Youth Policy (Spicers European Policy Reports)

Youth Policy

Youth Policy Compiled by Gordon Blakely

Published by Routledge in association with the University of Bradford and Spicers Centre for Europe Ltd

SPICERS EUROPEAN POLICY REPORTS European Internal Market Policy Kevin Featherstone Transport Policy Kerry Hamilton The Food Sector Stephen Fallows Employment Policy Margareta Holmstedt Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Kenneth Dyson Regional Policy Colin Mellors/Nigel Copperthwaite

First published 1990 by Routledge in association with the University of Bradford and Spicers Centre for Europe Ltd Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge a division of Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc. 29 West 35th Street, New York 10001 © 1990 University of Bradford/Spicers Centre for Europe Ltd All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Youth policy.—(Spicers European policy reports) 1. European Community. Social policies I. Blakely, Gordon II. University of Bradford III. Spicers Centre for Europe Ltd ′ 361.6′′ 1′094 ISBN 0-203-99115-X Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-415-03832-4 (Print Edition) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Youth policy/compiled by Gordon Blakely. p. cm.—(Spicers European policy reports) ISBN 0-415-03832-4 (Print Edition) 1. Youth—Government policy—European Economic Community countries. I. Blakely, Gordon, 1946- II. Series. HQ799.E95Y68 1990 362.7′′ 094–dc20 89–24183 CIP

CONTENTS

Foreword

vii

The European Community: Its Role, Institutions, and Legislation

xi

SECTION I The Emergence of a European Youth Policy

1

Introduction

3

Conclusion

33

SECTION II

35

Documents Emanating from the Commission of the European Community

37

Allocation of Funds to Youth Exchanges between EC Countries and COMECON Countries

45

Appendix 2

The COMETT Programme

47

Appendix 3

Education and Training in the European Community 1989–1992

51

Appendix 4

ERASMUS Guidelines

57

Appendix 5

Guidelines to Town Twinning Grant Aid

65

Appendix 6

Guidelines for Funding under Article 955 of the Community Budget

69

PETRA: European Network of Training Initatives

71

Appendix 1

Appendix 7

vi

Appendix 8

Young Workers Exchange Programme

83

Appendix 9

List of Useful Addresses

85

FOREWORD

This volume is one of a series offering an informed guide to particular policies and programmes of the European Community. They are intended for the intelligent reader as well as for the specialist. They assume no prior knowledge of the European Community, but they each offer a comprehensive and up-to-date guide to what the Community is doing, or proposes to do, in important areas of economic, social and political life. The volumes should appeal especially to those involved in business and commerce, public administration, and education. The volumes guide the reader through the maze of European Community legislation and policy proposals. Their main concern is with the official documents of the European Community institutions: helping the reader to understand Community policies and proposals. By doing so, each volume offers the reader a single reference source, collating all the essential information the reader needs to understand what is going on. Each volume is structured so as to offer easy access to the specific information needed. A preliminary note explains what the European Community is and how it operates. Each volume focuses on a distinctive policy area, and SECTION I introduces the reader to European Community action in that sphere. It explains how Community policy has evolved, the problems currently being confronted, and what is proposed for the future. SECTION II highlights the key documents and proposals in the policy area, giving extensive summaries of each of them. Finally, SECTION III provides a comprehensive listing of all the relevant Community documents in this policy sphere, with full bibliographical details and a brief note as to their content. As the reader progresses through each volume, he or she will have been guided from the general to the very specific, and from little or no knowledge to an informed picture of developments in the policy sphere concerned. Moreover, the information has been structured so as to allow

viii

the more specialist reader to pursue particular inquiries yet further: the volumes guide the reader to the policy documents specific to his/her interest. With the drive to complete the single internal European Community market by the end of 1992, more and more attention will be focused on Community policies and actions. By the end of this century, the European Community will be playing a more prominent part in the lives of its citizens and in a way which will have ramifications in other parts of the world also. The European Community is already an important actor on the world stage, and it will be even less possible to ignore it in the 1990s. This series of policy guides is designed to provide the information that is and will be needed to respond to this changing world. High-quality information is the key to effective action. This series has been produced by the European Briefing Unit at the University of Bradford (UK) together with Spicers Centre for Europe Limited, a member of Spicer and Oppenheim International. The collaboration between these two bodies has brought together a team of specialist writers expert in the various policy spheres covered by the volumes. Each writer is actively engaged in the study and research of these policy areas, and each has long experience in communicating their skills to the lay audience. The series has been co-ordinated by Amanda Deaville (Spicers) and Kevin Featherstone (Bradford). Both the European Briefing Unit (EBU) at the University of Bradford and Spicers Centre for Europe have an active interest in promoting knowledge and awareness of the European Community. The EBU is located in the Department of European Studies at the University of Bradford: the Department is the largest of its kind in the UK, and is actively involved in both teaching and research at all levels. The EBU was created in 1988 as a public resource, operating on a non-profit and open access basis. It acts as a neutral forum for the purpose of disseminating and advancing relevant knowledge about the Single European Market; new trading and business opportunities in Europe; the European Community’s Structural Funds and technology programmes; the external trade, business and political relations of the EC; and the social, cultural and educational implications of European integration. The EBU exists to serve the needs of industry, commerce and public authorities as well as those of the University itself and other educational bodies. The EBU has established close collaborative links with a number of relevant bodies across different sectors so as to promote its activities. Spicers Centre for Europe Ltd is a privately based organization serving the needs of its commercial clients. It offers expert EC advice

