.
It was agreed that multi-annual projects would be a good way to further foster what is already done under twinning programmes. This should not, however, be at the expense of the funding of our smaller scale or short term projects which are currently eligible for funding.
The funding for one-off citizens’ meetings should be maintained at the current level. Smaller municipalities in particular might be financially overburdened with the task of organising multi-annual programmes; neither would they necessarily have the staff resources to do that.
Multi-annual programmes should also not lead to any increase in bureaucracy, so one would have to be very careful there.
Finally there was large support of integrating both the multi-annual and one-off events inside the town twinning scheme. None of these two categories should be integrated in the other parts of the programme.
141 6. A warm welcome was given to the thought of ensuring that further promotion should be given to so-called accompanying measures. The extent of the programme available was welcomed, but during the discussion it was stressed that accompanying measures are very useful instruments for the purposes of providing a framework for ongoing actions.
It was also stressed that for accompanying measures a wide scale of structures must be eligible besides local town councils and municipalities. There should also be possible funding for regional authorities and associations and federations of local authorities.
Accompanying measures would enable the creation of a network and would also permit an exchange of best practice in the area of town partnerships, particularly to include the new member states.
Another very important and interesting proposal was made during the course of discussion. It was suggested that an internet platform be created. It could be known as the European Internet Portal for Town Twinning, and it might also be possible to include a decentralised instructor for support and advisory services.
Accompanying measures should be used to look into the possibility of increased decentralisation, particularly by smaller scale projects; although it was stressed that decentralisation has to be seen very carefully, especially in the area of small projects.
7. Under the auspices of multi-annual approaches thought was given to holding special events which would involve young people in particular.
It is very important to be able to appeal to Europe’s youth. Mention was made of the Youth Convention which took place over the course of two years to discuss the European Constitution. This received a great deal of press coverage. Why should the EU Summit of heads of state and government be the only event covered by the press? Why should we not hold a European Summit of the Citizens of Europe to discuss the future of town twinning partnerships?
Antonios Kosmopoulos European Commission
Thank you very much. I now invite Ms Bisland to speak.
Elizabeth Bisland Senior Executive, European Policy Centre
I will try to address the seven questions that the Commission asked the workshop to address and then finish with some conclusions.
The first question was “What lessons were learned?” and the theme was operating think tanks for organisations of a general European interest and organisations in particular that had an operating grant.
142
The first thing to be said is that there is a huge wave of frustration about the current financial rules and regulations, and this came out very strongly in the workshop. The first half hour was really an outpouring of anger and frustration and examples of how organisations have suffered under these financial rules. I do not want to go into detail about this because I know that you are going to be discussing the financial conditions later today, but the general conclusion was that financial rules and procedures are counter-productive to the objective of this kind of programme, which is to support civil society, but in fact civil society organisations and NGOs are being crippled by the rigidity and weight of the procedures.
There was also a feeling that there was too much focus by the Commission on financial criteria and that zero value was being placed on the work of volunteers. The work of many civil society organisations is based around volunteers.
There was also a suggestion that the Commission look more at the results of the projects and less at whether organisations have followed detailed financial rules to the letter.
The questions posed by the Commission were about how to encourage innovation, but the current rules actually stifle innovation. There seems to be tension between the Commission’s concern for value for money and at the same time a desire for innovation. The current financing rules favour conventional projects and do not allow for the possibility of failure, so a suggestion was put forward that in any future programme there is this leeway to allow for truly experimental projects.
There was a plea to the Commission to think more about radical options, for example a derogation from the current financial regulation. One alternative solution was put forward to channel funds through a European foundation that is used to making grants to NGOs and associations.
Finally under lessons learned, there was a call for more emphasis on evaluation. A suggestion was put forward that the Commission evaluate results more before they change the rules and criteria. The impression is that there is no real long term evaluation. These are the lessons learned.
I will now turn to the criteria for operating grants. I will list these criteria because I think it is a matter of choice.
The first is that there is a real additional European or trans-national dimension, that the organisations actually have proven track records. On the other hand, there is a risk that you eliminate new think tanks or experimental projects involving perhaps a youth organisation.
The governance arrangements of organisations - how representative are they?
Most importantly I think the themes they are working on have to be themes that are crucial to the realisation of the European integration process, for example the missions and values of the Union, the EU economic and social model. One subject
143 could be Muslim-Christian understanding, promoting this and trying to understand the differences.
Obviously debate on the Constitution is one that is very current and people thought that this was a debate in which one could really involve the citizen and where think tanks had a contribution to make. You would require the numbers of publications if you wanted to be sure that these are real think tanks. Clear objectives must be set so they can be measured afterwards.
Do these organisations support basic European values such as quality and non- discrimination? The extent of networks or outreach capacity, the multiplier effect – this can be hard to measure – and other criteria are actions that can favour cross- fertilisation, bringing together NGOs, local authorities and think tanks.
Concluding on the operating grant, more specifically organisations that should get operating grants, this session was mainly addressed to think tanks but there were many civil society organisations and there was a strong plea from the floor that civil society organisations or NGOs with a European dimension should also be given operational institutional support.
That is all I have to say with regard to the criteria.
One question was “How can think tanks best contribute to European policymaking?” Principally by proposing innovative ideas.
Think tanks clearly can promote a debate on values in Europe. They can test new ideas, including testing proposals emerging from the EU. By doing more long term thinking, they can link up research centres across Europe and bring a European dimension to the work.
One speaker from the floor was of the opinion that if you really want to make an innovative impact on EU policymaking then you need to opt for large projects that require a lot of money. One also has to consider the economic mechanisms and perhaps look at more tangible projects.
Think tanks can act as a link between academic research and policymakers by providing cross-cutting thinking. As so much of the research is compartmentalised, think tanks can add an interdisciplinary dimension.
The two questions that followed were questions 5 and 6. One was “How can think tanks contribute to the dialogue between the European institutions and civil society and facilitate the permanent involvement of civil society in the European policymaking process?” There is an overlap between this and the following question, which was “What kind of activities or partnerships could be developed by think tanks as an interface to ensure a large multiplier effect in its European citizens and at what level?” In terms of promoting dialogue between the institutions and civil society it is precisely this interfaced role that think tanks have.
Think tanks can act as a kind of conveyer belt with NGOs hopping on and off according to the issues under debate. There is a natural symbiotic relationship
144 between think tanks, who largely deal with ideas and thinking, and civil society, which is more focused on grass roots and action. This is of course a very rigid definition and that definition was challenged, but I would still put that forward as a basic concept.
Think tanks are an interface between institutions and the public. The citizen mistrusts institutions and politicians but there is great respect for independent experts, and think tanks do play this intermediary role. They can help to interpret and explain EU thinking and policy to the citizen or to stakeholders and make ideas more accessible and more understandable. One speaker spoke of cultural think tanks as cultural translators, which is an interesting analogy.
The counter-argument to this, which was also put forward in the group discussion, is that NGOs “do it better” as they are able to talk the language of the man in the street.
One concrete innovative suggestion was that citizens could be supported by helping them develop advocacy skills. It was proposed that a citizens’ participation centre be set up for this purpose where people would be given training in advocacy. It was suggested that we look to the United States for examples on how to develop the voice of the citizen.
I will now move on to partnerships that could be developed by think tanks. Think tanks can only get to citizens if they work with civil society organisations. Civil society organisations are multipliers and they are closer to the citizen, so more could be done with universities, different faculties, youth organisations, for example in the areas of culture, sport and religious groups as well.
If you want to reach the masses you have to involve the media. Here think tanks can play a role in raising awareness through better information and communication flow and more consultation with citizens about what they want and what they expect from Europe. It is a two way process. Partnership through contributions by think tanks and the press, media enhanced partnerships involving think tanks and the media to ensure better communication of EU policies and decisions.
The next question was “Would there be any added value in the networking of think tanks?” Again there are different schools of thought on this. You can begin networking in theory but there is a risk that individual think tanks might lose their independence. There is also a danger that you may be faced with an elite talking shop if European think tanks are only talking to each other, so it would be interesting perhaps to have networking of European and national think tanks. It was also said in favour of networking of think tanks that individual think tanks cannot possibly have the whole picture, so it is good to combine and share expertise.
I have seven points to conclude on.
Think tanks are providing added value in raising the quality and level of debate on Europe, but to reach the level of citizens they have to work with other civil society organisations who have data outreach and are real multipliers.
The new programme should promote collaborative action between think tanks and civil society including NGOs at different levels: regional, national and central.
145
Think tanks have to be supported. They have to be guaranteed a degree of stability on a basis that allows them to forward plan. They need institutional support and there is a plea to support other civil society organisations with a European dimension. This is also to guarantee their independence.
Sometimes the lines between NGOs and think tanks can be blurred, so please beware of over-rigid categorisation and please be flexible so that funding can be awarded for actions in the here and now.
Review the financial regulation.
Avoid any form of coercion through funding mechanisms.
The Commission needs to explain how the future programme is situated in relation to other DG actions in the area of citizenship in order to avoid this new programme becoming an add-on.
Lastly, there is a dearth of debate about what Europe is and what Europe stands for. Think tanks have a vital role in presenting different visions of Europe and offering the citizen greater choices and alternatives. Together with civil society and NGOs it is time to involve and mobilise citizens in debate around alternative views of Europe and the integration process. Thank you.
Antonios Kosmopoulos European Commission
Thank you very much. I now invite Mr Moro to take the floor.
Mr Giovanni Moro Director, Active Citizenship Network
Session three was devoted to projects and actions, and I will attempt briefly to report the main content of the discussion. The group was chaired by Mr Decaillon. Attendees came from many different kinds of civil society organisations.
There were 42 interventions made by over 30 people. The content of interventions included questions, remarks based on experience and proposals related both to general points and to specific elements in the new programme and to critical remarks and possible solutions. Many proposals were made and of course we are awaiting a full report which will be delivered by the Commission on the work of the group.
I will now refer back to some general remarks. The first is that a common feeling was expressed that we are dealing with a process that must be enounced in a constructive way. The discussion was focused more on the way the new programme should be implemented rather than on the content of the programme itself, although several suggestions were made on the content of the programme too.
146 The core issue of the discussion was the operational relationship between the Commission and civil society organisations with special regard to three main points.
The first is the management definition of calls for proposals, the second is financial and administrative matters and the third is information and communication matters from different points of view. These are the three specific topics that were studied during the discussion. The common feeling about these three points was the need for changes and several proposals were discussed during the work of the group. However, these proposals were not necessarily consistent, so a more in-depth analysis of that particular area would be needed.
Allow me to summarise the main points of the discussion by focusing on three general points. The first is the issue of new relations between the Commission and civil society organisations. The second is learning from past experiences. The third is defining new strategies, targets and tools.
Let us examine the first category of issues that were dealt with.
“From cooperation to partnership” was a new kind of relationship that was defined during the discussion. The need to invest in civil society organisations was stressed as well. The need to take into account the diversity of civil society organisations, which were well represented by group participants, was also stressed. Special support must be given to small and field operating organisations and the issue of representativeness and relevance of citizens and civil society organisations, which as you know is a very important topic of Article 47 of the Constitutional Treaty.
The second topic is “Learning from past experiences”. I have mentioned calls for proposals and much discussion was devoted to this issue: the language of calls for proposals, timing and deadlines, the duration of projects (annual and multi-annual), the rigidity of calls for proposals and the need for more flexibility, the bureaucratic obstacles constraining creativity and responsibility, the need to know how to respond to calls for proposals, the burden of project design and the risk of excluding smaller and weaker organisations.
A second very important point related to past experiences is that of financial and administrative matters. “From control to tutoring” was discussed as well as the very important point that with the amount of co-funding being too high for the average organisation, the value of voluntary work and in-kind support was to be valued in budgeting.
The unsustainability of administrative rules for many small organisations. The management of projects was discussed as was the need to enhance communication activity and the need for reports on project outcomes.
The need for shared good practices and giving value to projects as implementation activities of European Union policies as well as feedback on the activity of the European Union itself, also using the media system, and the need to enhance information and accountability of institutions, improving from this specific point of view the European Union portal.
147 The third category of remarks is concerned with defining new strategies, targets and tools. A first important point which was stressed in many interventions was EU youth: a bettering pact of European Union programmes on youth, the involvement of youth organisations, attention to young disabled people, young unemployed people and so on and so forth. The support to candidate countries and the need to favour the integration of new commerce in the European Union, the need to explain Europe through clear messages on citizenship, clarifying which kind of citizenship we are speaking of, including a cultural heritage discourse together with intercultural and inter-religious activities also involving academics in the field. Dealing with the issue of mobility of people and transnational activities.
Improving information to citizens, organisations and to the general public in many ways, in Brussels, through the portal, at regional and local level, on policies and opportunities and so on and so forth, always using the media system in an intensive way. Enhancing citizens’ participation through structures, addressing the impression of remoteness and distrust, which is a common concern but which must be addressed in clear ways. Using tools such as training materials, teachers in schools, use of public services such as postal services, use of media and the skills of journalists in order to improve communication and information, use proximity information technologies, promote Erasmus-like activities.
I want to stress that we took part in a very rich discussion in my opinion which should be continued so as to reach some very concrete points that might arise out of the discussion.
Finally let me say that the impression I came away with from the group discussion was that as in other cases the reality is much richer than we suppose in terms of activities, programmes and skilled people and organisations' ability to solve and address problems and to give a very rich profile to the European Union in the field. Thank you for your attention.
Antonios Kosmopoulos European Commission
Thank you very much. This concludes the first part of today’s work. I would like to thank the three rapporteurs for their excellent work and for setting the tone.
I invite Ms Ailsa Spindler to take the floor to present the plenary.
148 Plenary Discussion
Ms Ailsa Spindler Chair Independent Expert Before we have our coffee break we have the first of the three sessions, which in many ways are what this conference is all about. This morning’s presentations that you have heard so far are very valuable background and I am very pleased that some of the threads we want to develop today have already been mentioned.
I must emphasise that we do not want to just go over the ground that was covered yesterday. Today’s session is not about looking backwards, about moans and complaints about the Commission; it is actually one of those rare moments that everyone asks for in Brussels but rarely gets, when the Commission is sitting here with ears open and wanting to hear positive ideas.
In order to make the most of this can I remind you that you have these slips which we ask you to complete. We are after ideas and discussion points. We are not after position statements. We are looking for quality interventions of ideas and discussion threads that can help the Commission make this programme the success we all want it to be.
The plenary discussion session will be led by Mr Pierre Mairesse, Acting Director of DG Education and Culture. I am very happy to sit here and field your comments when I give you the floor; he will respond to some of those comments in groups. We do not want this to be a question and answer session and I do not want you firing questions at Mr Mairesse. He will set the scene for each theme and then I will invite interventions from the floor.
So without further ado, I will hand you over to Mr Mairesse.
Theme I - Rationale of the future programme : objectives, expected impact
Pierre Mairesse Acting director, Directorate General for Education and Culture, European Commission
This is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak to you and I have to say it is a real pleasure. I am very impressed by the high quality of this event, the high quality of discussions held yesterday afternoon and the reports we have just heard.
This is part of a consultation exercise and we will take as much account as possible of the ideas which you have put forward. I do not want to make a speech, I simply want to throw out various points so that we can have a very rich debate.
149 Firstly, I would like to start by referring back to what Mr Lamy said yesterday about diagnostics. The diagnosis is that Europe is far away and distant and it will remain remote and distant because it is there and we cannot change things.
Secondly, active citizenship is a very ambitious goal. It is not very easy to find active citizens – I am not just talking about at a European level, I am talking about at a local level, even. Here it is a major challenge.
A third challenge is to create a European identity.
Sometimes, when I look at those three together, that is, firstly, a Europe which is remote from citizens, secondly, citizens who are not always as active as we would like, and thirdly, a European identity based on values which we are looking for and which we have to build, then I would have to say yes, we are facing a major challenge.
This is the bad news, if you will. The good news, as Mr Lamy said yesterday, is that this Europe which is being built is very interesting for citizens and everyone gathered here.
Let me tell you a little anecdote. My Canadian counterpart often comes to Europe and I was talking to him recently. He said that we have a major opportunity over here because whereas their society is rather static and there are no major challenges in Canada, in Europe we do face major challenges and we can involve our citizens, our public, because we can let them take part in building something. Every time he comes to Europe, which is every two years, he sees the genuine progress that we continue to make. So we should not be overly pessimistic as we are faced with an exciting scenario, an exciting opportunity.
The second positive bit of news, as yesterday’s speaker said, is that civil society is becoming increasingly important. Its influence is increasing all the time.
A third important point is the impetus given by ordinary people. In my private and professional life I see people taking many, many initiatives. I do not want to give the impression that people are totally apathetic. There is an enormous amount of wealth in local, regional and national initiatives and in those taken by NGOs, as Mr Moro pointed out.
Let me come back to the programme, because that is what is important to us today. How can we put this programme together? We have an idealistic goal and a civil society and our challenge is to try and pool the two.
First of all, we are of course subject to various constraints and limits. We are not starting from scratch and we have to know exactly where we are starting from. So what support is provided by the Community and the Commission to civil society in general? Where are we now?
Community support increased significantly during the 1990s. There were many initiatives and there were many budget lines, for example the budget line for twinning and the budget lines for professional organisations and trade unions. There were all
150 kinds of different budget lines, plenty of ideas and there was lots of innovation. That has to be recognised.
Then, at the very beginning of this decade, as early as the year 2000, we felt the need to sort things out for various reasons, a major one being the financial regulation. So we came up with the first programme of this kind, the current programme, which provided a legal and financial framework for everything you are doing. However, this programme simply juxtaposed these activities, trying to ensure that they continued. This programme responded to an urgent need, yet it gave rise to a lot of justified criticism in my view, notably for its lack of transparency and for its cumbersome procedures. But at least it had the merit of existing.
That was the second stage. The third stage is what we are working on today. We are preparing a new programme which must represent realistic progress. We have to progress in terms of ideas. We need a better concept of what we want. We also have to progress in management terms. The programme must be easier to manage and more in line with what you are actually doing, while remaining realistic. This is one constraint.
Yesterday, several speakers reminded us that European citizenship and identity were mentioned for the first time in the Maastricht Treaty. We are making speedy progress, but compared to other European policies we are really right at the start of what we can do. We have got to progress step by step. If we come up with an overambitious programme, there is a risk that it will cause all sorts of problems, both for the adoption and the implementation phases.
Another constraint is that we do have to ensure some kind of continuity. Why? Because we believe in many of the actions which are currently being carried out. Now perhaps within each action various changes have to be made to take account of changes in society and changes in Europe. But I have to say that many of the projects in the current programme are extremely valuable and must be continued.
There is a lot of talk about innovation: in the Commission we keep saying we have to “innovate, innovate, innovate”. Yet in some instances innovation lies in what people themselves do. As was mentioned yesterday, the fact that we involve citizens in actions is an innovation in itself; that is already an innovative approach of the programme. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that we need to think about the type of innovation that we can make in terms of both political efficiency and efficiency in the field.
The third constraint is the budget. We have the discussions on the financial perspectives 2007-2013. The Commission has proposed a budget based on a contribution of 1.2% of the EU’s GNP. Several countries, quite large ones, proposed to cut it to 1%; a 0.2% reduction does not sound much but it represents billions of euros. We have to know exactly which way the balance is going to tip, and the cake has to be divided between different policies. For example, how much is going to internal or domestic policies? How much is going to growth and to external policies?
We are responsible for citizenship, but we are not the only ones asking for a slice of the cake. There are also very many other activities – justice, freedom, fighting
151 terrorism – and one has to realise that they will be given the highest priority. However, one also has to be aware that active citizenship should be given priority and we have to make sure that it happens.
With regard to orientations for the future programme, let me begin by pointing out what I think we should not do. Information and communication for citizens obviously plays a major part in active citizenship. We are not going to propose any major programmes for informing citizens because if we were to propose information PR campaigns at a European level then that would see the end of our budget. Besides, there are other tools in the Commission which can be used to do that. These PR campaigns are basically top-down campaigns. That is fine; I am not criticising that, but our business is more bottom-up. So we are probably going to focus on actions and projects between citizens themselves. Obviously, as was said in the various workshops, we will make use of the media to upgrade what we want to do, but that is very different from saying that we will organise PR and information campaigns.
Another thing we are not going to do is organise and support civil society directly at a national, regional or local level. Let me explain what I mean. For example, at the moment, and following enlargement, there are programmes to reinforce civil society in new member states where it is not very strong. This is a European objective as well as a field objective, so we reinforce NGOs and networks of these NGOs at a local, regional and national level. For example, we have a programme managed by DG Justice, Freedom and Security which aims to encourage that in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms.
We can provide reinforcement, but indirectly. What we want to do is encourage civil society through trans-European actions and projects. If we are not careful, we could once again spend our entire budget on purely national actions.
A third thing we are not going to do is conduct the various consultations that each DG is obliged to carry out when proposing a new major legislative proposal. It is up to the DG concerned to organise them.
What then would the objectives of this programme be?
Let me put this in the form of questions. I know that many of you have already put forward your questions, but perhaps I can shed some light on things first. This programme has to work to the benefit of European citizens and organisations yet it should also benefit the EU. I have heard what twinnings, NGOs, trade unions and think tanks expect from the programme but I would like to add that the EU also expects something from the programme; it is for our mutual benefit.
Secondly, should we give a high priority to mutual understanding in this programme, to intercultural understanding? Several people mentioned this yesterday. We could put priorities elsewhere but I would like to know whether that should be a specific priority and be given higher priority.
Now my third point concerns new member states. Several speakers said yesterday that they have to be given priority, and others repeated that this morning. There could be two tactical options. As I said just now, active European citizenship is in itself a
152 major challenge. On the one hand, we could say therefore that this will be our main focus, that the new member states and candidate countries will be taken on board, but that, in view of the considerable work we already have to do, we will focus on citizenship in the old fifteen. On the other hand, people can say that the enlargement which has just been carried out and future enlargements pose such a big challenge that we should concentrate on the new member states, that they should be our priority. I need your thoughts on this because it is important for the future development of the programme.
Fourthly, what is the role of this programme with regard to civil society and think tanks? Supporting every NGO in Europe is not possible, so what is our objective? To organise things? To establish networks? I have heard various ideas mooted and I would like to come back to them.
My fifth point is that volunteers are extremely important in your projects. Volunteers are extremely important in NGOs, twinnings, trade unions and think tanks. What strikes me is that at EU level there is no forum to talk about these things. There is no forum where volunteers and those who support solidarity can exchange ideas. Is this something we should push through the programme? Should we try and come up with some kind of forum? Is there a way of bringing together NGOs who try to support solidarity and NGOs who are involved in town twinning to exchange views and ideas?
Lastly, what type of link can we imagine between this programme and others? This programme is limited but what is its link up with education and youth and the social fund?
Someone from twinning said that we should not lose our soul, we should stick to our aims and we have to keep our core business. However, I do not think that should stop us looking elsewhere and collecting ideas and resources from other areas.
Now I am going to listen to what you have to say and answer your points.
Chair
Looking at these pieces of paper that have been handed in, the phrase “usual suspects” springs to mind. There are some of you out there whom I do not know and I would like to get to know you better so please do participate in this opportunity, particularly if you are from one of the new member states, as you will not get it very often.
I will begin by offering the floor to one of the usual suspects, Mr Venables from ECAS.
153 Tony Venables European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)
Thank you very much. I am a usual suspect but we do campaign at ECAS for the idea that the Commission must reach out beyond the usual suspects and we have a good track record on that.
I would like to say something about the question of what this programme could offer the Commission. One answer to that lies in the articles in the Treaty on European citizenship which make it clear that this is an evolving concept. So for me this programme is related to Article 22 which says that the Commission can make proposals to develop European citizenship and that should be based in terms of what we’ve heard from Mr Mairesse, that is, much more on what citizens expect of this concept rather than information and communication towards them.
I would like to ask a question about the legal basis of the future programme because I think there is a certain ambiguity in the discussion so far. I can accept that citizenship is a very wide concept but if it becomes too wide it becomes totally diluted, and there may be a danger of that.
It appears to me that there are two different types of expectation in the audience and maybe also in the Commission. One expectation is to develop the concept of European citizenship as it was put into the Maastricht Treaty. This is a soft kind of citizenship and yet it has a legal basis and a meaning in terms of free movement of people and participation in a European public space etc. At the same time one could get the impression from the discussions that this is a programme which is more of a general programme to cover activities related to Europe which are not covered by particular sectoral budgets and it might be better to split it into two to recognise that fact.
My particular question – and this will give the answer in terms of how we target ourselves towards this programme – is what articles in the treaty will this programme be based on?
Chair
The next speaker is Mr Moro, who gave a very good summary of one the sessions and is now speaking on behalf of the Active Citizenship Network.
154 Giovanni Moro Director, Active Citizenship Network
The title of my form for asking the floor was “What active citizenship are we talking about?” I would quickly like to stress three points.
Firstly, the European Union is a non-standard institution, a non-standard democracy. As we all know, we can like or dislike it but it is a matter of fact. European citizenship is a non-standard entity as well and we need to focus on this point.
We should have a more flexible idea of citizenship in the case of European citizenship because it is not linked to a national state, it is not characterised by a common language and so on and so forth. Some aspects of this point of view are very important in my opinion, but first we should decide if we consider active citizenship as a project either as a matter of fact or a process in reality. That is very important. In my opinion active citizenship is something that is happening, not something that should happen. The example of newcomer countries in the European Union is a good one.
Here I draw on my own experience working with citizens’ organisations of Central and Eastern European countries. In the ten new former candidate countries I found many very lively, skilled, active, effective citizens’ organisations operating in various policy fields. So active citizenship is a process to be recognised and supported rather than a programme to be invented and top-down imposed to reality.
Secondly, does active citizenship regard the participation of people in decision- making only or in the implementation of policies? The European Union and European Commission seem not to have decided which of these two aspects must be taken into account. It says that citizens participate in decision-making but it also practises participation in the implementation phase of its policies.
Again, non-standard citizenship means that we are speaking about something that happens in public policies rather than in representative institutions. Active citizenship organisations do not overlap with political parties and representative institutions. They are engaged in public policymaking on a daily basis, which is of course something very similar but not the same as the activity of representative institutions, and they act in the general interest and not for private or legal purposes. This is something to be stressed in the European Constitution. The sacred principle of freedom of association is faded – that is very important – but the principle of freedom of association states that yes, you can get together and act for your private purposes. If these purposes are not illegal, we the state, the institutions, must grant that you will be able to get together and act. We are dealing with a very different matter; we are dealing with citizens engaged in public interest issues, not private purposes. That is something that characterises European citizenship.
Finally, must the European Commission fund and financially support all European citizens' organisations? Tens of thousands of them are operating at national level in matters directly related to European Union policies. I think the problem is that the European Commission should have a clear policy regarding these kinds of organisations. That does not necessarily mean financial support. Our research
155 activities show that the European Union in general has a very ambiguous policy on citizens’ organisations. We have named it the Jekyll and Hyde syndrome.
Sometimes citizens’ organisations are an asset, sometimes a threat. This is a matter involving national states but what we expect from the European Commission, precisely because of its non-standard nature, is a general policy at European level influencing national institutions to promote, support and assess citizens’ organisations involved in European Union policymaking, also at national and local level.
Chair
Thank you. There was another paper on a similar theme submitted by Mr de Fouloy. Would you like to take the floor?
Mr Christian de Fouloy EULobby.net
I would like to add to what Mr Moro has said because I think it is extremely important to first set the basis for the new programme. In other words, are we trying to optimise mobilisation? Are we trying to mobilise empowerment? What will the form of mobilisation be and what will the form of empowerment be?
I have had difficulties with semantics because over the past two days we have heard dialogue, we have heard consultation and participation, and I even checked with the interpreter here about the word involved because everybody is talking about involvement.
Mr Mairesse pointed out, and rightly so, that citizens should participate in the construction of Europe and I would like to compliment Mr Moro on his words about participation in the influencing process. I wish to congratulate Ms Sigmund who spoke yesterday because she was very clear in terms of what she expected.
So I think that in terms of setting up the base, making a balanced choice for the Commission in terms of what it wants to achieve, I would just like to clarify this. If we send out the message that indeed we want the citizen to participate and in the end the citizen feels that he is not really participating, he will feel duped. And this is what we try to avoid.
I am glad that Ms Elizabeth Bisland pointed out my suggestion that we think in terms of this new programme of establishing citizen participation centres, which would act as an outgrowth through dialogue. This portal that has been established is a step in the right direction.
I do not wish to take up any more time because I know that many people would like to intervene but I think that having a clear understanding of terminology and using the proper terminology would be very much appreciated.
156 Chair
Thank you. Before I hand back to Mr Mairesse for some responses there are two more interventions on the technical aspects of things which might be useful to take now.
The first is from Michel Mortelette from the Confédération Européenne des Syndicats on the subject of priorities around enlargement.
Michel Mortelette European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
I would like to come back to one of the points that Mr Mairesse stressed when he was talking about objectives. He said that there were two possibilities or options with regard to the objectives for candidate countries.
The work that has already been done – and that certainly includes what has been done with the help of DG Education and Culture – is going to form the basis of my position. A great deal of work has been done in our Confederation to ensure that at our own expense we had a coordinator in place in each of the new countries who was entrusted with providing advice and assistance to the national trade union movement and its affiliates to act as a resource centre dealing with all areas of European policy and also with aspects related to European citizenship. I can assure you that as far as we can see this resulted in a great deal of added value for the ten new member states.
These representatives of civil society of these ten countries really did achieve a great deal prior to their accession in May 2004 and that is why on behalf of the ETUC I would like to stress how important it is for us to ensure that those who are currently at the Union’s door, such as Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey, should not be excluded in any way from this new programme. I think that for various reasons, not just solidarity, this is a way in which we can help them prepare for their arrival in the European Union.
Chair
Finally, before we hand back to Mr Mairesse, I would like to ask Catherine Viguier from the Institut de la Protection Sociale Européenne (IPSE) to speak. Her question is about what happens next. This may help us think about how we approach the rest of the discussion.
Catherine Viguier Institut de la Protection Sociale Européenne (IPSE)
Firstly could I welcome the initiative of the Commission in inviting us to attend this forum to hear our views.
157 During the workshops we have been able to exchange our ideas and our varied experience. This forum has launched a very enriching exchange of experience which we would all wish to pursue and I think we all feel rather frustrated that this process will soon be over. I would like to find out whether there will be a follow up to this forum and whether it will be possible in the future to further participate in the drawing up of this future programme for active European citizenship?
Chair
Mr Mairesse, I think perhaps it would be a good time to have a little reflection on that?
Pierre Mairesse European Commission
I think two different types of comment have been made. There have been those made regarding the overall context, the legal basis and follow up, and then those made on the actual content or substance of the programme.
I would like to start with the first point, the overall context and follow up. Now, the legal basis which will be used for our future proposal is a difficult issue to address. I do not wish to bore you with any of the details, nor can I necessarily give you a ready answer to this question today. I would, however, like to explain to you why this issue is important and also why it is a difficult one.
It is an important issue politically. Whether we use article X or Y of the Treaty is an important political choice in itself.