ix

and information to both private and public sector organizations and enterprises. It assists its clients in obtaining funding from EC sources, and it keeps them informed as to the changes in EC policy which might affect their interests. It advises organizations on how they might respond to the opportunities and challenges of the EC, by reviewing corporate strategies. It also offers a business information service based on its own and EC data bases, involving the Tenders Electronic Daily data base (TED) and the Business Co-operation Network data base (BC-NET). As a member of Spicer and Oppenheim International it is linked to an organization which has 250 offices in more than fifty countries throughout the world. The collaboration between the EBU and Spicers is intended to produce a continuing series of publications to inform both specialist and lay audiences about the role and impact of the European Community. Readers of these volumes are invited to contact either body directly if they have any comments to make on the volumes, or if they would like to know more about the activities of either organization. Both the EBU and Spicers would like to record their gratitude to Alan Jarvis (Routledge) for his support and patience in dealing with this publishing venture. Moreover, progress would have been more difficult had it not been for the efficient typing, by Christine Pratt of Spicers. More generally, thanks go to the full team of writers and assistants involved in this project for their willingness to see it succeed. Kevin Featherstone General Editor

x

Contact addresses: The European Briefing Unit University of Bradford Bradford BD7 1DP United Kingdom Telephone: 0274–733466 Telex: 51309 UNIBFD G Fax Number: 0274 305340 Spicers Centre for Europe Limited Ground Floor 10–12 East Parade Leeds LS1 2AJ United Kingdom Telephone: 0532 442629 Telex: 557890 EUROPE G Fax Number: 0532 449909

THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: ITS ROLE, INSTITUTIONS, AND LEGISLATION

The European Community (EC) represents a unique development in the world: a new structure of relations between states. It has often been referred to as ‘the Common Market’ because it is a single trading entity: goods moving between the member countries are not subject to tariffs, while imports from the rest of the world enter under uniform conditions. But it is much more than that: it plays an important political and social role, in addition to its economic purposes. Moreover, the EC is set to develop much further in the 1990s. In the 1958 Treaty of Rome, a commitment was made to seeking in the long-term “an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”, an ambitious objective which it has found difficult to realise. However, the Single European Act which came into force in July 1987 provides for an expansion of the EC’s political role and for the completion by the end of 1992 of a fully integrated, barrier-free internal market. The ‘European Community’ actually stems from three Communities: the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) established in 1952; the European Economic Community (EEC) which came into being in 1958; and, the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) which also began in 1958. The original Member States of each of these three Communities were Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Successive enlargements of the Communities have increased their membership from six to twelve: Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined as of 1 January 1973; Greece on 1 January 1981; and Portugal and Spain on 1 January 1986. The population of the EC is now 320 million, greater than that of the USA (234 million), the Soviet Union (269 million), or Japan (119 million). Its Gross Domestic Product per head is significantly lower than that of either the USA or Japan. However, the Community today is the world’s largest trading power, accounting for almost 20% of world trade. Economically and

xii

politically, the EC dominates Western Europe, and it has established important relations with countries across the world. Policy making in the EC involves the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, and the Economic and Social Committee, with the adjudication of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors. In addition, the European Investment Bank (EIB) was established by the Treaty of Rome as the bank for financing capital investment promoting the balanced development of the Community. Until 1967, the three original Communities had separate Councils of Ministers and executive Commissions (known as the ‘High Authority’ in the ECSC). By contrast, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice have been common to the ECSC, EEC and Euratom since 1958. From 1967 onwards there has been a single Commission and a single Council, simplifying the overall structure. The three most important policy-making institutions of the EC today are the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. Since 1974, they have been joined by the ‘European Council’, a body given formal status by the Single European Act. The European Council is the term given to the summit meetings of the heads of government (and of state in the case of France) of the EC countries. It has no legislative power, rather its purpose is to place current issues in a more general perspective and to give impetus to those initiatives that it regards as priorities for action. Until 1985, it met three times a year, but this has since been cut back to twice a year. The Presidency of the European Council and of the Council of Ministers rotates between the member governments at six-monthly intervals. The European Council meetings are usually held in the country holding the presidency. The Council of Ministers’ headquarters is in Brussels, where the Commission is also based. The European Parliament, by contrast, currently holds its plenary sessions in Strasbourg, most of its committee meetings in Brussels, whilst its permanent staff are based in Luxembourg. This rather awkward compromise remains a source of controversy. EC legislation is determined by the three main institutions—the Council of Ministers, the Commission, and the European Parliament— with the Economic and Social Committee offering its advisory opinion. The Commission acts as the initiator of legislation and as the executive authority responsible for implementing it. Legislation is finally enacted after it has been approved by the Council of Ministers, either acting unanimously or by a qualified majority. It has been estimated that, as a result of the Single European Act, two-thirds of the internal market