This is a difficult issue because we have two different treaties. We have on the one hand, the existing, current treaties and on the other the Constitution. The technical problem we have to face is that, because the Constitution has not yet been ratified, we will be putting forward a proposal which can only be based against the background and on the articles of the existing treaties. However, this is a proposal for a programme which in all likelihood – and if all goes well – will be implemented after the Constitution comes into force.
This is our first technical problem. Secondly, in the existing treaties, the article to which we would refer as a legal basis – we would say that it is on the basis of this article that we make our proposal – would lead to very different adoption procedures with more or less involvement of the European Parliament. Now between ourselves we can recognise that the European Parliament has a very important influence on all our decisions. The choice of the article will therefore determine the role and impact of the Parliament in deciding the issues of concern to all of us. This is of course rendered all the more difficult because the article which we might choose in the existing Treaty might not be the same as the one we would opt for in the Constitution.
There is also a legal difficulty because we cannot cheat in any way. We can only base our proposal on the existing treaties and they allow us to do some things but
158 not others. The choice of the article has to be legally founded, and our legal service will examine in depth how justified this choice is.
Lastly, as Mr Venables quite rightly pointed out, this whole notion of citizenship is one that is currently being defined. It is a dynamic process so it is possible for us to choose one or another article in the Treaty depending on the emphasis we wish to give to individual facets of the notion of what constitutes citizenship. I do fear, however, that we are not going to be able to get round Article 3082. Anything which is not clearly and explicitly mentioned in the Treaty has to make reference to this more general article which confers powers upon the Council to pursue necessary action where the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers. The problem is that this is a very vague article. The Parliament may issue its opinion but it is not part of the co- decision-making procedure. We also need unanimity, or agreement from all countries, so it is a rather difficult article for us to gain agreement on. However, I hope that with your support all member states will understand that this is a good programme.
As regards the follow up, we have to look ahead in practical terms. Next month we are going to start work on a proposal for a decision to be put to the Commission for the future programme, so this forum is not the end of the story as far as consultation is concerned. We will also have further input from the internet consultation, although everything will be wrapped up at the end of February. In a few weeks’ time we will begin internal procedures at the Commission, during which the DG Education and Culture will draw up a proposal for a text which will then be discussed by all of the relevant departments and submitted to the College.
Why this urgency? We have to get on the train of approval for the financial perspectives. This means that the last batch of programmes will have to be proposed and approved before April. As far as the Commission’s proposal for a decision is concerned, our discussions cannot go any further than they have now, and I think we have already achieved a great deal. However, the proposal will then move forward into the adoption procedure and we will then start preparing the implementation.
I do not intend to include in the legal act any implementing provisions that would close the door on progress and innovation because this after all is a programme that will cover a ten year period. What I wish to draft is an instrument that will open the way to opportunity, and then, of course, look at how these articles are to be implemented in practice.
Between now and 1st January 2007, which will be the date for the first implementation of the programme, we will have a year and a half ahead of us. During that 18 month period, I can today undertake to involve you in a future brainstorming on how best to implement all of the measures we have proposed. The success of today’s meeting will give me sufficient grounds for this.
2 Article 308: “If action by the Community should prove difficult to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures.”
159 With regard to actual substance, Mr Moro and Mr de Fouloy have made a number of very pertinent points that I would concur with.
Active citizenship does already exist. I do not think that we could claim to be drafting a programme to create active citizenship: it is already there. What we should be doing is creating mechanisms to recognise the role of active citizenship and further fostering it.
The idea of involving citizens in the decision-making procedure and in the implementation of any decisions is one to which I would subscribe. It is an ambitious goal but we can certainly examine this possibility, and since here we are dealing with issues of relevance to the European public as a whole I can certainly agree with what you have said.
The idea that there are tens of thousands of organisations speaking about Europe at local, regional and national level is a very striking one. Now to be honest I do not think it would be possible for our programme to provide all of these organisations with financial support, otherwise we would be scattering our resources too thinly. But the idea of creating networks or umbrellas to ensure that there can be a linkage between these organisations is one that should be explored. I will certainly note it as something we would wish to take on board.
I believe I said in my introduction that this should not only be seen as a programme designed to encourage the participation of citizens. I think this really has to be seen as a two way street. I do realise that we have to fine tune the terminology we use. Even the word citizenship in English is not always readily translatable into other languages. We are not here just to encourage citizens to participate, we are also here to help them participate in something which will help the European Union in real terms. Words such as empowerment are good terms to use here.
In response to Mr Mortelette, I think it is quite clear that the candidate countries should be given access to the programme and they should be entitled to the same rights and should have incumbent upon them the same obligations as the member states already inside the Union. They should also be afforded that opportunity. It is not always very easy to do this in budgetary terms but we do have a number of experts in this area in DG Education and Culture. Youth, education and lifelong learning programmes have been open to the candidate countries for some five or six years now. The new member states have already benefited from them and they are already open to Bulgaria, Romania and others.
Chair
I am going to take the next three contributions together as they seem to be on the similar theme of practical ways of mobilising citizenship. The first is Dr Mathias Jopp, from the Institute for European Politics in Berlin.
160 Mathias Jopp Institut für Europäische Politik
I would like to respond to three points raised by Mr Mairesse in his introduction.
The first point concerns the matter of should it be a priority to work on an intercultural basis? I would say that yes, this should be one of the priorities.
The work not only of think tanks but of many NGOs working in the field should be intercultural, multinational and also interdisciplinary, so as to encourage different views and look at particular issues from various angles.
I come now to your other question on whether there should be a priority or a particular focus on new member states. I think that yes, it is important to include the new member states, but the EU 25 + X (because we will have more member states within two, three or four years) is also a challenge for the old member states and their citizens. Perhaps one of the priorities could be to link the debate in old and new member states through joint activities and through working together. Yes, new member states must be included but perhaps old and new member states could do things together.
My third point is that since you have been asking what the role of the Commission could be in supporting think tanks, I think independent NGOs and think tanks have a task to further debate in member states and between citizens of various member states. They have the task of furthering debate about Europe, not through providing information but through providing analysis of the pros and cons of certain European Union policies.
They have to try to catch citizens where they are. This means that it largely depends on the topics and themes with which you are dealing. One of the themes is the future of the Constitution, where a whole chapter is dedicated to European citizenship. We have new things in the Constitution about the national and European Parliaments and in that sense a part of more democracy in the European Union. This is one of the main themes and issues: to initiate debate about the future of the Constitution and not speak alone about the problem of ratifying it. Already in the ratification procedure there must be a European-wide debate initiated on the Constitution, what the Constitution is about and what the citizen will gain from this Constitution.
A second important issue which has been mentioned is enlargement. Enlargement has very much to do with the question of European identity and European borders. Where does Europe end? How can activities cross borders in the course of expanding Europe and what are the visions and the ideas in old, new and future member states about the future of this Europe which we are constantly constructing today and will continue to construct in the coming years?
I will also mention two further issues which hold great interest for the wider public. The first is the Lisbon Agenda and the impact on the economic and social model of Europe, which has a great effect on people and public debate.
161 Another topic is internal and external security. With the Union expanding, open borders and free movement of people, this concerns not only terrorism but also organised crime and various other elements which affect people and in which they are very much interested.
If think tanks can contribute to initiating debate on these issues in their country and with other people in other countries cross-border, so to say, I would say that this could be a very valuable contribution.
Chair
I would like to give the floor now to Mr Giampiero Alhadeff from Solidar.
Giampiero Alhadeff Solidar
I agree with the statement made by Mr Mairesse at the start of this morning when he said that we are at the cutting edge of something very exciting and very new.
I think the European project is very different from anything else happening in the world. It was quite interesting coming back from Porto Alegre – some of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America are looking to us to decide whether they can do a similar thing because that may be the only way to move forward.
It is also true that we are at the cutting edge where civil society is concerned. Article 47 in the new Constitution is the first of its kind. It puts civil dialogue alongside representative democracy. This civil dialogue emphasises that civil society is complementary to the process of democracy. I think that this is very exciting and very new.
However, we do feel that there is also a very important role for civil society in terms of creating a European citizenship and this concerns the role of education and information. Until we can actually do that we will not have a European citizenship; we will have instead a collection of people that feel themselves to be very much rooted in the national state and will not see themselves as European. I think that maybe this programme of yours will make a contribution towards that and will really start addressing the issue that people keep talking about: how do you bring Europe closer to the citizen? This is because Europe is actually very far away from most citizens.
I have one small recent example of this that worked quite well. The DG Education and Culture funded a very small alliance. We called ourselves the “Act for Europe” and we were concerned with creating information on the Convention and making sure that people in different parts of the Union could find out what was going on here in Brussels. It worked quite well but there were insufficient funds and what happened in the end was that the project was funded from the United States rather than from Europe, and that is actually quite worrying.
162 I believe that what you have here is an enormous resource. My own organisation is in touch with 8 million people across the European Union and we are just one. If you look around at the members of the Social Platform and the members of CONCORD, we are talking about a phenomenal number of people involved. My feeling is that it has not always been used well by the Commission and the institutions of the European Union.
There have been a number of enquiries undertaken by highly reputable international organisations. These have discovered that NGOs are more trusted than governments, far more trusted than businesses – and if you look at what happened in the case of the tsunami recently, NGOs received more money from the public than governments were able to devote to the activities. This shows that there is an enormous affection and trust on the part of citizens for the activities of NGOs and what NGOs say, so my feeling is that you have a great opportunity here.
I feel that the previous two Commissions did not grasp their opportunity. They let it slip, with a few exceptions from the top leadership, such as Commissioners Lamy, Diamantopoulou and Wallström. The two most recent Commissions really fluffed the issue.
My feeling about where we go from here is that the Commission should be concentrating on institution building rather than innovation. Strengthen the resources that you have. You have European level organisations: make sure that they have the resources to do the work they do, make sure that they are strengthened and are growing. There should be less emphasis on innovation and more emphasis on continuity and having the resources that can actually deliver that.
Simplification of procedures. We will examine this this afternoon. The procedures are really far too heavy and far too cumbersome and I think they are a real problem for you and for your people as well as for us. Most NGOs in this room will tell you that they struggle to cope with the level of bureaucracy. I understand why this is there because people in the services are worried. They sometimes feel that their own money is on the line: this has to change. We will be working with you to simplify the financial procedures.
My last point is the budget. I really do think that if we are going to achieve what we want to achieve the funding is insufficient. I hope that NGOs will come together on this point with yourselves and the politicians and ask for a better financial perspective from all the governments involved. I would ask that they spend less money on beetroot, carrots and cauliflowers and more on people, because I am sure that at the end of the day it will not be the Common Agricultural Policy that will make Europe closer to its citizens but programmes such as yours.
Chair
Thank you Giampi. Finally on this theme, before I give Mr Mairesse an opportunity to respond, I would like to invite Marcus Held from the European Volunteer Centre to take the floor.
163
Marcus Held The European Volunteer Centre (CEV)
I am taking the floor in order to introduce myself because Mr Mairesse was asking where organisations that promote volunteering are. I stand as a representative of the European Volunteer Centre which has been in existence for about 12 years now.
We bring together on a European level national, regional and local volunteer centres throughout Europe. These volunteer centres are engaged in the French sense of the term bénévolat rather than volontariat. This suggests long term, full-time volunteering and bénévolat is what we engage in. We are concerned with people who become involved in their own local community on issues they really care about and promote solidarity and other European values.
One priority should be to support these kinds of networks. What could the EU get out of this? This adds a European dimension, bringing together not only people that promote volunteering at national level but also people involved in volunteering and giving them the feeling of belonging, of working on a common value such as solidarity on a European level. So this is a point where the European Union can win and we can win when we are supported in our work.
I wanted to add to what Giampi said because I also feel that continuity rather than innovation should be a priority. I would like to say that networks like ours that have existed for a long time and other ventures are also forums for innovation. If you create these networks and strengthen them to further develop you create a pool of innovation where people meet to work together on common issues and come up with new ideas. So continuity and innovation are not really opposites: if you support these initiatives you support innovation as well because new ideas will come out of this.
My third point is that priority should really be given to initiatives and organisations that directly and physically involve citizens rather than information campaigns or publications where you never know who reads or understands it. I find that volunteers who are engaged and active citizens should be targeted by programmes because, as we saw yesterday, active citizenship does not mean per se European active citizenship, so we should add a European dimension to work that is already done on national, regional and local level.
Chair
Thank you, Marcus. I will now hand over to Mr Mairesse for a few responses and then we should be able to break for coffee.
164 Pierre Mairesse European Commission
Before I briefly comment on what has been said, perhaps I could just mention that in general I think your comments are very enriching and very useful and essentially I agree with what you have said. Let me go through the various points.
Several of you answered one of my questions. Mr Jopp spoke about intercultural understanding and mutual understanding. This is essentially the trademark of our programme and this is the area in which we are going to invest.
The idea of avoiding any form of opposition between old and new member states and building instead on this recent enlargement by pooling states and allowing them to work together is a very interesting idea. You also mentioned various criteria for supporting those who work in think tanks and who work on values and major themes, and we will see how we can include that in implementing arrangements and a legal basis.
Giampiero Alhadeff from Solidar mentioned a number of important points. I spoke earlier about a link with education, for example. This was brought up yesterday by a Dutch representative who spoke about schools and so on. I think he was implying the same thing as I was, namely that active citizenship amongst young people is something which should definitely be supported.
I agree that you represent an enormous resource; I was even going to say an enormous power. As I said earlier, the powers and influence of civil society have increased in the new Constitution, but it is not our intention to use you. We want to work together with you to ensure that you can make the best use of your own power and influence so that we benefit from that. This is certainly an idea. We will not put it in the legal basis but it is something that we can bear in mind so that the programme does not merely consist of distributing money but represents a real partnership, placing emphasis on capacity building or institution building and the link with innovation.
Personally, I agree that innovation is not an end in itself. We should not innovate simply for the sake of innovating. There are people who are not very knowledgeable in their field of work yet claim that they have been doing this for ages. As I said, active citizenship is innovative per se and we have to consolidate that through capacity building. Perhaps at the same time though we can go a bit further in some areas.
We will come back later to the points of bureaucracy and of the budget.
I would like to thank Marcus Held for his comments. I think that volunteers who are committed should definitely be taken on board. All NGOs and organisations are based on volunteers; they are based on the goodwill of ordinary people. There are many organisations whose aim it is to promote the number of volunteers within society because they believe that such commitment on the part of ordinary people will help to create the type of society they are looking for. I think the programme can help out in this area.
165
Chair
The session will resume at 11:40. Please be back and ready to start on the second theme which is about types of activities, target groups and European added value. I already have some points from the session we have just finished which I will introduce because I think they are perhaps more relevant to the second theme. Please keep your contributions coming, especially if you are from one of the newer member states.
The second point I would like to draw your attention to is the large wooden box out in the foyer, which is for suggestions for a name for this programme. Thank you very much.
[Coffee break]
166 Theme 2 – Types of activities, target groups and European added value
Chair
I shall introduce Mr Mairesse to talk about the second theme of our discussion today. Thank you.
Pierre Mairesse European Commission
We have already done some thinking on our objectives so now we have to look at the types of activity we wish to target. We have already been fairly down to earth but now we are going to be even more so. Allow me to focus on the questions I would like to see emerging from this discussion round.
The first issue we have to address is who the beneficiaries of these activities are. I am not referring to the European Union, but am speaking more specifically about who our target beneficiaries should be. We could say that the beneficiaries will be citizens or alternatively citizens’ organisations, or even both. Another possibility would be to discuss the possible role of local elected representatives: town, city and regional councillors who have not yet been the focus of much attention today.
Let us come back to the first group I mentioned: citizens. It is quite clear that citizens do form an important target group and this is something that is certainly evident when it comes to activities such as twinning schemes. But there are some 450 million citizens; this represents a huge challenge and their number will further increase after the next enlargement.
How then can we ensure that these projects which are organised with citizens and for citizens do comprise a European added value? When we work together with organisations such as NGOs and think tanks, how can we be sure that the activities of these organisations comprise the necessary European added value?
I also spoke about local elected representatives and officials working in local authorities - should they be involved? What types of links should be forged? This is very important. I have worked in an area very closely related to civil society, in the area of youth, and it is one in which a great many local representatives are going to great lengths to try to mobilise young people in their area. This is done not only by NGOs and youth clubs and associations but also by the municipalities themselves. Now there are certain constraints. We do not necessarily always have sufficient funds, so we have to focus on how to ensure that all of these target groups can work together.
Secondly, I think we have to focus on what we can truly hope to achieve by way of European added value. Quite apart from anything else, this will be a key factor to defend our programme, because one of the first questions we will be asked by the financial bosses, decision-makers and politicians will be: where is the European added value of your programme?
167
Having listened to the voices raised today, I would suggest that our activities should be restricted to those which do have some trans-national facet or which try to foster cross-border relations, exchanges and mobility. I know that this is somewhat limiting. I am not trying to imply by this that everyone has to be mobile, but it will be rather difficult to involve even a think tank if it does not have a certain cross-border element to it.
The third aspect we have to look at is the question of innovation and/or continuity.
I think it would be a good idea if we could clarify our thoughts on this point. I think in principle that we have already looked at the need for capacity building and the need for continuity accompanied by a spark of innovation, but what do we actually understand by innovation and innovative activity? I would be grateful for some concrete ideas. Should we build upon what we have already and move towards activities such as citizens’ panels? You can imagine the form these would take – you would bring citizens together and ask them to think about certain issues at local and regional level. This would be a good idea. Would it be possible to implement pilot projects?
Furthermore, should we be open to relatively open-ended citizens’ projects? We might have twinning links, from which certain ideas might emerge and ultimately give rise to a trans-national citizens’ project. Is that the type of path that we should follow? You could term today’s conference a citizens’ event.
Could you imagine that under this programme it would be possible for us to organise or to assist in the organisation of events bringing together a certain number of people to try to increase our political visibility? This is another way in which we could organise cross-border trans-national events.
I am focusing on people involved in twinning but not only on them. Would it be possible for us to contemplate organising a regional project, that would always of course comprise a European and trans-national element? I imagine that following a number of twinning links in a certain region, it might be possible for us to look at the regional implications of what has been done. This could involve networking, which has been mentioned by a number of people in all sectors of activity.
And perhaps we could also see how best to help think tanks reorganise their structures at European level.
There is another point that we have not yet addressed. What would you think of the idea of contributing, via what we do, to the long term preservation of our common history? We have just witnessed the ceremony to commemorate the Holocaust at Auschwitz and I think there is a feeling we should try to preserve this history and these memories. The opposing viewpoint is that history and the collective memory have never prevented similar dramas from taking place, but I think we can all work together to ensure that we strive to preserve our collective memory. We could perhaps do this in association with the European Parliament, and this is something I do not believe that any head of state could object to, particularly in the current climate.
168
I have one last idea which I would like to flag up. I have heard the word cross- fertilisation being used. Would it be possible to organise activities associating think tanks, NGOs and twinning schemes as is the case here today so that there can be a certain amount of cross-fertilisation between these various elements?
What about new technologies in all this? How can we use new technologies in our activities? Electronic twinning would be one idea, or using new technologies to ensure widespread dissemination of our activities: portals, for example, were mentioned. These are various ideas which I have collected, some of which came from my team.
I would like to raise one final point before I open up the floor: since we have been speaking about the various actions and activities I think we also have to focus on the effectiveness and quality of the actions. I really do not think we can afford to finance any activities which are not efficient and effective. We are working with certain constraints, which means we have to focus on certain objectives, and we have to evaluate what is done so it is essential to ensure that we come up with activities which are effective in promoting better civil and civic dialogue between the Union and its citizens.
I am particularly interested in partnerships with all beneficiaries. Sometimes it is rather difficult to do this with twinning schemes but there are always representatives we can talk to.
As Giovanni Moro said a few moments ago, you all represent a very valuable resource and my interest is in ensuring that you and the Commission working together can form a true partnership to draw up the priorities for your actions. That is really the area to which I am most attached and which I am very happy to work on.
Chair Thank you for giving us those guidelines for this next discussion.
My first request will be for an intervention from Mr Kuhn from COMECE, the Bishops’ Congress.
Michael Kuhn Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE)
I have a couple of points. On one of the questions that has just been asked by Mr Mairesse on regional projects and the history of memories, I think this project has to tangibly involve citizens. Regional projects have the advantage of being close to citizens and they are also able to be cross-border projects, therefore I believe that we should promote regional projects.
The second question was whether we should establish links with other levels. Yes, obviously this also has to be done as well. To take a specific example: if you look at
169 the history of memory then you can either work on this academically or you can create a publication so that it can be circulated.
None of this would be enough, however, if we did not involve a third level as well and that is the level of education. This is where people can learn about common history and discuss it with one another, learn from one another and gain new insight.
We are talking about active citizenship and citizenship is linked to identification with Europe. There is often an idea that Europe could and should replace a regional or national identity but we have to make sure that regional identity is a part of European identity. This has to be made clear through the programme.
I am also a communication scientist and one problem I have with the programme is that citizens are getting two messages. The first one is the message about needing identification with Europe. Citizens are asked to identify with you but the other message they are getting is that Europe is complicated, complex and remote. My question is therefore how can your programme achieve a situation where that first message predominates over the second message?
I do not know whether we should involve the media so much because they are involved in getting across black and white messages that are essentially sound bites. If we get a contradictory message from the European Union then they are primarily concerned with any contradiction and they will exploit that contradiction.
I would like to know whether there are other parts we can explore rather than the common media. Is there another way of getting the message across to our citizens?
Chair
Next I would like to invite Mr Ciavarini Azzi from the Union of European Federalists.
Ciavarini Azzi Union of European Federalists
I had a question for the first panel but there are links with the second one. I would like to make a brief comment first of all on what was said by Mr Lamy and what was said about his conclusions.
Europe is remote and distant and it will remain remote and distant. I have many reservations about the second part. I feel there are many people in the room who have reservations about it because the whole raison d’être of our project and mobilising of citizens would simply fall by the wayside if we agreed with that.
We do not want Europe to remain remote and if there is a gap between ordinary people and the European institutions we could say that there is also a gap between ordinary people and national institutions.
I would like to talk about the follow up under active citizenship. You do not become an active citizen overnight. Citizenship is very complex and needs to be worked on
170 constantly. It requires the involvement of different actors and stakeholders, so I think that in the new programme we have to find a way, we have to find tools and instruments to ensure continuity beyond the actual project itself and involving ordinary people and institutions. Mr Mairesse talked about partnerships. That is one idea, but are there any other suggestions or proposals from the Commission about how this can be done?
Mr Mairesse also talked about European history and memory. That is very important, but I think that we have to put it into context and we have to deepen the European project.
The programme runs up to 2013 and I think for that programme we need to deepen the European project. We need to explore further the ideas of a European entity.
Chair
Thank you. I would like now to invite Mr Seminatore from the European Institute for International Relations.
Irnerio Seminatore European Institute for International Relations (IERI)
I would like to talk about think tanks. I am trying to understand the debate we had under the first panel and to link it up with what is coming out of the second part.
Listening to various speakers earlier today, I think I understood that there is a lot of potential out there and a lot of resources, in above all the NGOs, but this is not necessarily the case for think tanks. They are non-militant, they are not volunteers and they are extremely expensive in terms of market and in terms of maintenance.
We need to allow for continuity and to bring about the necessary political innovation as required by the programme. So I think there is a clear contradiction between some of us and a programme which covers different areas.
We need to decide how we are going to distribute funds between different parts of civil society. We talk to institutions so we want to identify European identity rather than relations with ordinary people.
The international system is complicated. The people we talk to on the basis of our work and the institutions themselves, the Parliament, the Council, high ranking officials in the Commission, , have to decide on policies and define new strategies. So we are also trying to decide on strategy and we are trying to anticipate things which are not already covered by the institutions and programmes.
How can we involve other actors and allow them to benefit from the programme? Yesterday in workshop number two we made various proposals. We said that research and study results should not be dispersed. You should look at the different
171 parts of the ideas of think tanks so that NGOs can decide and can make a better informed decision about which projects they should carry out.
When it comes to distributing resources I think there is a contradiction again between continuity and enlarging the number of beneficiaries, for example through open calls. This contradiction will exist unless we triple the funds available.
Yesterday Pascal Lamy said that think tanks are very expensive. A think tank of 100 people costs €50 million. In Washington there are scores of think tanks which are very large and they are the ones which come up with ideas on which American policies are based, both domestically and internationally. So think tanks are very important.
Now should the Commission have a budget line only for think tanks?
Think tanks are too expensive given the budget resources available so should we have a different approach to cover volunteers and militant organisations and these very specialised bodies which are known as think tanks? I think that is something that needs to be discussed. Perhaps we should have a separate budget line for think tanks.
Chair I am aware that we have a lot of different groups in the room and I want to try and give some balance to the discussion. The next few interventions are more from the town twinning angle and I would like to start with an intervention from Mr Casaer from the Beersel Commune in Belgium.
Hugo Casaer Mayor of gemeente Beersel
Europe without borders and cross-border meetings. These all have to take place in the near future. You may have consultants, workers, trainees, students or even civil servants wanting to travel from one country to another, so we already have this multicultural aspect to Europe.
This local multicultural aspect must be used in order to learn about how to live together and understand and respect one another’s cultural values, which is the very soul of being a citizen.
I think actions should be focused on local authorities and twinnings. This will allow there to be more meetings between ordinary people and reduce gaps between people at a local level. These local meetings could be forums where the committees could put forward their ideas. There could also be a forum where local NGOs could meet.
I am a mayor and I am a member of the board of association of towns and municipalities in Flanders. Perhaps I could come back to various comments which were made this morning about the superiority of NGOs over official bodies. I myself
172 am a militant, as it were, in various NGOs. However, I really cannot accept such a black and white picture.
Towns and municipalities and local authorities represent the democratic basis of our systems. They are the institutional level which is closest to ordinary people. If municipalities and local authorities work, that is also due to volunteers.
There are all kinds of volunteers involved on a day to day basis in local authorities’ work. We should not ignore these volunteers and those who are elected often work and travel around in their own free time and at their own expense. They are carriers of the European idea and should not be forgotten. Local authorities are necessary to NGOs particularly when it comes to the multiplier effect.
Chair
Thank you. I would now invite Garry Poulson from the Newbury Town Twinning Association to present his proposal.
Garry Poulson Twin Town Association Newbury
I am Chairman of the Newbury Twin Town Association and also a director of a regional volunteering organisation, the Volunteer Centre.
One of the problems that small associations have is access to information. Certainly many people who work within these associations do not have internet access, let alone broadband access, to be able to access and download large documents and other files.
I am proposing something that is wholly practical. I would like the Commission to consider the provision of a twin town toolkit. This would be something that would contain the likes of departmental contacts here in Brussels, advice on application procedures, simplified rules, grant application forms, some guidelines, maybe contacts within our own countries so we can have some sort of networking and sharing of good practice within our own countries. Perhaps it could set out some general principles and some of the programme ideals and plans, maybe also contained within that there could be some applications for a second proposal which could be a fast track grant system for specific targets. This may be more of a British perspective, but some of the objects and ideals that could be deemed as wholly political aims and objectives are not necessarily just purely about citizenship. Perhaps if the Commission wanted to target particular age groups and particular cultural and ethnic backgrounds there could be some fast track grant applications within that.
I noticed that there is website information available, but having tried to negotiate some of that web information it is very difficult to find. We would therefore welcome something that is very simple, maybe a dedicated web area for town twinning, a fast track grant system and a physical paper-based twin town toolkit.
173
Chair
Thank you. I would like to invite Susan Handley from CEMR to speak.
Susan Handley Local Government International Bureau, Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)
I would like to speak about twinning. I would like to make two points. I do not think we have heard very much about twinning so far today so I would like to talk about objectives and about target groups and activities.
I feel it is necessary to explain what I base this information and these opinions on. I started out in the town twinning movement as a volunteer because of my love of the German language and the German culture. I then moved on to a paid position in a London borough as a twinning officer responsible for developing the link with our German counterpart and raising European awareness. I then moved on to the national association in the United Kingdom promoting twinning and international partnerships and, as you rightly said, the Local Government International Bureau is the British member of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions which is represented here by many of the other national associations.
I apologise firstly for the simplicity of my comments. Please do not assume that my comments are simple because I am not very intelligent. My comments are simple because I really do passionately believe on a personal and professional level that I need to make the fundamental point about this programme and about the need for information.
European citizens are not just disengaged with the European Union: it is not that they do not want to become involved with the European Union; it is that they are prevented from becoming involved with the issues because they do not have the information, and that is a big inhibition.
My comments are simple and they are based on the work I have been doing in the UK with both local authorities and twinning associations. I have to say that the perception of the European Union is that the EU and institutions are all about people in suits, people who speak several foreign languages and people who make decisions about our lives in isolation, that they make decisions about our lives without actually involving ordinary citizens.
I talked about several languages; there is an even worse language that we do not translate, and that is Eurospeak. By Eurospeak I mean the concepts of Europe. What we really need to do is demystify the European Union. I am not stupid and I am not unintelligent and I work in the European field, but things are not always clear to me, so anyone outside of the European field has no chance of understanding and therefore no chance of becoming an active citizen.
174 We need to have access to the EU through information, through contact and through experience. Through this you will automatically become a more active citizen and participate. When I say this I know about the local level because I know there are people out there who might be unemployed, there may be children who come from families where their parents have so many other pressures they cannot be there to teach them about the European dimension. These are the people that we have a responsibility to work with.
Moving to my second point, we already have a very strong network throughout Europe. I cannot quote the numbers of people involved but they are certainly large. Furthermore, members who are involved in twinning are in both the new member states and the established member states.
Twinning has been in existence for over 50 years. It is a largely silent and invisible network, it is not partisan and is not based on a particular sector. Personally I am committed to the concept of European union but our responsibility is not to push it, not to force people to say that it is a good thing. Our responsibility, which we achieve through twinning, is to provide facts to everyone to enable them to get involved in the decision-making processes and to enable them to take part in issues that affect our daily lives.
I would just like to make some final points about twinning. Twinning is at the grass roots level. It is not just at the grass roots level: it goes up and down and affects everybody. It has political legitimacy through the systems of local democratic structures. It reaches all parts of the community, it is inclusive: old, young, able- bodied, disabled, different ethnic and religious backgrounds, sexuality, political views. It is not just about people’s high intelligence and the European Union is not just about people who have degrees in political science and skills in many different languages, it is about everyone and it should be able to involve everyone and inform everyone.
The type of people who get involved in twinning are local politicians, officers who have to provide services and design structures, churches, religious groups, schools, universities, businesses, chambers of commerce, community groups and many NGOs. We also have a large number of volunteers. People who get involved in twinning give up their time, money and great effort and emotion.
We heard from a speaker earlier about NGOs being trusted and being given the largest amounts of money with reference to the recent tsunami. I know that from the British perspective, within a week we had one hundred local authorities over the Christmas period phoning us and asking how they could help and what they could do. Also we in the UK, which I am sure is not unique, are working on developing partnerships to work together with NGOs, whom we trust very much and respect, on working in the countries affected by the tsunami. The emphasis is on twinning and solidarity and the context that twinning provides for so many activities.
I will finish with a couple of more practical ideas.
Firstly the continuation of the programme: size matters. We need to pay attention to smaller communities and smaller organisations.