xiii

proposals will be covered by majority voting. The Council’s legislative role has been further amended by a new ‘Co-operation Procedure’ established by the Single European Act, which gives increased powers to the European Parliament. This provides, inter alia, for the Parliament to be able to reject the Council’s initial response to a Commission proposal, and the Council can then only pass the proposal into law if it acts unanimously (Art. 149:2c of the EEC Treaty as amended) . Prior to the Single European Act, the Parliament already had the final say over the annual EC budget, though its scope for manoeuvre on expenditure is set within limits. Some description of each institution is necessary. The Council of Ministers is made up of representatives of the governments of the twelve Member States. Each government normally sends one of its ministers. Its membership thus varies with the subjects down for discussion. The Foreign Minister is regarded as his country’s ‘main’ representative in the Council, but Ministers for Agriculture, Transport, Economic and Financial Affairs, Social Affairs, Industry, the Environment and so on also meet frequently for specialized Council meetings and sometimes sit alongside the Foreign Ministers. The Council is supported by a large number of working parties and by a Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER). COREPER is composed of the various national ‘ambassadors’ to the EC. The Commission consists of seventeen members, appointed by agreement between the member governments. Throughout their fouryear term of office, Commissioners are required to remain independent of national governments. An individual Commissioner cannot be sacked: the Parliament can pass a motion of censure compelling the Commission to resign en bloc. The European Parliament is the world’s first directly elected international assembly. It was first directly elected in 1979: it was previously composed of nominated national parliamentarians. The Parliament serves five-year terms and currently has 518 members (MEPs). The Court of Justice, based in Luxembourg, acts as the supreme court of the EC. It should not be confused with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is not an EC body. The Court of Auditors began operating in 1977 and, as its name suggests, it audits the EC accounts. The Economic and Social Committee is an advisory body of 189 members, representing various sectors of economic and social life, offering opinions on EC policies and proposals.

xiv

EC Law The nomenclature of EC legislation can be confusing. The essential point to bear in mind is that the Commission brings forward proposals for legislation, the outcome of which will be variously determined by the Council and the Parliament. ‘Primary legislation’ of the EC is embodied in the treaties; ‘Secondary legislation’ is derived from the treaties in the form of ‘Regulations’, ‘Directives’ etc. The EC represents a distinct legal system, and its strongest form of legislation is superior to national law. When acting under the Treaty of Paris (ECSC), the Commission can take decisions, make recommendations or issue opinions. Decisions are binding in their entirety; recommendations are binding as to the ends but not as to the means; opinions are not binding. The Council acts in ECSC affairs mainly at the request of the Commission, either stating its opinion on particular issues or giving the assent without which, in certain matters, the Commission cannot proceed. The Commission’s ECSC decisions are mostly addressed to individual persons, firms or governments’ but they may also lay down general rules, since the Commission does also have general rule-making powers. When acting under the Rome Treaties (EEC and Euratom), the Council and the Commission issue regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions. Regulations are of general application: they are binding in their entirety and applicable in all Member States. Directives are binding on the Member States to which they are addressed as regards the results to be achieved, but leave the form and methods of achieving it to the discretion of the national authorities. Decisions may be addressed to a government, an enterprise or a private individual; they are binding in their entirety on those to whom they are addressed. Recommendations and opinions are not binding. The discrepancy in terminology between the Paris Treaty and the two Rome Treaties is confusing. An ECSC ‘recommendation’ is a binding enactment corresponding to the EEC and Euratom ‘directive’, whereas an EEC ‘recommendation’ is not binding and is not stronger than an ‘opinion’. When examining the current progress of EC legislation in non-ECSC policy areas, the reader typically focuses on Commission proposals (e.g. for a directive) to be agreed by the Council of Ministers (subject to the differential powers of the European Parliament). It is clear from the above that the EC today is an important actor in international relations, enjoying both political and economic

xv

significance not only for its domestic citizens but also for those in other countries.

xvi

SECTION I THE EMERGENCE OF A EUROPEAN YOUTH POLICY

2

INTRODUCTION

To say that there is a coherent thought-through policy towards young people emanating from the Commission of the European Communities is too ambitious a statement. The process is one of change; one of evolution. It was only at the beginning of 1989 that an integrated approach to youth questions started to emerge. That is not to say that issues have failed to be addressed, nor that sections of the administration and individuals in Brussels have ignored the needs of young people in a policy programme. However, what has remained unclear is the strategy; its limits and its targets. Where the needs of young people have clearly been those which hampered the economic and social development of the Community, intervention has been swift. This is the case in adapting training for employment; enabling young people to measure up to the demands of rapidly developing change in technology; the shift in the industrial base; the complexities of the agribusiness and the overall impetus to gear up the Community as a leading competitor on the world market. The Commission has also shown support in areas where youth issues have not been problematic. Youth organizations themselves have gradually achieved a consultative relationship. In performing arts and sports, the Commission produces resources for activity on an ad hoc basis. Generally and positively, exchanges of young people are encouraged vigorously at many levels, with a variety of themes from formal education to work experience to cultural learning. What this guide attempts to do is outline the major interventions of recent years where the impact has been, or will be, spread widely in the Community. There are smaller or integrated forms of support for young people which are not really a part of the evolving policy process. These have been omitted.

4 YOUTH POLICY

It is not necessary to be judgemental, writing from the point of view of one Member States, but better to set out the resolutions, decisions and results as we have them from the Commission, in the context of action for the whole Community. I The Current Structure for Youth Policy In the past, what could be taken for a policy towards young people by the European Community has in reality been a series of initiatives and responses to the current economic and social situation. There has not emerged a clarity of intention, nor an integrated approach to the needs and aspirations of the youth constituency. Some initiatives tend to focus on youth as a problem. Others focus on a problem of which young people are a part. Positive initiatives have been targeted quite narrowly. However, the varying conditions and status of young people in the Member States makes it virtually impossible to embark on a tailor-made strategy to suit all levels and types. The main thrust into the 1980s has come in the world of work (or lack of it) for young people leaving fulltime education. This major challenge has been responded to with vigour by the Commission, and, in particular, Directorate General 5 (DG5)— Employment, Social Affairs and Education. Other initiatives for groups of young people with special needs have also attracted attention and, within the bulk of the European Social Fund, considerable financial support has gone towards projects which involved, trained or employed young people. It is of great interest to see that with new Commissioners in place in 1989, the structure of DG5 is being altered. Within its vast responsibilities DG5 is establishing a Task-Force on Human Resources. In that body there will be responsibility for youth programmes. The current title is the Task-Force on Human Resources (Education, Training and Youth). As yet the word ‘policy’ does not appear, but certainly the emphasis within DG5 has been reshaped to take account of the ever-increasing number of initiatives which target the young. Before looking at the major recent initiatives to date it is worth pointing to some statistics and defining youth. A broad definition tends to take in those aged fifteen to twenty-five and this can in no way be seen as a homogeneous group. Taking another age-band eighteen to twenty-five, this covers 52 million of the EC population. Some 6 million are in some form of higher education. However, some 23% of those under twenty-