175 We need financial accountability to be presented in a non-bureaucratic manner. Is it possible to examine ways of funding events to increase awareness of European issues, such as Europe day, and looking at promoting twinning link activities, explaining the benefits, giving information about overseas partners, and recruiting more members?
Perhaps it would also be possible, in the multi-annual phase, to ask twinning associations and local authorities to make bids in two phases: the first bid would be for funding for the first year, and the follow-up bid would allow the project to be continued in more detail, or moved to a different sector, or to include a dissemination element. I think this would allow further progress.
I think the Town Twinning Programme has been improved enormously thanks to the work of our colleagues at the European Commission, and I would like to urge everyone, including NGOs, that if they want more European links they should not try to find them on their own, but they should go to their local authority and find out what links have already been forged.
Chair
Thank you for emphasising the need to concentrate on concrete issues and not making a statement about your organisation.
I am now going to give the floor to Mr Mairesse for his comments on what has been said so far in this session.
Pierre Mairesse European Commission
I would like to begin by looking at the question raised by Mr Seminatore which is, I believe, relevant to our discussion regarding the range of our actions. These stretch from the grass roots level up to, for example, subsidising think tanks which are going to explore what constitutes a European identity and which will act as catalysts, stimulating European thinking in the rest of the world. Of course, this dimension has not escaped me, and it does represent one of the difficulties of this programme; it covers a wide variety of possible activities and precisely for this reason constitutes one of the challenges ahead for our team which will have to ensure that we maintain a consistent approach.
This harks back to my first question, when I asked who our target public was. You could say, ‘No, we are going to be spreading ourselves too thinly, there is not going to be enough money to go around, so perhaps we should support this, that, or the other group’. I think that for political reasons, but also to enable us to promote effective action at all levels, from grass roots to the European level, it is in our interest to maintain as broad a range as possible. For if we do not, who will? There is not going to be another programme running alongside ours dealing with the same issues. Undoubtedly, this is our challenge, and that is why we are going to have to be somewhat selective in our approach to innovation. I have opened things out, but I
176 think we may have to focus our approach somewhat more narrowly in the future to maintain a certain coherence. A number of the participants who have spoken here today have quite rightly defended the type of activity that they see as being important, but we shall have to be both broad and selective in our approach.
Now, I would like to dwell for a moment on what has been said by the various speakers. In response to Mr Seminatore, I think that, for the reasons which he mentioned, support to think tanks is quite different from what we do in the rest of the programme. First of all, we are dealing with institutional partners and secondly, at the European level, some think tanks could not exist if they did not receive support from the European Union. This is not the case in the instance of the towns involved in twinning. In addition, the resources needed are quite substantial, and perhaps this is a point we shall return to in the third part of our plenary session this afternoon when we shall discuss in greater depth questions such as resource identification. For the moment, however, we are concentrating more on matters of principle.
To return to twinning, we have just heard a very impassioned statement from Susan Handley, and we are working in another dimension here. It is further proof though that these twinning projects can contribute a great deal and can enrich our programme, and this is why I believe they should be continued and even further bolstered.
With regard to what Mr Kuhn from the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) said, I have two comments. Firstly, you focused on objectives and the contradiction, as you saw it, between beautiful Europe on the one hand and the very complicated system that we have on the other. This brings us back to the basic reality and it is a point that was also made by Mr Ciavarini Azzi. Let us not just resign ourselves to the current situation. It is true that geographically speaking, Europe is quite remote and quite far away from us. However, it can also be brought a lot closer to us because, as you know, European legislation is increasingly having an impact on our citizens, and this is part and parcel of the challenges that we have in designing this programme. It is also one of the duties incumbent upon you in inspecting these projects; so I do not think that we should be overly pessimistic.
The second point that Mr Kuhn raised concerned the regional dimension. I do not wish to be too broad in my approach, but I think this is an interesting dimension, both politically and in terms of ensuring proximity to our citizens. Of course, we must grant support to European associations for what is being done at the European level and we must also provide support for initiatives at the local level. If we could create a way to bring these two dimensions together at a regional level, I believe that both ends of the chain would benefit.
Mr Ciavarini Azzi also mentioned the idea of collective memory and history, and linked this in with the need to deepen the common European project; this is what I was also endeavouring to say. The idea of sending tens of thousands of European citizens out to visit camps and similar initiatives would be one way of proceeding, but I do not think that is what this programme was designed for. I do, however, believe it is possible for us to find suitable instruments to explore some of the basic historical
177 realities that are part of our shared culture to help us further build upon that past and create a Europe for all of us.
Let me also return to the comments made by Mr Casaer, whom I would like to welcome here as a former colleague of mine from the European Commission. Your idea was that it is all very well sending fellow citizens out all over Europe but that, basically, an understanding of Europe starts on the corner of every road. There are people coming to our towns and cities from other European countries and from neighbouring countries from outside the European Union, and this is where we should start to explore the issue of multi-culturalism. I would agree that this is a fundamental issue, but I do not think we can afford to fund all of these local initiatives in our programme. We are going to have to set a number of priorities for our projects in order to ensure that, at the heart of the programme, we focus on this need to learn more about each other and other cultures.
With regard to the roles of local authorities, municipalities, and volunteers, I do not wish to oppose any two camps, but I do think, as hinted at during my introduction, that in all of these areas that fall under the banner of active citizenship, elected representatives and in particular local elected representatives and councils, have a very important role to play in complementing what is done by NGOs. What I would like to do is build bridges between them, although I cannot finance this. Twinning schemes are a good example of the type of links that can exist between local authorities and other associations, and in a great many of these twinning schemes the councils have delegated some of the work to other associations and NGOs. These are useful links that should be further bolstered under our programme.
Coming on to the remarks made by Mr Poulson, he made a number of points which I find very interesting and which I would like to touch upon; the idea of having toolkits, a fast-track system, and a simple and easy to use web-site. However, I think that we shall return to these points after lunch, as it is during the third session that we will focus on questions concerning procedural simplification.
Chair
The first intervention is from Ms Carolina Rodriguez from the Foundation for Solidarity and Voluntary Work of the Valencian Community.
Carolina Rodriguez Foundation for Solidarity and Voluntary Work of the Valencian Community
I will try to be brief. Obviously, I represent an organisation that focuses on voluntary work at the local and regional level in Spain. I would like to make a practical suggestion. We have realised during our daily work with the European institutions on programmes that volunteering does not really fall within the competence of any specific Directorate General within the European Commission. On the one hand, there is the Directorate for Employment and Social Affairs, which deals with social integration policies and covers some areas of our work such as corporate responsibility, and then there is the Directorate general for Education and Culture,
178 which is responsible for dialogue with society at large and for the European Voluntary Service Programme, which mainly targets volunteer exchanges of people under 25 years of age.
Therefore, we have a problem: what happens when volunteer organisations like ours want to engage with the European Commission on areas concerning the work of middle-aged or older volunteers, which is quite an important area of our work; who do we need to talk to? Should we address the Directorate General for Employment or the Directorate General for Education and Culture? Who is responsible for this? The European Commission could resolve these difficulties by providing us with a single interlocutor or by ensuring the liaison between different Directorates General to facilitate our work.
Secondly, it is a good occasion to mention that it would be appreciated if, within the next programme for European citizenship, more attention was paid to the contribution that volunteers and voluntary action brings to European citizenship and European integration; we see it as an asset in itself. The time of volunteers is very valuable, and we would like to see that mentioned and highlighted in the next programme.
Chair
Thank you. I would like to invite Carmen Pellicer from Kalos kai Agazos to make a contribution.
Carmen Pellicer Kalos kai Agazos
Thank you. I see myself as an ordinary citizen. I do not feel that I am here particularly in order to represent an association. I think a great many of us suffer from a certain amount of apathy and a feeling that there is a deficit of citizenship at the European level and of citizenship as a whole. A great many of us working in the field of education feel that there is a lot of passivity among young people, a lack of awareness or real appreciation of what it means to live in a pluralist society, and a great deal of distrust in nationalism and internationalism, and this means that we, as ordinary citizens, fail to appreciate what benefits European citizenship can bring to our daily lives.
I would like to return to the idea of the added value that the citizenship programme could contribute to the construction of Europe. I think the added value this programme should create is in providing our citizens with some hope as to how they can improve their daily lives: and that is why we have to be able to see some way of looking at visions of the future which will promote optimism and defend the true values of the European constitution; and that is why I think that the added value of this programme should be to generate confidence in day-to-day life, and to help us to improve our societies in our everyday lives, in our local tongues and regions.
Therefore, it is not simply a question of trying to stimulate lots of activities in an attempt to encourage more people to participate. Rather, we should be trying to
179 stimulate a feeling of belonging to a European community and in concrete terms, I believe that in this new programme we should earmark part of the funds for small- scale citizens’ initiatives which are not institutionalized. I think the programme should also provide for those citizens who are not necessarily on the same footing as us but who could be real grass roots protagonists. Therefore, we should have smaller scale projects – there are large scale projects such as Erasmus which are up and running and which are working, but we also need smaller scale projects which could be used by everyone. There should be initiatives to promote the virtues of living together to try to improve communication between people from different socio-economic backgrounds, cultures, and communities, with more scope for small scale initiatives to make this type of application.
Another area which needs to be explored is that often the European Commission expects citizens to come to it. Why does the European Commission not go out to look for them? Why should there not be some sort of observatory to look at the various initiatives already underway in a great many of our countries and local authorities amongst NGOs and educational associations? Why should you not give your support to some of those small-scale initiatives already underway and which can contribute a great deal, especially when it is so difficult for citizens to approach the European Commission and we do not have specialist staff on our books?
Chair
Thank you. We are all ordinary citizens. Some of us may be more ordinary than others, but we are all ordinary citizens.
I would like to invite Ms Laurence Wattier to take the floor, who would also like to speak about added value.
Laurence Wattier ID’s-Information Diffusion Europe Associations
Regarding the target group of the programme I too, like a number of organisations here, feel that it is essential to target those citizens who are working in grass roots organisations at local level together with their fellow citizens in areas of public interest, such as the environment. We should also work together with local networks, as not all think tanks are in touch with these grass roots organisations and all too often they are not even aware that there are European organisations working in the same area of activity as they are. Therefore, contrary to the ideal scheme of things as presented by the European Commission, there is not this flow of information from Europe to the regions to local organisations; the flow of information often stops at national level.
This is why I believe that this programme must be directly addressed to those people working at grass roots level who are contributing to active European citizenship at their level. For example, they could work together on European projects, perhaps even as passive participants, but if they are working on European projects and are
180 aware of the existence of the European networks, they will be able to gain a better understanding of European policies in the area in which they work.
I think support should also be given to training them, and thanking them; this is also necessary for people who are working at grass roots level in order to encourage them to become more active as European citizens via their participation in networks or European policy initiatives.
Another question concerns the priorities of the programme. It has been emphasised that this programme has limited means, and that is why we have to set a number of priority objectives. Furthermore, as already mentioned, we also need to ensure that the programme is consistent and forms a coherent whole. Who should you get in contact with? The Directorate General responsible for education has funded some activities in the area of youth, but the youth programme has also funded activities undertaken by trade unions. We do have a Social Affairs Directorate which is of more specific use for fostering relations with trade unions. Enlargement has also been mentioned as another potential area of activity and there is a Directorate General for Enlargement, but it is largely responsible for familiarising the citizens of the new member states of the European Union and vice versa. Thus, I think our programme should focus on those areas to which it relates specifically to ensure we do not tread on the toes of existing programmes under the auspices of other Directorates General.
Chair
I have a request for an extension from Michel Mortelette regarding added value.
Michel Mortelette European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
I would like to respond to a point that has been made. I do not feel we should be placing the various players involved in opposition with each other. We are responsible for European social dialogue, and I think many of the activities that have been deployed under the budget line on active citizenship have allowed us to do valuable work in promoting active citizenship, for example in monitoring what was going on in the Intergovernmental Conference and in the convention working on the constitutional treaty. It was via this work that we were able to ensure that the executive committee of the European Trade Union Congress (ETUC) took a position on the constitution, and this is why I would like to thank the Directorate General for the assistance it has given us in conducting those activities.
I would like to touch upon a couple of other points. Firstly, I completely subscribe to what Mr Mairesse said on the trans-national aspect of the various activities in which we have been involved; this is the only way in which we can really work on intercultural issues.
I am going to pass over mobility, which is of great interest but which should be debated at another juncture. We would endorse the idea that we should promote European mobility. However, I would like to focus on partnership.
181
Yesterday, we presented a proposal which aimed to underscore the essential nature of partnership. Partnership means that we have to work together in detail on specific issues which require a longer term approach than could be offered by a one year, one project approach; we need to follow a multi-annual approach for a certain number of specific projects. This means two things: firstly, this partnership should not be seen as a way of ensuring that the operational costs of a project promoter are covered – under no circumstances should this be the case. Nevertheless, we should have a framework agreement concluded between the Directorate General for Education and Culture and any project promoter who would like to carry out long- term work between the various partners under the auspices of the programme which will be proposed and adopted over the coming months. I believe that John Monks has even written to Mr Mairesse on this same subject in the framework of this consultation process. I would appreciate it very much if we could discuss this issue to ensure that the new programme will include this key element which will enable us to become truly interactive and bring together all of the various partners.
Chair
Some really good ideas are starting to emerge. I believe that Mr Derenne has a point to make about citizens’ panels.
Benoît Derenne Foundation for Future Generations
On behalf of a consortium of independent foundations, I would like to encourage the European Commission to focus on trying to innovate in the area of improving interaction between European citizens and local and regional authorities. Mr Mairesse mentioned citizens’ panels and conferences in his introduction. May I point out that at the moment, we do have a project which brings together two think tanks and panels of European citizens at European level where they can work at the level of the European Union? The aim is to bring together approximately ten regional panels which are selected by picking names out of a hat at random, and the idea is that these ten panels can meet at European level in the medium term to discuss a number of issues according to very strict and transparent rules.
I hope that the outcome of this process can be put to use rapidly. It is very important to encourage our citizens to learn to debate these issues in order that they may have an overview of complex European issues. This in turn helps to stimulate debate at the local, regional, and European level. It also helps to mobilise stakeholders and other citizens whilst aiding the development of new ICT tools for the exchanges between the panels, as they meet each other in one place but can also communicate using other means. We hope this will aid the development of new forms of exchange and partnership between the participating regions.
Chair
The next speaker is Sian Jones from the Wales Council for Voluntary Action.
182
Sian Jones Wales Council for Voluntary Action
I would like to make a couple of points regarding what has been said so far. I am from the Wales Council of Europe for Voluntary Action which represents over one thousand voluntary sector and community organisations.
What we should be talking about is sustainability, and we are a little concerned about one-off citizens’ actions. I think we should be trying to build sustainable organisations and grass roots organisations that involve citizens. I do not know if the European Commission can help us to do this. What we want from this programme is to build a European dimension to those community organisations and those regional networks which are left out of the process at the moment and to allow those links to be forged. We also believe that this European dimension should focus very clearly on the relationship between the new and old member states; this is an exciting dimension and something that can really stimulate those involved.
In terms of the content, I think there needs to be an ambitious programme. We should be looking at active participation in decision-making processes, how to get the ordinary citizen and partner organisations involved and making a difference at a regional, national, and European level, and that means talking about big ideas and looking at decision-making processes.
Lastly, I think that partnership is crucial. There are a lot of programmes in other Directorates General that make partnership a fundamental condition for funding, such as the EQUAL programme which provides that NGOs, local authorities, the private sector and other social partners should work together. I think this is a very interesting idea with regard to how we can work together on these issues.
Chair
The next person to take the floor is Ms Elena Jenaro from the European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE).