YOUTH POLICY 5

five are unemployed. It is this latter figure that demonstrates clearly the Community’s desire to set young people to productive work; to raise standards of living; and to create a trained, mobile work-force establishing the EC as a world competitor. To establish a truly comprehensive Peoples’ Europe young people must have a key role. The Adonnino Report (March 1985) on this ‘People’s Europe’ makes a clear statement about this: ‘Action at Community level to encourage exchanges of young people between different Member States helps to promote the identity of Europe for young Europeans’. In making a success of the Single European Act, the Commission states that ‘helping young people to find their first job should be one of the prime objectives of the structural funds’. In the first instance, it is useful to look at how young people leave the school environment and take up the challenge of what to do next. There the Commission has quite a long and important record of intervention. II From School to Work In the 1970s most Member States struggled with the mismatch of young peoples’ formal education against the demands of employers once they had to join the work-force. Some countries responded quickly; the heavily industrialized ones faced a radical overhaul; the less industrialized stagnation. Recognizing the scale of the problem the Commission established a programme to assist in the transition from school to work. This ran from 1976–82. A second and more finelytuned action programme followed from 1982–87. The Second Transition Programme (1982–87) The implementation of the programme was based on a Resolution of the Council of Ministers (Education) in July 1982 and December 1985. It was designed to help Member States develop a policy around the transition from school to work for those aged fourteen to eighteen; to prepare young people for a better entry into adult and working life. The lower age-band reflects the compulsory school-leaving age in some Member States. Pilot projects were supported in thirty areas of ten Member States. Fifty per cent of the operating costs of a project were met by the EC. Although large-scale and wide-ranging, the programme focused on

6 YOUTH POLICY

disadvantaged regions and disadvantaged youth. The managers of the scheme aimed at an integrated approach to achieve better co-operation between the education, social service, industry and manpower sectors. The work was overseen by a group of National Policy Co-ordinators designated by each Member States. The actual projects brought out a mass of detailed evaluation which contributed to a range of specialized seminars. At Community level, in 1987, a series of conferences on major policy areas was convened around senior decision makers to learn from their experiences. The transition programme is viewed by the Community as a major step in improving the quality of education and training as well as improving opportunities for young people themselves. It is a real attempt to deal with practical issues facing young people in a European context. Despite difficult and complex systems, European cooperation proved possible and cost-effective. The Rationale of the Transition Programme The second programme addressed some of the following factors. With the economic conditions and industrial needs in mind, the process of education and training must be prolonged. Some Member States have even extended the period of compulsory education (Belgium raised the school-leaving age to sixteen and Italy and Spain are to complete this process) . Entry into the labour market now comes at around the age of eighteen to nineteen. A vast number of pre-employment and work-experience programmes has been created. Still, it is not an easy task to improve employability. The situation is somewhat alleviated by the shrinking youth population (not the case in the Republic of Ireland). By the year 2000, the fifteen to nineteen group will have decreased by 25%; as much as 40% in some Member States. The continual demand for new skills also affects the teaching profession. The climate has altered in secondary education to stimulate thinking on how to use the school as a resource. The outside world also offers new forms of employment—part-time, contract work, self-employment co-operatives, job-share. Young people need to broaden their experience and respond to the changing job market-place. The co-operation of parents and other adults is necessary to assist the process of choice. There is a danger that good qualifications for a few will narrow opportunity for those with no qualifications at all.

YOUTH POLICY 7

The Community has shown particular concern for young women who are not achieving equality of opportunity. Since there is likely to be a shortage of skilled workers in the next ten years, this is unacceptable. Young women are still geared to the more generalist work areas or specialize in pure science. An energetic push at breaking down stereotypes is needed. The Projects The programme’s pilot projects concentrated on four fields of action: a) closer links between schools and the economic world, including more varied forms of work experience; b) identifying new needs in guidance and counselling; c) combating failure amongst the disadvantaged; d) assisting the teaching profession to cope with new tasks. These can now be considered in turn. a) Closer links between school and industry were the major concern of almost all pilot projects in the five-year period. Most centred on reviewing the curriculum content; teaching methods; adapting to more technical objectives and structuring forms of co-operation. Work experience can develop a vocational knowledge; contribute to personal development and reintegrate under-achieving young people into the curriculum. Most projects concentrated on the final three years at school. The experience was not always in a business enterprise, but often in a simulated business environment. Enterprise education was a newer development to foster creativity and initiative, thus changing the passive attitude to employment. Pilot schemes setting out to self-create employment were implemented in Ireland, Italy and the UK. These school-based enterprises introduced a real experience of delivering a product. In Ireland the young enterprise movement gained national support. Schools themselves were opened up to new subject areas which had implications across the curriculum. Problems naturally arose due to restrictions in the core curriculum; lack of flexible timetabling and a lack of formal recognition that what was being done was valid. Some projects encouraged enabling structures including trade union co-operation and stimulating parental interest. The

8 YOUTH POLICY

French government formally instructed schools to seek partnerships with industry. b) Guidance for young people is essential and needs to go beyond the school. Ideally, it should promote autonomy, self-awareness and a capacity to plan one’s own future. Several Member States revealed how the content and style of delivery of the curriculum could assist in the guidance process. Italian projects were very committed to develop the sense of initiative in and for one’s own region. Generally, the move was to encourage a positive attitude to small firms and self-employment. Outside of school, there was some focus on low achievers and migrant youth. The FRG and Luxembourg established Transition Tutors, dealing with young people away from the school environment. There is apparently considerable need for coordination between guidance agencies. Useful experience was gained in the way young people can help each other with guidance in mutual support groups. c) Many pilot projects focused on the needs of young women. These have contributed to an Action Handbook and to a Resolution to promote Equal Opportunity in Education, adopted by the Council of Ministers (Education), June 1985. Some projects produced curriculum unit models to raise awareness of gender stereotyping and its affects on choices of training (Scotland for example). To combat apathy for those who have failed the system or, who are disadvantaged by it, was a pragmatic challenge. Action on the curriculum produced alternative units and short-course modules. These tended to be helpful and more negotiable between student and teacher. Premises were revamped and made adaptable to the transition process. A consensus grew to extend to all a basic qualification. Either remedial action was necessary on existing school-leaving assessment, or its appropriateness needed to be challenged. A new system is implied which recognizes achievement within the individual. A record of work done, not standards achieved, should be presented to potential employers. At times a ‘third place’ approach was adopted which was neither the home, nor the school. This was used in some early work with young drop-outs and unemployed youth. For example in Kreuzberg, Berlin (a 70% Turkish community) a Youth and Culture Centre

YOUTH POLICY 9

was established which was used as a platform for communication between the Turkish and German communities. Demands for ‘third place’ centres have steadily grown. d) Teacher preparation soon became a priority area, with a constant need to update to meet the changing problems facing young people. The Programme looked at some individual possibilities but had no remit to influence national teacher-training policies. Some teachers were offered a few days experience with enterprizes (Netherlands) or direct field experience teaching in industry (Greece). There was much joint learning with the students. Conclusions and Policy Messages from the Transition Programme There is value in the freedom of experimental work and although not all results are replaceable, the models demand further investigation. Where something is particulary successful for a region it can be taken further at that level. The Programme challenged the belief by schools that they were surrounded by barriers. A more entrepreneurial attitude has been adopted. Headteachers play a vital role since the programme requires internal flexibility; phasing in schemes as appropriate and fully exploiting co-operation. The pilot projects can be used as trials for national schemes. Where there is no tradition of pilots the Community should intervene. Themebased projects have helped in policy development. New forms of co-operation can now be recognized. Networks for placements, enterprise education, computer links and environmental projects are growing. Some of these links are beginning to be supported by a wideranging exchanges programme. The whole emphasis is on increasing expertise in the management of innovation. Great lessons were learnt from the Transition Programme which have led to other linked approaches to training. In particular a clearer and more motivated response to vocational training has emerged.

10 YOUTH POLICY

Vocational Training: the PETRA Programme General common principles of vocational training within the Community were accepted in April 1963 in the Treaty of Rome to encourage a better use of educational qualifications. In April 1987 the Economic and Social Committee, with reference to Article 28 of the Treaty, was consulted on the Proposal for a Council Decision Adopting an Action Programme for the Training and Preparation of Young People for Adult and Working Life. The need for new skills was obvious. Where there were high levels of structural unemployment this fell heavily on young people. Jobs could be found when the appropriate training had been secured. The Commission though, was concerned not to promote purely specialist training, but to encourage a social awareness. If a school education does not cover social security systems, health care, environmental protection, health and money management, then these subjects should be covered in vocational training. Nothing the Commission proposes can supplant the efforts of Member States, but the EC priority is to support structurally the weaker regions. Vocational training for all who require it should last from one to two years, with courses adapting to suit changing needs. Whenever course examinations become comparable they should be registered at a national and Community level. If there is to be a single domestic market with free movement of workers, the latter must have portable and comparable qualifications. Competition to provide quality training should be encouraged between firms, the state education systems and private establishments, which the Community can coordinate. Providing more vocational training cannot in itself be the sole contributor to reviving the labour market. Funds on a small scale were proposed to focus on priorities. To back this, a Committee of high-level policy experts drawn from the Member States could exchange views and develop proposals which reach towards harmonization. The Decision on Vocational Training Bearing in mind these arguments the Council reached a decision in December 1987 for a five-year programme, starting from January 1988, with an interim report before January 1990. The Commission will

YOUTH POLICY 11

support policies where Member States work towards two years of vocational training in addition to full-time compulsory schooling, which will raise standards, diversify provision and enhance the capacity of the training base to react rapidly to technological change in the economy. The Community will also take action to promote comparability in qualifications. Co-operation between the training bodies needs strengthening. It is important to avoid ad hoc or temporary structures. It has now been agreed that the training should: concentrate on improving access to labour-markets, improve working conditions (particulary health and safety), establish equal participation for young women, concentrate on those most at risk of failure (those with specific disadvantages or disabilities), and encourage young people to become equipped with new enterprize skills. The Commission is set to launch a European network of training initiatives. It will assist, through the transition type projects, a better induction into vocational training and promote especially those projects which involve young people in their planning, organization and implementation. Also to be encouraged are exchanges of vocational training specialists as an extension of the programme administered by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP), based in Berlin. PETRA On implementation, the vocational training scheme has taken the acronymn Petra. The targeting of technical assistance to lesser-developed regions will concentrate on Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, particularly to ensure their participation in the network of training initiatives. About 160 projects are to take place in the period 1988– 89. (1990 will see further projects admitted.) The estimated budget for 1988 was ECU 8m. For 1990 and beyond the Programme may be financed, at least in part, from the European Social Fund (ESF). Most nominations to the group of National Policy Coordinators have been drawn from both the Employment (Labour) and Education ministries in view of their shared responsibilities in this field. The Commission assists European-level interaction by circulating project profiles by arranging theme-based workshops, providing contact study visit grants and generally supporting interchange.