Elena Jenaro ETUCE
I represent the European Trade Union Committee for Education for 5.5 million teachers in Europe. I would like to say that we are in the Consultation Forum organised by the Directorate General for Education in order to promote future active European citizenship. It seems important to remind the European Commission that an important target group for this programme should be teachers, as they are the people who educate the future generations and who could promote European values, a task which they already fulfil to a certain extent.
183 The problem is that we have presented a proposal to the European Commission but formalities make it impossible for us to develop our project because we are a Federation of European interests. Please remember that teachers would be a very useful target group and remove the formalities that are preventing us from achieving our aims.
Chair
I would like to invite Tommi Laitio from the European Cultural Foundation to make a contribution on the subject of youth.
Tommi Laitio European Cultural Foundation
I would like to talk about youth, which has been mentioned in all of the opening speeches and by Mr Mairesse on several occasions. I think there is a risk of ‘youth’ becoming a buzz-word in this discussion. It is used in every single speech in consultations like this. I would like to make my point by using rhetoric best known in development cooperation: are we telling young people what they should be concerned about and how they should handle their issues, or do we want to let young people set an agenda, and then help them solve their own problems or seek answers to their own concerns? Looking around this room, it would be possible to make some critical remarks regarding the active involvement of young people: there are not very many youth organisations in this room.
My other point concerns efficiency and active citizenship; perhaps there could be a conflict if one emphasises the need for efficiency and for knowing the outcomes, and then talks about innovation at the same time.
Chair
We have to stop for lunch. I must give the last word to Mr Mairesse.
Pierre Mairesse European Commission
Thank you for all of those comments; I think I will take them in order. With regard to what Ms Rodriguez said about voluntary work in Europe and the European Commission, I already said in my introduction that it is in our interests to encourage volunteer work. We want it to be an integral part of the programme. However, we are not going to create a voluntary department of elderly people; that would require a colossal budget which is not our intention. It is our intention though that all of these organisations working in the voluntary sector have the opportunity to find the means to establish networks and collaborate like all the other organisations.
184 In response to Ms Pellicer’s comments regarding the feeling of belonging, that we should give citizens the opportunity to devise their own initiatives, that we should go towards the citizens rather than wait for them to come to us – well, that is a really big challenge, a big European challenge. Having said that, I think we can have a more flexible approach to our projects and it is something worth hanging on to. In this way, through a programme, a group of citizens, on a cross-border basis of course, can carry out pilot projects which, following an initiative or a town twinning, will allow them to test out new ideas and experiment. I think that is something worth exploring.
Ms Wattier talked about the education of our citizens – not their basic or general education, but the idea that the people who want to do something at a European level be given a helping hand. This is a question of accompanying measures, which should be considered as they are carried out in other programmes and can be extremely useful. I can see that some of my colleagues from the European Commission look horrified. They are thinking, ‘He is saying “yes” to everything’! This is not the case; we are simply trying to decide what is feasible and what can be done with you.
I agree about the range and the scope of the programme: we should not oppose one another. I think we must be intelligent in how we proceed. A balance needs to be found so that through this programme we can carry out actions that are justified under the programme, even if other directorates general may support them from their own point of view. Therefore, I agree with the speaker. However, I also agree with Ms Wattier when she argues that we should not try to lump everything together in one programme so that, in the end, there is no real achievement. I very much believe in her idea of a link or bridge.
Let me turn to the issue of young people. Let’s be clear, we are not trying to establish a second youth programme here. The Youth in Action programme and the budget for that programme is of a different size to our programme. With 10,000 projects every year, it is a mass programme. This is not the case of our programme, besides, perhaps, certain elements of town twinning. Therefore, what we should do is put youth involvement projects in the Youth in Action programme. We should not try to do everything, and perhaps this would explain why there are not many youth organisations present here today. However, we can talk about the role of young people in town twinning, and think tanks can reflect on the role of young people in globalisation, for example. We are not going to exclude them entirely, but we are not going to have projects that are specifically targeted at young people. I think we must think intelligently about our own projects and what falls under our umbrella in other areas.
It is a good thing that several of you have been able to take the floor; when a point is raised repeatedly, it makes us realise that it is something worth looking at. People say, ‘It is all very well to have umbrellas and European Federations because they pass on information at a national level. But that is where it stops’. Well, that is no good, is it? This clearly falls far short of the efficiency and effectiveness we are aiming to achieve. Therefore, while we will not be financing national local NGOs, we will have to make sure that there is a trickle down or multiplier effect that actually works in practice.
185 I would like to thank the speaker for talking about citizenship panels or citizens’ panels. I think this is an interesting concept, yet would not want to duplicate what is being done by NGOs: I believe there is room for synergy there.
Ms Jones stressed the need for sustainability and capacity-building. We hear you, and it is a message we have heard several times now. We must allow new and old member states to work together. Obviously we support this idea; the involvement of citizens in decision-making processes has been mentioned as a problem. Clearly it is, and we will come back to partnerships this afternoon.
To Ms Jenaro and Mr Laitio I would like to say that regarding this idea of a bridge, a big programme with a huge budget for life-long learning is being proposed for 2007 – although I do not know whether it will be approved – which must include a citizenship dimension. This programme should provide the necessary resources to develop citizenship in schools through teachers, but our programme has to establish a bridge to benefit from and stimulate this programme so that the citizenship dimension is effectively reflected by teachers.
Chair
We will now break for lunch.
(Lunch)
186 Theme 3 – Financing means and conditions
Chair
Before we start the third session properly, there are four interventions from before lunch which I would like to allow.
I would like to invite Philippe Tarrisson from the AFCCRE in France to speak.
Philippe Tarrisson Association Française du Conseil des Communes et Régions d’Europe (AFCCRE)
Basically, I want to return to a question that was raised earlier this morning by Mr Mairesse and also to a point made by Mr Lamy yesterday which is this: ‘What can the programme give to the Union?’ I suppose you are thinking about Kennedy’s speech when he was President of the United States and he said, ‘Do not think what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’. We transpose this to Europe now.
Mr Lamy also said that Europe had a problem, a problem of acknowledging its citizens, and the European Commission has proposed a tool to resolve that problem, or rather several tools for civil society and for NGOs. It has proposed tools so that citizens will get committed where they live. We can say that the European Commission has a nice role to play because it comes up with a programme, it sets priorities, it asks for projects, evaluates and selects projects, but those who are responsible for those projects – and here I am coming to the answer about what we can give the EU – give the ideas and initiatives, and this is what the European Commission cannot do.
If the European Commission could organise European projects, it would do so; if it had the right to do that, it would; but it has neither the experience nor the skills to do so. This is why it uses field players to come forward with projects to the European Commission. It is a two-way road: I bring my project and actions, and if the EC is interested, it gives me its support.
Those responsible for projects have a far more difficult role to play than the European Commission when it comes to politics because they have to come up with policies which are supported by those involved in the project, and they also have to get the support of the institution of the European Commission concerned; so we are between a rock and a hard place. I think this is a significant problem because the European Commission provides a tool, but not necessarily the means to use it.
Some organisations are here to tell us how to use it, but when it comes to resolving a democratic deficit, then the problem lies with those who actually carry out the projects. If you say that the project sponsors have the most problems, then you must give us a chance to experiment, to make mistakes, even to start afresh if necessary. This must be borne in mind in a policy where you want to involve as many European citizens as possible.
187
When considering the role to be played by any organisation or body, if I look at local authorities and town twinning, with which I am particularly familiar, then I would say that through twinning, local authorities and organisations can have a niche position, that of initiating mobility. We can expect local authorities and communities to pave the way. Let me explain what I mean: the EC develops policies to encourage students to go to another country and to encourage young people to learn a job or a trade in another country, and to encourage young people to give up their time in another country, to encourage decision-makers, whether political or economic decision-makers, to go to another country to see what is happening. With twinning, we can pave the way, we can initiate those policies, and work with the general public, and prepare our citizens to be mobile, so that if they decide to go to the Open University in the UK, they are more ready to do so as a result of the work that we have done.
I think local communities should go to see elected representatives and discuss local policies. Europe has to encourage local authorities and local communities to work together. Therefore, I think that the niche position to be occupied by town twinning is to initiate mobility and to allow people to be more open to other European policies.
Chair
The next person to speak is Ms Ceciarini.
Sandra Ceciarini Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)
I do not want to repeat how fantastic town twinning is, as I believe that we are all agreed on that. I think we need to put our heads together to see what impact we can have on the active citizenship programme. Firstly, I think much has already been done in the past under the programme, and those actions and initiatives have brought a lot to Europe and I think that it is important not to try to start with a clean slate by creating something completely new. We need to evaluate what has been done and see what was good and what was bad. However, I do not think it is necessary to destroy something and to create something entirely new, as I believe that there are actions and projects which are valuable and which should not be forgotten in the future.
Secondly, as we heard this morning from our colleagues from NGOs and from local authorities, we are not competing with one another, that is not why we are here. I think we need to cooperate and work together more in order to strengthen the programmes because we all have one goal, and that is to build a stronger Europe.
I would like to respond to some comments that were made this morning. I heard someone say that there is no need to go and meet someone 2000 kilometres away from our own municipalities. They said there were enough integration problems in our own municipalities and local areas and that was where we should start. This is an important dimension of twinning. I have taken part in projects in France where there
188 are immigrants from Portugal or Spain, and in twinning, they are a real link between those local authorities and their countries of origin; in this instance, town twinning does bring about integration even at the local level. Therefore, it can be seen that it is not just a question of knowing someone who works or lives 2000 kilometres away, but also of getting to know someone who lives and works in your own area.
There was another speaker who stressed how important memory is in order to construct a sounder future in Europe. I agree with this point of view. Recently, we commemorated very sad events in our history which we must not forget, and I would just like to say that this is reflected in twinning. In town twinning, people do not just meet for the sake of meeting; they may wish to get to know each other, but the main emphasis is on talking with one another and exchanging views and values which form the very basis of building Europe. Therefore, things have already been achieved in the past. We have to remember that and see how we can improve things in the future, and deepen what has already been achieved. I do not think we should necessarily aim at innovation; we can do something new, but we must not forget the past.
Chair
The next speaker is Ms Meheut from the Association for Immigrants.
Martine Meheut AEDE-France
My name is Martine Meheut, and I represent the European Teachers’ Association actually. I would like to respond to Mr Mairesse’s question: ‘Should we try to build a European identity and should we remember a European history and European memories?’
Europe is very old, and when it comes to active European citizenship, is it possible to act if you do not know who you are, what your civilization is, or what your own values are? How can you be active without any roots? Ignorance and amnesia have never allowed anyone to build their future. As a teacher I am particularly conscious of how ignorant young people are of their European civilization and of our European diversity. A lot of work needs to be done, and you cannot become a citizen by a law or decree. It is impossible to be an active European citizen if you do not know why you need and want to have this Europe. Should we carry forward our European history and memory? I believe the answer is obvious and must be ‘yes’; otherwise, what does it mean to be an active European citizen?
Chair
I am now going to ask Mr Mairesse to briefly respond to those points, and to introduce the discussion for this afternoon’s final session.
189 Pierre Mairesse European Commission
Mr Tarrisson, you pointed out that twinning can be the first step towards something else, and that at a later stage, more sophisticated instruments can be implemented. I think this is a very good idea, and one we shall explore.
With regard to the interaction between the European Commission and those responsible for the projects, some very interesting comments have been raised. It is true that the citizens give us their initiatives and projects, and it is indeed up to us to show flexibility and give them as much room as possible to apply those initiatives.
Thirdly, I agree that we should not start from scratch and just get rid of projects that have worked well and where results have been very good. We all remember the Golden Stars of yesterday evening; such projects are very important and I can guarantee that there will be a certain degree of continuity.
Ms Meheut talked about civilization, roots, and values, but what does that mean? Obviously, when we talk about these things everyone agrees. In practice, we could set priorities in the programme, which could include, through our actions such as a bridge with education, or think tanks, or with town twinning, working on the idea of roots and civilization and demonstrating how we have achieved the values we now have.
Let us now put aside the objectives of the programme, and the type of action that can be implemented, and examine the third question: How can we put it all in place? How can we facilitate the achievement and implementation of our objectives?
As when we tackled the other two areas, I would like to try to draw your attention to a number of points. However, before doing so, I would like to make one or two general remarks by way of introduction.
We are working on a programme which will run until 2013, and nobody knows what the financial regulation of the European Union will look like then. I hope it will have changed, but I do not know what the future holds. For this reason, it is not in our interest to incorporate in our legal base any elements that could be too restrictive. Generally speaking, with regard to the financial context, we are trying to open doors to give ourselves a certain amount of flexibility; otherwise, by 2010, we may well be kicking ourselves and wondering why this particular legal base has been chosen, and this is a situation we would like to try to avoid. Nevertheless, there are a number of principles and issues on which I would be grateful for your feedback.
Firstly, this programme should be open and transparent to all; I think this is a key principle and one that has to be respected in an area such as active citizenship. If we do not base our work on open and transparent principles, we will run into major difficulties. In the past, some people suffered from this lack of transparency, and that is why significant improvements in this area are now being called for. Others were able to achieve a great deal on the basis of what was provided. Those who received support and did an excellent job shall continue to do so, but in a context that will be more open and transparent.
190
Secondly, I should like to come back to the question of partnerships, as I think it is worth exploring in further detail. We mentioned this issue this morning when we spoke of partnerships on a vertical level and partnerships with the European Union. We did not, however, discuss what we mean by the principle of partnership, nor its practical significance in relation to the contract.
A partnership means partners working together in the long term; that is implicit in the context. I think we are looking at an endeavour that has to be seen as something over a certain length of time, it is a long-term effort. Partnerships are particularly important in this programme, where we have a very broad range of long-term projects in which we are engaged and on which we are working together. That begs the question of whether everything has to be done as a partnership; if you want to be a partner, you have to know about your partners, otherwise the door will be shut to finding future partners. Secondly, if in any undertaking you wish to be a partner, you have to be able to start, if not on an equal footing, at least on a similar footing. What then are the implications for these grass roots initiatives and projects we wish to set up, when we have on the one hand the European Commission, a mega institution, and on the other hand a partnership or twinning committee which is tiny in comparison? As has already been pointed out, we do wish to maintain grass roots initiatives, and that is why some thought has to be put into how this should best be organised.
I would like to dwell for a moment on these grass roots initiatives such as twinning links and other citizens’ initiatives. I have to say that in my experience, managing this type of project from Brussels is extremely difficult; it is not impossible, and we still do it and try to do it as best we can, but it is very difficult given the distance separating us.
Then there is the whole question of language, and the cumbersome procedures. The procedures we have here in Brussels are designed for large-scale projects, and it is rather difficult to tailor them to the needs of micro-projects. For this reason we are going to have to think carefully about whether we could not find relay posts that we could make use of in other programmes. For example, in the Erasmus programme, it is not up to the European Commission to decide on bursaries; this decision is made by a decentralised body in the country in question. So it is possible to have a Brussels-based partnership; we can have long-term multi-annual projects which are managed from Brussels. When it comes to micro-projects, however, perhaps we should have decentralized outposts acting as relays for us in the countries.
Thirdly, we have to look at the type of grant or subsidy. As I have already said, there is a broad range of different projects which are eligible for grants but we need to help European civil society and think-tanks in a more structured fashion by providing them with operating subsidies. However, even here, we have to deal with differing situations. There are some cases where the body in question can only exist if it receives European Commission grants. Others would continue to exist were they not to receive funding from us, but the top-up funding we provide means that they can achieve extra European added value over and above their traditional activities. This is why we are going to have to consider very carefully how funds are granted.