12 YOUTH POLICY

Youth Initiative Projects Within the PETRA scheme about 120 grants of up to ECU 10,000 are available each year for projects managed by and for young people. These are complementary to the usual institutional arrangements for training and guidance. Projects will be selected within the priorities of the whole Petra programme. Support and Research The PETRA Support Unit is based at IFAPLAN in Brussels which is an independent body working on a contractual basis. The Commission’s review of national youth training measures in 1985 revealed the need to conduct surveys into young people’s experience in education and training provision; importantly, on their progress through the two systems. There will also be a regular review of skill qualifications throughout the Member States. A PETRA directory has been published by IFAPLAN which outlines the key bodies in the system. For those already in work, the Commission has sought to promote mobility with varying degrees of success. The Young Worker Programme One of the oldest programmes in the consideration of youth as a target for intervention, the Young Worker Initiative, had a slow start. It evolved through the 1980s into a programme which faced change as opposed to its original intention of being a facilitator of mobility. The underlying base was Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome which encourages the free movement of labour within the Community. The programme has now progressed into its third phase (1984–89). Over 4, 500 young people were exchanged in 1988; the broad objective being to enable participants to gain vocational experience, sample life in another country, and to improve their basic language skills. They aim to meet their counterparts in a working environment which will improve their general understanding of manufacturing, retail, technological and service industries. Participants must be aged between eighteen and twenty-eight and have received basic vocational training. However, more and more, young people who are seeking employment may apply to participate in the programme.

YOUTH POLICY 13

The programme has two options: long-term and short-term. The short-term option offers young people a programme of organized meetings and visits over a period of three weeks, occasionally four weeks. This tends to focus on a particular facet of an industry; a specific sector or perhaps a profession. Built-in are some social and cultural activities. The main objective is immersion, for however brief a period. Background on the economic, social and political climate is also provided. The long-term option offers a period of practical workexperience with an employer. Projects generally last from four to six months, although longer placements are offered by some countries. Funding for approved projects is provided by the Commission to cover general expenses when in the other country, plus up to 75% of participants’ return travel costs. Recognizing the difficulty of young working people in coming to grips with the demands made in dealing with a foreign language at the work-place, those who have basic language training find the opportunity more rewarding, and, on general longer-term schemes, foreign-language courses are provided. The Third Stage of the Young Worker Programme An interim report on the Third Joint five-year Programme was issued, 8 July 1988. It reaffirms that 16% of the entire population of the Member States are aged eighteen to twenty-eight (some 52 million people). The vast majority fall into the two categories of employed or unemployed. Following the Second Joint Programme (1979–84), the recession hardened, especially in relation to youth unemployment, which led the programme to be extended to ‘young job-seekers’ (the unemployed) and the Third Programme was opened up to all bodies or groups capable of operating at a European level, including youth organizations; naturally, to be approved by the Commission. Exchanges are set within their short-term (three to twelve weeks maximum) framework or long-term (four to sixteen months) framework. The language courses which generally precede the long-term option can be up to eight weeks in duration. In exceptional cases some short-term projects have had preparatory language courses. Short-term, the maximum flat-rate weekly support per trainee was ECU 180 per week for traditional projects; ECU 200 per week for innovatory projects. Language course supplementary contributions were ECU 120, and the maximum return travel costs were set at 75%. Longterm maximum weekly flat rates were ECU 100 (traditional) and ECU

14 YOUTH POLICY

120 (innovatory); the language flat-rate contribution remained the same as short-term at ECU 120, as did travel costs at 75%. Apart from setting the basic rules the administration of the scheme is decentralized. The running of projects is mainly the responsibility of the promoting organizations, although other promoters with recognized credentials can receive a subsidy from the Commission. At the national level, each Member States nominates a government representative as co-ordinator. Contracts are set between the Commission and the promoting bodies for implementing the exchanges. Since the scheme has been operating for some time, the Commission was keen to involve the new members of the Community, Spain and Portugal. In both countries a national body took responsibility in 1986. Those who receive subsidies operate at either a European or national level. A wide range of promoting bodies has led to a growing variation in the sectors covered by the exchanges. By the end of 1987, the Commission had eighteen principal promoters and had given subsidies to seven new bodies to operate. In addition to acting as a co-ordinator, the Commission sees it has a role in assisting the provision of adequate information about the Community’s objectives and functions. It has therefore worked towards putting together a package of audio-visual material and documentation which explains the programme and the Community in a style suitable for all relevant target groups. With the rapid innovation and acceleration of youth-oriented programmes this has not yet emerged in a satisfactory way, although a number of videos and brochures have been produced. What are the Practical Results of the Young Worker Programme? Firstly, the programme was hampered financially with its budget decreasing from ECU 2.25m in 1984 to ECU 2m in 1985. However, the increasing number of short-term exchanges counter-balanced any fall in the number of participants. In 1986 and 1987, ECU 4.5m each year allowed some development. The figures clearly reflect the financial stimulus. The number of trainees in 1985 was 1,309; 1986–3,109 and 1987–3,341. At the same time there was also a decline in the average cost from ECU 1,528 in 1985 to ECU 1,347 in 1987, which reflects not only the increasing number of short-term projects, but also the growing experience of the operators. Other sources of funding are also to be