191 Fourthly, there is the matter of simplification. This was mentioned by Mr Nikolaus van der Pas, as well as by a number of the political representatives who spoke here yesterday, and it is a very important area in which we will have to do a great deal of work. The one message I would like to convey is the following: complexity is not inevitable, simplification is always possible. However, I would be grateful for some input from you. I am not suggesting that we will be able to implement everything that you suggest, but there is a wide margin for possible simplification as can be seen from what we have achieved in other programmes. Unfortunately, there was not much leeway for us to attempt to do anything in the current programme. In addition to this, as well as simplifying for the future, we hope that we will be able to simplify things further in 2007, when we will have new financial regulations. Here, once again, we would be grateful for your contributions.
Finally, I favour the idea that our cooperation be based not on individual project accounts but rather on the objectives set and an evaluation of how these objectives have been reached. This can help to establish a virtuous circle which is only to the benefit of our partnership.
These are a few points that I would like you to mull over, and now I would like to hear what you have to say.
Chair
For the first intervention, I should like to invite Mr Korab from the Convention of Christians for Europe in Poland.
Kazimierz Korab Convention of Christians for Europe in Poland
I would like to make two very brief comments relating to point 4 of the introduction, practical comments on the basis of my experience. I am not asking that these issues be explained here, but suggest they might be discussed when preparing the next programme.
Thanks to the grant we have received from the European Commission, I am organising a pan-European conference in Poland, and I would like to share with you some of the difficulties experienced in organising it. Firstly, the usual practice until now was that the voluntary work of the organisers could be treated as an in-kind contribution, which is one of the requirements for co-financing from the European Commission. Now, under this agreement, this is no longer possible, which represents a significant problem in our view. At the same time, it would seem that there is an additional difficulty in covering other people who would like to participate in preparing the conference; this is a real problem in relation to the number of people who can contribute to the conference, and it can hamper the results we are trying to achieve.
Yet another problem we are faced with – and it is perhaps difficult to foresee this problem at the level of the European Commission – is that according to Polish legislation, it is not possible to transfer public funds into private accounts or into the
192 accounts of associations. The Mayor is one of the organisers and co-financers of the conference, but it is not possible for the Mayor to transfer public funds into the account of my association; as you know, the European Commission makes it mandatory for the co-financing from non-Community sources to be transferred through the account of the association. This poses a very serious problem. There are a number of co-organisers and co-financing bodies, and as they have public funds, they cannot transfer them into the account of the association; as a result, they cannot be treated as co-financing from non-Community sources. This results in a number of problems and procedural difficulties, which makes it more difficult for us to achieve our objectives.
Imagine that we are supposed to sail to a certain harbour, but there are rocks from which we must steer clear. It seems that it is necessary to simplify some of the procedures, some of the rocks must be cleared so that we can sail more efficiently to our objectives; otherwise, we will not be able to make use of the funds that could be available if these procedural problems did not exist.
Chair
Our next intervention will be from Mr Winther Lundby from Denmark.
Seren Winther Lundby New Europe
I would like to stress the importance of face-to-face meetings. It is often said we need a Union that is closer to the citizens, but I believe it is also important to have a Union where the citizens are closer to the citizens. This is why we need face-to-face meetings, especially for younger citizens. I think we should do much more to bring younger citizens together, perhaps in rural settings around Europe, making sure they stay together for several days and that every nationality is a minority at the meetings; because that is the way it is in a European Union with 25 countries. We should give the citizens the opportunity to achieve the experience of finding like-minded people in all countries, because that is the way that it is, and that is the way it should be in the Union of tomorrow. It would also be important to link these face-to-face meetings with each other, as one of the obstacles we face today is that we have all of these projects going on, but nobody really knows what is going on next door so we do not have the opportunity to link projects, and this should be done in the future.
If you agree that these face-to-face meetings are important, and if you agree that these face-to-face meetings should not only be for the elite, and if we also take into account the fact that we are living in a Union that will surpass 500 million citizens, then sooner or later we need to discuss the budget because if I have understood things properly, the fact is that today within the present framework we would spend some 0.05 euros per citizen, per year, to create this participatory democracy of tomorrow; honestly speaking, this will lead us nowhere. What I would propose or hope for is that we as NGOs can join forces, and that we can enter the battle of the 2007-2013 budget which has already begun, and that we make use of this window of opportunity which I see in connection with Article 47 of the forthcoming European
193 Constitution. We need to articulate and flesh out that article, and I think we should pay attention to Margot Wallström’s proposal. One of her top five priorities is to set up a democratic infrastructure which would facilitate the strengthening of the network between citizens, including face-to-face meetings. I think that we should pay attention to this.
Chair
Thank you. Next I would like to invite Ms Krausz from the Association of Towns and Municipalities in Hungary.
Veronika Krausz Hungarian National Associations of Local Authorities (TÖOSZ)
I come from the Hungarian association for local authorities and that is who I represent. I would like to say that the funding of the European Commission is very important for the continuation of twinning programmes, but I would like to emphasise that twinning has existed for a long time now, more than 50 years. It can be said that in this time, it has had its own existence; it was not created by the European Commission programme. This is also true for Hungarian municipalities. This programme existed before the Hungarian municipalities had access to European Commission funding. At the same time, the grant is a very important source for twinning, as municipalities and twinning committees have financial difficulties in supporting these programmes, often relying on fund-raising and private contributions, and this is also true for civil organisations. In this sense, I think the European Commission funding is a very important incentive for local authorities to implement twinning.
The reason for this is that it does not offer 100% support, and I think that is as it should be. In any case, this would not be possible given the European Commission’s financial background, but even a small percentage is a very important contribution to give legitimacy, support, and recognition to twinning. In this sense, I think I can say that my experience of the Hungarian municipalities is that they are very keen on twinning relationships, with or without a grant, but it is often very difficult for municipalities to find a budget for twinning activities. However, the moment they get some support, then they are far more eager to develop their relationships and even to continue them, because they started them and put them in their agenda.
In conclusion, I believe the twinning programme should remain a separate part within the whole construction of the programme and should be given the same priority as in the past.
194 Chair
Thank you. I am now going to ask for a contribution from Mr Orlandini from the Intercultural Communication and Leadership School.
Guido Orlandini The Intercultural Communication and Leadership School (ICLS)
I would like to thank Mr Mairesse and through him, the European Commission, for inviting us here today. It is a novel experience for the European Commission to convene civil society as a whole to this kind of meeting. There is one part of civil society that I have found missing today and that is other potential donors. I think there is a lot in this kind of programme that might appeal to donors from the private sector, be they large foundations, or indeed large companies from the industrial sector, and I think that in the future it would be interesting to include them in this kind of gathering.
I would like to touch upon the financial regulations which Mr Mairesse mentioned. I welcome his decision to focus on the outcome of projects rather than on the mechanics by which we achieve a good result, but the financial regulations of the European Commission are quite obscure to most of the human race. I am a chartered accountant and a former civil servant; despite this, I have difficulties understanding what I need to do to comply with these financial regulations. In this respect, I would suggest that if we wish to go towards certification, we should set up a mixed working group to try to come up with concrete proposals for simplification, and if it is your wish, I would even volunteer to be on that group.
Lastly, thank you very much for inviting us here yesterday and today.
Chair
Thank you for leading by example. Now an intervention from Dr Jopp.
Mathias Jopp Institut für Europäische Politik
I have a question concerning the budgetary conditions for the funding of think tanks next year and in the coming years. Could you comment on the level of funding for think tanks next year and the size of the budget, and about whether the level of funding in the future will decrease or remain constant? This is basically my question: what is the volume of the budget and how constant will it be?
Chair
Mr Mairesse will now make a response to the points that have been raised.
195 Pierre Mairesse European Commission
First of all, with regard to Mr Korab’s comments, I am aware of the problems regarding the eligibility of payments in kind. Rest assured, this is something we will have to look into because nothing is actually imposed on us in this area by the financial regulations. There is a certain amount of flexibility here, and we could take them into account, but it is rather difficult to implement in practice since we have to try to weigh up the contribution of all the volunteers to estimate the total value. There are a number of techniques that can be employed – in some programmes we have decided to apply flat rate amounts, which is a way of tackling the problem from another angle. Instead of you saying, ‘I can contribute so much in kind, so this is how much I need from the European Commission’, it works the other way around; you say, ‘I am doing a project’, and for that project you would receive a flat rate payment which assumes that you have other resources including volunteers, who do not have to be quantified. This has already been done in part in twinning schemes, and could be applied to other areas, although of course, there would not be flat rate payments for a think tank or similar body. All would depend on the type of project. However, rest assured that I have noted the difficulty that you have encountered with regard to payments in kind.
I was not aware of the problem relating to the transfer of payments from public to private accounts. Perhaps this situation is specific to Poland. Could I ask you to send, either to me or to my colleagues, further information concerning this issue? With regard to simplification, this is an area we are going to concentrate on this afternoon; greater simplification is necessary.
To answer Mr Winther Lundby’s speech, I certainly think that part of our work should focus on face-to-face meetings between citizens, but it should not be the entire focus of our activities. As I already pointed out this morning, this is not a programme for mass consumption; if we wished to have face-to-face meetings between 450 or 500 million citizens, then we would require an enormous programme. We do carry this out in part under the auspices of the twinning arrangements, so we are going to continue with these meetings to try to indicate the way forward for the future for both those who have been involved to date, and for others.
This brings me to the remarks made by Ms Krausz. I do not think you should underestimate the leverage the Community budget can have. The fact that you receive a grant from the European Union does open doors. The Town Council, the NGO or the think tank can have doors opened which will enable it to do things that it would not have imagined possible before. Our small project can have an important leverage effect on other activities.
Just to round off my response, let me say something that you may not hear elsewhere. I think that you make a very good coalition here. Those of you present here today represent all the various components of civil society, and if you pool your resources and marry your strengths rather than defend your own interests – NGOs, think tanks, trade unions, and twinning – then you can wield considerable influence on decision-makers in the European Parliament and in the European Commission.
196 Now, moving on to Mr Orlandini’s idea about donors and foundations, this is a very good idea that we will bear in mind for next time. In the programme itself, perhaps we should try to look for other funds in sectors where we have not looked before and groups we have not gone to in the past. What about foundations? Many of them have a lot of money. I will definitely get in touch with foundations to see whether we can work together. It may be too soon to look immediately to the private sector.
As far as levels of funding are concerned, especially for think tanks, we already have quite a few things in the current programme which were provided for specifically in the legal basis for 2004 and 2005, and which from 2006 will be open to other bodies. From 2007, they will be opened up further. I do not wish to commit myself to any figures, but as far as our basic principles are concerned, I would like to point out that it is not in our interest to cut ourselves off from good partners simply because in the past they were earmarked. Therefore, we are thinking about launching our calls for proposals in such a way that quality partners actually comply with the criteria and can be included in our calls for proposals, and perhaps we can establish partnerships with them. If some of them do not meet the criteria, they will not receive the subsidies. However, we are certainly not going to abandon our partners to start something else. There will be a certain degree of continuity here, as well as in the budget. We are already thinking about the possible mechanisms. We have to open up to other avenues, but we should not go from 80% to 20% as that would be the end for many organisations. We are thinking about a reasonable development. With regard to digression, that is provided for by the financial regulations, but it is something we decided to keep to a minimum for our programme.
Chair
Thank you. We have time for one more round of contributions. I would like to give thanks for the contribution of the Polish NGO office, but it is very specific, pointing out that there are many organisations that can give advice on financing specific initiatives and advising on financial guarantees, and I believe that this is a direct response to the contribution made by Poland. However, I would make the point that you have each other’s e-mail addresses in the delegates pack, so if you wish to give one-to- one advice or follow up contacts, that is probably the way to do it. Therefore, I would like to move on from that contribution. We have a number of contributions that mention partnership, so I would like to ask those people if they would like to make a further contribution.
The first speaker is Ms Burton from A Soul for Europe.
Win Burton A Soul for Europe
I want to say that compared to the discussion of yesterday afternoon’s workshop where we were putting the European Commission on the defensive in an us-and- them type of discussion – which although necessary, was rather uncomfortable – I feel that this afternoon we have moved back into a spirit of partnership again, which very much characterizes the relationship I have had with the European Commission
197 over the last 12 years over very difficult financing and a very difficult project, but which we managed to keep running until last year.
I also wanted to give you some encouragement on the morale side, because I am very conscious of the fact that education and culture, outside of the European Commission, is sometimes seen as a poor cousin, perhaps to some extent under the last European Commission, as a type of fourre-tout, as they say in French, where you have sports and various other things including education; they give it to you and then take it away, mentioning subsidiarity and saying that it should be dealt with at the national level, etc. I know this makes your lives very difficult, which I think we appreciate. I want to encourage you in the efforts you are making here in offering what you can, as I know that in terms of personnel and time, it must be extraordinarily difficult for you to spread yourselves so thinly, and with enough conviction to offer something to us.
We have suffered because we have an annual symposium and we have never actually succeeded in getting people from the European Commission to attend, to listen to what our partners have to say; and yet our very existence is dialogue with the European Union institutions. Fonctionnaires never have the time to attend, or if they do attend, they come to deliver a speech and leave immediately, and it is extremely difficult to put into practice this spirit of dialogue which is what Article 47, and for us in the religious communities, Article 52, is all about. I am sure you must suffer from this as well, but this whole idea of partnership depends on dialogue, which means availability on your side, and perhaps it is your personnel people with whom we should be speaking, but we need you – not just the money, but also the time and the people. We need you at application time, we need you at reporting time, we need you at evaluation time, and we certainly appreciate the possibility of getting to know each other, because there is a lot of cross-fertilization going on, and we do not want to have the feeling that we have done a project that has gone through a machine and is then put into an archive box, and that is the beginning of the end of it; but all too often that is the feeling that we have. We want to have the feeling that we really are making a contribution to the Europe that both you and I passionately believe we are here for.
Finally, I think we have suffered, and there may be others in this room, particularly in the think tank block, who have suffered from the disappearance of the Cellule de Prospective five years ago, insofar as there is now nowhere in the European Commission which is thinking, reflecting, and dreaming anymore. Whether there will once more be such a place under President Barroso’s Commission I do not yet know, but I still think that for those of us who are concerned about what Europe is about – the profound ethical and philosophical issues, the bigger questions – there is no forum at the moment. At the moment it is with you, we have been thrown backwards and forwards between the Secretariat General and the GOPA and yourselves, as you probably know. In a way, it does come into culture but it is true that it does not fit very well, and I think that the think tanks may think the same. I hope that in the future, we may be able to discuss with the think tanks on this particular aspect regarding the question of the kind of Europe that you and I are in partnership to contribute to.
198 Chair
I would like to invite Ms Jacqueline Hocquet from the International Christian Youth Coordination. She has put in two requests.
Jacqueline Hocquet International Coordination of Young Christian Workers (CIJOC)
I represent European Christian Youth and I would like to talk about partnerships and cooperation. Mr Mairesse, you said that partnership may be difficult in that two partners may not have the same weight or clout, but I do not think we should only be thinking about bilateral partnerships: we should be thinking about partnerships between the European Commission and project sponsors, but also about partnerships between different projects, more than two. I think we need to compare our thoughts and ideas and ensure mutual feedback in order that we may all learn from one another. Sometimes, I think we need recognition of our work, as it is not just a question of evaluating us financially; we need to be appreciated for the contribution we make to building Europe. This has already been said, but needs to be emphasised.
You also talked about cooperation which is not just based on accounting but on the outcome of evaluation. However, what do you really mean by evaluation, efficiency, and effectiveness? I think it is worth trying to define those concepts. There are projects we can get involved in as a youth movement. However, before talking about active European citizenship, these projects, which are funded by the European Commission, are part of upstream projects where we try to involve young people in local schools, and we need people who work in these local schemes to realise that they are part of a broader Europe and that they are acting as European citizens. Therefore, we must give value to all these small-scale upstream projects which flesh out the main projects and form their substrata.