YOUTH POLICY 15

sought (Article 8 of the 1984 agreement) to supplement the support of the Commission. The long-term programme declined as employment prospects for youth decreased generally. Young people were reluctant to leave jobs, even temporarily, to participate. A kind of ‘medium-term’ option emerges usually around thirteen to sixteen weeks duration, often preceded by a very short language training course. This appears to be a happy compromise for best value from the programme. Geographical participation still focuses on the centre of the Community, despite the strong promotion of actions for the peripheral and disadvantaged regions. A balance is maintained in the reciprocity of exchanges; most countries sending and receiving on an equal basis. On the broad sectoral base of industry, trainee weeks were divided approximately as follows: 25% in the primary sector, 25% in the secondary sector and 50% in the tertiary sector. No one particular industrial area received over-concentration. While seeking a balance, the Commission has encouraged exchanges in new technologies, particularly information technologies. This is where the term ‘innovative’ is used to give incentive to those undertaking exchanges in new or neglected areas. The ratio of projects in the ‘innovative’, as opposed to the ‘traditional’, economic sectors was 1:2 in 1986. The alteration is perceptible, and perhaps to some extent, subjective. Participants’ profiles also reflect a trend. More young unemployed people came directly into the programme. The ratio of unemployed to employed in 1986 was 40 to 60; whereas in 1987, it was 46 to 54. With a consistent desire to offer equality of opportunity to young women the aim was achieved with a female/male ratio of 47 to 53 in 1986 becoming 50 to 50 in 1987. The training content is meant to be complementary to the training experience already acquired in the home country. Even short-term exchanges should have a work experience component and the experience on a long-term exchange should be of such a quality as to be recognized as a qualification in the minds of employers and workers alike. To overcome remaining barriers to young-worker mobility more effort is needed to persuade governments, employers, labour organizations and naturally, young people that it is in everyone’s interest to facilitate, support and co-operate on concrete projects of exchange. The Commission does not fund every request; many being turned down due to budgetary limitations. More resources are being sought

16 YOUTH POLICY

continually. Even so the number of participants is up and the range of projects growing. A second report will emerge in 1989, accompanied by a proposal to renew the scheme. Together with that will be an evaluation study looking into the efficiency of the programme from the participants’ point of view. The Third Phase of the Young Worker Programme has been extended for another year in order to match the timetabling of other EC schemes, in particular Youth for Europe (see p.37). This implies a general position of co-ordination which has not been apparent in the previous initiatives. III The Academic Sphere Having seen something of the Commission’s response to matching training to the labour market and encouraging mobility in the fifteen to twenty-five age group, the initiatives that involve predominantly the student population cannot be ignored when considering youth policy. This may be for two reasons; first, there is a knock-on effect into the areas of job creation, job mobility and access to new learning processes for a wide-variety of young people, and second, two schemes, COMETT and ERASMUS arise from the impetus for a People’s Europe which itself leads to a flow of additional youth-based proposals. COMETT The COMETT programme (Community Action Programme in Education and Training for Technology) is framed in Title VI of the Single European Act whose underlying aim is the strengthening of the productive potential of the Community. The view is that for real competitive growth there must be highly qualified personnel. This implies a co-operation between universities and industry in technological training. Objectives The aim is to bring a European dimension to the developed application of new technology. This can be achieved through joint development of training programmes and an exchange of experience.

YOUTH POLICY 17

By bringing a European dimension to co-operation in training programmes, it is hoped to improve what is offered at local level and to identify areas of improvement. In effect is it an extension of a series of Community programmes relating to research and development ESPRIT, RACE, BRITE—and is complementary to DELTA (distance learning through new technical developments). It also relates to ERASMUS (see p.32) and fits into work being done relating to the scientific and social control of technologies in the fields of scholastic systems and vocational training (particularly EUROTECNET). COMETT has been built around four pieces of action, called ‘strands’. Strand A is to set up in stages a network of University Enterprise Training Partnerships (UETPs). These can have a regional basis, or concentrate on industrial sectors. They form the base for developing the training programme. Strand B covers transnational training for courses and student (or recent graduate) fellowships training in industry in another Member States. This is matched by exchanges of trainers in industry or university. Strands C and D: Through partnerships in at least two Member States, the Community supports training modules, or intensive training courses, particularly aimed at small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), or action to assist the training of trainers. The budget for COMETT in 1988 was set at ECU 45m (17% Strand A; 50% Strand B; 30% Strands C and D) . A Committee supports the programme by setting the terms and conditions for selection, having two representatives from each Member States. They view all bids over ECU 100,000. COMETT’S Progress COMETT’s first full year, 1987, has been evaluated. All four strands were launched at once over a whole range of technologies. Thirteen COMETT information centres were set up (two in Belgium), and technical assistance was provided by the NFP (European Centre for Strategic Management) in Brussels. In the first round 485 applications were processed, covering 1,100 projects in a wide range of technologies which had a total of ECU 200m. A strict selection criteria enabled the Committee to make its decisions. In the second round 550 new applications were received, covering 1,400