Chair
I have a contribution from someone who has put ‘Europe’ as their country and I cannot resist it! Robert Tesh.
Robert Tesh European Students’ Forum
My name is Robert Tesh from the European Students’ Forum. This actually relates to my point. It is nice to see I am not the only person from the youth sector here. For a second I thought that I was; but we are here, and we do care.
I wanted to come back to the question that arose from the earlier discussion today relating to the promotion of European citizenship. We have no shortage of active citizens, but I think there is a shortage of European active citizens. There is much too much focus on the national, regional, and local level, and we sense a shortage of
199 truly European projects. It is a major handicap for us working internationally with international groups being forced into national structures, national agencies. We can work with local partnerships; but with a set of beneficiaries who are so diverse, with organising groups which are international, we feel ourselves sidelined by the insistence on working through local structures.
Chair
Thank you. I would quickly like to take Mr Leclerc from Club UNESCO de Metz – CRISTEEL.
Claude Leclerc Club UNESCO de Metz – CRISTEEL
We would just like to make a proposal to the European Commission. It concerns this programme in particular, but also relates to other programmes. I have the pleasure of being part of a group responsible for youth expenditure in my region and we have elected representatives at a national and regional level, and at the level of the département, and representatives of clubs and organisations competent in the area of youth.
The group has been in existence for the last two years, so we do have an objective view of the decentralization of management that has taken place.
As far as the advantages are concerned, we know the players, projects, and goals better now. Moreover, because we are closer to them, we can provide more support to the operators and can bring about synergies between those working in the field, and we can make sure that they are a complementary part of the project. Furthermore, as a result of decentralization, instead of having evaluations of the normal type and the formal papers, we, in this regional board, go to the players and talk to them. We discuss what has happened with them and the various problems they have encountered. They discuss the various benefits they have experienced and thus we can make corrections to the report they have sent us, as they may have forgotten to report things that are very important but which are self-evident to them.
We are also involved in defining the criteria for what should go into the programme because we are close to people in the field, and we also have a symbiosis between the various youth programmes, whether we are talking about Action 5 partnerships or Action 2; there is a coherent whole which hangs together. We are also enabled to involve elected European representatives. We do not just want to approach them regarding the budget every two years, we want them to come along and see what is actually done with this money, particularly in the area of young people. Therefore, I think this decentralization is useful and could perhaps be used for other programmes.
200 Chair
Thank you. Mr Mairesse, perhaps you would like to make a brief comment on these points?
Pierre Mairesse European Commission
Thank you. To come back to what Ms Burton from A Soul for Europe was saying, we now have a third dimension to the notion of partnership which we raised earlier.
The first dimension was the fact that it is in the interests of the institution to establish such a partnership; we talked about that this morning. The second dimension concerns the relationship, which can be more conflictual. The third dimension is that you think the European Commission, and the Directorate General EAC in particular, should be more available to talk and to work together with you. I need to tell my Director General that I need more staff! However, I would like to say that I do agree with you. Perhaps we should have less partners and deeper partnerships. As I said earlier, I am not a banker; I want to work for civil society on matters of content and substance and to have the necessary resources to meet your needs. You also mentioned think tanks and cooperation with GOPA which replaced the Cellule de Prospective. Next week, I have a meeting scheduled with GOPA to discuss how we are going to work together in the new programme.
Ms Hocquet from the International Christian Youth Coordination said something else that I also agree with regarding partnerships. It can not simply be a partnership between you and separate projects: it must include networking, a partnership between different projects. This is definitely a priority. You also talked about recognition and acknowledgement or appreciation. We have to find a way to acknowledge all of the work that you are doing. That is very important. This kind of event does increase visibility and is a kind of recognition. We have not talked about it much today, but I think the future programmes should make room for the organisation of similar events which ensure a political recognition of everything that you are doing.
I believe that Mr Orlandini has left now, but he was suggesting that we set up a working group to reflect on the financial constraints and review the financial regulations. You say that it is all very well working according to objectives and results, but what exactly is an effective project, how do we evaluate a project? Once we have finished writing the legal basis, I am prepared to set up a working group on the implementing arrangements together with some of you, in order to discuss how we can make the constraints that must exist as simple as possible.
Then there was reference to support for international and trans-European organisations. Obviously the programme has to support trans-European programmes or projects; they are one of its pillars, and the projects are trans-national by definition. We have criteria, but trans-national NGOs are the main bodies that we want to have involved in our programmes.
We were told about experiences with youth programmes and field visits and a less bureaucratic way of evaluating projects. I agree with the points mentioned, but you
201 added something that I found extremely interesting: you said that you involve your elected representatives. I presume you are talking not only about European elected representatives, but also those at the level of the region, the département, and I think that is something we need to encourage. I believe that when we carry out a local project, then our local MP should come along and have a look at the project. I think this would increase our political clout and we really need that.
This is what I wanted to say in response to the final round of comments. I would now like to take a couple of minutes with the Director General to report to him my point of view. I would like to thank you all for today’s meeting, I think it was extremely fruitful, and it is my impression that you appreciated it. I know I did. We have learnt much from what has been said, and I assure you that we will take it into account for the next programme.
Chair
Thank you, Mr Mairesse. I was going to ask everyone to show their appreciation for what has been an extraordinarily unusual opportunity and I think it shows a degree of commitment to the whole subject that is not commonly displayed by senior members of the European Commission, so we are very happy to have this contribution. Please give a big round of applause to Mr Mairesse and his team.
We have a few moments before we hand over to Mr van der Pas and I would like to ask you to show your huge appreciation to the interpreters, who have worked well beyond the times instructed.
I would also like you to show your appreciation for the European Commission staff and their team who put this conference together. I think the communications beforehand were very clear, and the welcome information was very good, and I have been very happy with the organisation and hope that all of you have been too. If you have not, please do not blame me, but if you have been happy, please show your appreciation.
One thing I have learned today is that two minutes is a very flexible time, and when it is a Director General’s two minutes, it can be a very long time. I think it has been a very good-hearted contribution so I would like to thank you – a round of applause to you – for your contribution: One or two of you have pushed the limits, but on the whole, you have made it a very easy meeting to chair.
I have one last reminder about the naming process. The box is still outside. I would like to remind you of the risks of naming. Some of you will know of Robert Kilroy-Silk, who was recently elected to the European Parliament. After a short time, he left the party that had got him there, and he has now set up his own party. He has chosen to call his party Veritas, being the Latin for truth, but unfortunately the Press have decided that this party is a vehicle just for him, and they have renamed it Vanitas. Therefore, whatever name we give the programme, it must not be a name that can be hijacked like that!
We are very happy to welcome Mr van der Pas who will give us a closing summary.
202 Conclusions and closing remarks
Nikolaus van der Pas Director General, Directorate General for Education and Culture, European Commission
First of all, thank you very much for your welcome. Let me start by thanking all of you for the work that has been done over the last few days, which has been very useful, and a pleasure for us to host and to take part in. Yesterday, I participated in the Golden Stars event for town twinning, and it has been a positive experience for me to see people from all corners of Europe enjoying the fact that they had done something in cooperation with other towns, cities and communes, and clearly happy and satisfied with what they had achieved. It is, I believe, both for us and for the participants very stimulating to see that they and their projects really have changed something.
The sessions you have worked through over the past two days have truly proved their worth, for we now have a fairly good idea of what we have to write in the proposal to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
You will have noticed that the consultation started recently and that it is going to end rather soon. There is a reason for this urgency; we could not start the consultation earlier because the new transitional programme was hardly in place, and we cannot prolong it very much because in March, we need to be on board the train called The Financial Perspectives. The Luxembourg Presidency, which holds the presidency from January until June, will make a special effort to obtain an agreement of the member states on the financial perspectives – the amount of money that the European Union will have at its disposal from 2007 onwards. In order for these discussions to begin, it is necessary that all the proposals which have to be financed within the European Union budget from 2007 are proposed and on the table. In the area of Education and Culture, everything is on the table with one exception, the Citizenship Programme. It is now the beginning of February, and we can count on the considerable input already on-line, and the very substantial input that you have made yesterday and today. I wanted to stress the great help that you have been and thank you very much for it.
Now, I said that I had quite a good idea what we are going to put into the proposal. Firstly, I believe that the consultations have shown that what is being done at present is welcome. I have not heard any criticism of the actions as they are possible under the current rules. As they say in English, ’If it is not broken, do not mend it’; and there is a good case for favouring a certain continuity in what we are going to propose. That then is the first point I wish to make: the current town twinning actions, and our support for think tanks, NGOs, and citizenship activities, is broadly speaking something that we have to maintain.
However, we have to do more. That too is obvious from the discussions that have taken place, because a number of ideas have been put forward in favour of innovation. Before I talk about the points we would like to consider for the new
203 proposal, I would like to say something about the procedures which also oblige us to think about how to proceed.
You are all aware that the system as it was in the past, in which the European Commission had a certain freedom to take money from the European Union budget to support citizenship activities, is over, and that we cannot apply it anymore. Moreover, the old system in which the European Parliament earmarked beneficiaries through the budget, is drawing to an end. From 2006 onwards, and in the absence of a miracle, all support activities, including the ones we would like to add, are going to have to go through the procedures as prescribed by the Financial Regulations; this means calls for proposals and competitive selection. This has an immediate consequence on the way in which proposals must be evaluated. Let me just say that we have kept our ears open to all those who have said that the continuity of the past, which earmarking or the good work people were doing enabled, must be preserved as much as possible. But how can we do this when selection must be carried out on a competitive basis? Part of the answer is probably that we will have to introduce multi-annual financing, and make sure that those organisations which qualify for support will not depend on a yearly contract and will therefore not have to worry about what will happen the following year. This is a possibility we want to look at very seriously by establishing multi-annuality.
Furthermore, and I believe that this has been mentioned several times over the last two days, a second point, related to evaluation, has come up in this context. I see that you would like greater recognition for the good work that is being done, and I think that this is a fair point. There are, however, two sides to this. In a system where you are in competition, both with those that you already know, as well as with others who wake up and want to be included, it is useful for each organisation to look very carefully at what is being done; and we, in turn, will have to look during the selection process at how things are being done and at what is being done. The evaluation aspect becomes more important from these two angles, and we must all be aware of that.
I would like to add a further point to these comments. It has emerged from the discussions that many of you would like to see support for citizenship panels and networks at the local and regional level, and we think these are elements worthy of reflection and consideration for the new text. However, if we have to introduce all the innovation just mentioned in a competitive environment, I think it is a good idea to create more space for transborder cooperation. As an example, I could imagine that some organisations, such as think tanks, that have been supported up to now and that have offered added value at a European level, could link up with other think tanks in other member states and create a stronger network with more researchers at its disposal, and therefore capable of creating more of the added value I have referred to. In the selection process, this transborder or trans-national cooperation is always a positive asset, and the juries looking at these projects are always impressed by it. Therefore, within the overall context of competition, this bigger effort in favour of networking is something that should be made room for.
In the system we have now, there is not much scope, if any at all, for events which have a high visibility. We have a very clear and concrete case on the table now, and which stems from a desire being expressed in several quarters, including the
204 European Parliament, to do something specific to commemorate the end of Fascism. This is the year when we commemorate the liberation of the Nazi death camps, and it obviously has support.
Such high visibility events, however, require some rather dangerous innovation with regard to the rules of financial management. I believe we need to look at the programme we are going to draft now in order to allow some scope for this kind of activity. It is very much linked to the whole debate over European citizenship, attachment to European values, our common history, and we must bring it out more clearly so that people can identify the commonalities that we have. This is an idea we should take very seriously, and I am happy that there have been reflections during this meeting which went in that direction. Therefore, I believe we have something new to undertake. In that same context, the point was made yesterday that we have reunited Europe rather than enlarged the European Union. Specific attention to the new member states and their place within the European Union can also be well catered for if we ensure a redress in the programme.
One of the elements raised, and which I have heard before in other contexts, such as in the Culture programme, pointed to the insufficient scope available for supporting the creation and structuring of organisations at European level. To borrow once again from the area of Culture, we could envisage creating European platforms on which different organisations promoting similar development receive support for their activities. This structural support, which goes beyond the simple support for projects, is an element we would definitely like to look at as well.
Remarks have been made during these discussions about the advantages that would be accrued if we could create bridges between this particular programme and other programmes that exist at the European level, be they in the field of education, culture, youth, or elsewhere. This is something we would also like to examine more carefully.
There is another area which has a rather wide range of implications and that is what the European Commission has termed the ‘New Neighbourhood Policy’ – the policy to be developed vis-à-vis those neighbouring countries that will not become members of the European Union, either because it is geographically difficult, such as the Southern border of the Mediterranean, or, as is the case of countries in the East, because they do not have any ambitions to join the European Union. I know this is a debate that has only just started, and what we consider today as countries that will not become members, such as the Ukraine, may find themselves in another category next year; a great deal depends on political developments in the General Affairs Council and within the European Commission, and on things like the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine which have a great impact on such debates. The outcome of these discussions, however, will depend on later decisions and it is our responsibility to ensure that in those neighbouring countries we do something special in order to demonstrate that they are not just third countries, that they are very close to being member states, but are not yet member states. The area of citizen cooperation is one of the first that springs to mind in order to strengthen the ties between the European Union and those particular countries. In addition to what I have said about enlargement and the importance of taking the interests of new
205 member states into account, this is something important I would like to include in our reflections.
A further remark I would like to make, which also relates to a suggestion from the floor, is that not only would it be useful to have bridges between the citizens’ programme and other programmes of the European Union, but it might also be good to have bridges between your organisations and the activities, however diverse, that they pursue. Can we create links here between organisations that focus on human rights and others that have a more cultural impact? Can variation be encouraged by creating bridges between your organisations with the support of the European Union?
A lot has been said during these meetings about the need for simplification. I think we should make every effort to simplify the rules in order to avoid unnecessary pieces of paper and rules becoming an obstacle to the important cooperation between us and you. This has been stressed by everyone present during this conference.
Let me say a final word about the visibility of the different activities which we are carrying out and which you are carrying out. We have created an internet portal for the cultural sector and for the youth sector, which provides a lot of information about what we are doing and which also allows an easy insight to what everybody else is doing in that area. I believe this is also a good idea for our cooperation. In other words, we will create a web-site as soon as possible, on which you will find information about our programme and the rules, but which will also have links to whatever web-sites you have developed, or that member states have developed, in order to support this whole citizens’ cooperation; this would allow a quick oversight of all the things that are happening in the European Union and in its member states, regions, etc. in support of citizens’ cooperation. Such increased visibility would have the advantage not only of quickly leading citizens through a very complicated field to the information that they need, but also of stimulating new ideas about what more can be done in the field of cooperation.
I believe that that is all I have to say on this issue. Is that satisfactory? More personnel are needed? We shall see.
I think we have now come to the end of today’s meeting. Once again, I am very grateful that you have come all this way, and that you have made this very substantial contribution to the new programme. We now have enough information to start drafting our proposal and to finalise it so that it is included in the discussions on the financial perspectives 2007-2013. We hope a decision will be adopted rather soon on both the financial perspectives and on the new programme, so that as of 1st January 2007 we have it up and running. That means that ideally we need a decision some time at the beginning of 2006, so that everybody knows what it is, and everyone is aware of what they can and cannot do.
Once again, thanks a million, and may I wish you all a good journey back home.
Chair
206
Thank you. Well, we have done all the thanking, so it only remains for me to wish you a safe journey home and to say that tomorrow morning, when you are lying in bed eating the Belgian chocolates that you will take home with you, think of the European Commission staff who will be working to put all of this into some sort of sensible document. Thank you to them, once more.
---ooo0ooo---
207