18 YOUTH POLICY

projects, evenly spread amongst the Member States. The Commission felt that the whole process was a great success. Some 1,500 enterprises, 900 universities and 750 professional agencies were involved. An analysis of regional distribution of funds reveals the correlation between participating rates and existing imbalances within each Member States of the location of Higher Education centres and industrial research bases. With the first phase completed, COMETT looks to set up a data bank of agreed projects, located in Luxembourg, and to establish an interactive electronic messenger service between UETPs. An information bulletin provides a focus on projects. Complete studies have been done on the legal and administrative obstacles to co-operation between educational institutions and industry; training in industry for students of higher education; the needs of staff in higher education when working with industry; and the quality of linguistic and cultural skills needed by those participating. COMETT II The second phase of COMETT will: concentrate on supplying advanced training at local, regional and national level; support a European dimension to inter-university co-operation; encourage the development of joint training and experimental programmes; and develop training in response to technological change. The Council has adopted a Decision authorizing negotiations on opening up COMETT II to EFTA countries (Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland). At the moment negotiations are taking place with each relevant country in turn. The budget is 200 million ECU for five years (1990–94). A sum of 40% will go on exchanges (Strand B); 40% to training in advanced technologies and multi-media distance learning (Strand C); 12% to the European network, UEPTs (Strand A) and 8% for complementary measures (Strand D). There is a distinct possibility of building bridges between COMETT Strand B and ERASMUS. ERASMUS The ERASMUS programme (the EC action scheme for the mobility of university students) also developed in the context of moves to create a so-called ‘People’s Europe’. This action programme was described by

YOUTH POLICY 19

the Commission in the annual report for its first year in 1987 as ‘A programme of hope for the young people of Europe’. The general aim is to improve EC competitiveness by putting the intellectual resources of the Community to better use. This is to be done by giving a greater number of students first-hand experience of living and working in another Member State through a period of integrated study. The term ‘university’ has a rough definition in this context as being all types of post-secondary and training establishments which offer an advanced qualification. To this extent the EC has some 3,500 higher education institutions. A budget of ECU 85m was set for three years from July 1987 to July 1990 (divided annually as MECU 10, 30, and 45). Early funding focused on establishing a ‘European university network’, then on supporting a system of student grants. A further MECU 1.2 made available in 1987 assisted joint-study programmes. Demand outstripped the supply of support funds by a ratio of 3 to 1; for student grants the ratio was 5 to 1. In the first year, out of 868 application, 398 Interuniversity Co-operation Programmes (ICPs) were established, involving 850 educational institutions. Around 3,000 students undertook a period of study with some 3,000 administrators and teachers moving on 1,138 agreements. There were some difficulties in the first stages. The UK, France, Germany and Ireland were quick to come forward with ICPs, but Italy, Greece, Portugal and Denmark were less able to do so. With respect to subjects covered, the natural sciences, medicine and teacher-training were clearly under-represented. There was also some imbalance in the allocation of student grants. All students applying from Denmark, Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal were supported, whereas in Germany, France, Ireland and the UK, due to demand, only one in five applicants was successful. In the framework of a ‘European University Network’, co-operation between the establishments is vital to prevent undue prolongation of a course of study and to encourage workable arrangements at department and faculty level. Support for staff mobility needs to be on a surer footing than short-term guest lecturing. Priority is given to reciprocal arrangements in the same or differing academic fields. The period of study should be from three to six months; short study visits, conferences and field study not being eligible. The grant goes to support the travel and stay in another country for university staff planning and developing a programme. It assists the preparation and translation of teaching materials. Also supported is the preparation of

20 YOUTH POLICY

students, including language training. Actual salary costs are not supported. For each mobility programme for students, a maximum grant of ECU 25,000 per annum per institution is on offer, though the actual sums awarded are usually lower. Exchanges of teaching staff which should also be reciprocal, are eligible for aid to develop and operate the programme; this includes assistance for travel and subsistence expenses incurred abroad. Over a three-month period the maximum sum granted is ECU 3,500 per member of staff with up to ECU 2,500 personnel replacement costs to the institution. The maximum package for programme costs is ECU 5,000 per institution per year, which would include translation of materials and specific linguistic preparation for the teaching staff. The Commission has appointed representatives from the academic world to form an academic advisory group which gives regular expert guidance on the implementation of the programme. Grants were set at a maximum of ECU 5,000 per student per year. This supported travel, language preparation and variations in the cost of living. A grant is only awarded when the home university offers full recognition to the period away. No tuition fees should be involved and first-year students may not apply. For the period 1987–88, the FRG, Spain and the Netherlands designated a central national agency for awarding grants, while in the other countries ICP members did the distribution. The allocation of potential grants to each Member State was based on the number of eighteen to twenty-five year-olds registered as students relative to the Community as a whole. The allocation was increased in some cases on the basis of distance and relative price indexing. Unused allocations were redistributed. ERASMUS has a so-called ‘Action 3’ in its programme to promote recognition of academic qualifications. This is associated with the EC Course Credit Transfer System (ECTS). Over ninety universities expressed interest in participating in this system. The EC has instituted a ‘Network of Academic Recognition Centres’ (NARIC), integrated into the ERASMUS scheme. For the development of joint curricula which assists this process, grants for up to 20,000 ECU are given to the universities. The structure is now underpinned by the ERASMUS Bureau, based in Brussels (formerly the Office for Cooperation in Education).

YOUTH POLICY 21

To bring this section a full circle it is appropriate to return to the formal secondary education sector, where one of the most recent Commission initiatives is reaching its final stages: the LINGUA programme. LINGUA In December 1988 the Commission adopted this programme, subtitled ‘A major asset to the achievement of the single market’. Lack of good communication skills in a foreign language is a genuine handicap to the free movement of people and has implications for business and trading connections. The two central objectives of LINGUA are to enable European citizens to communicate better by a quantitative and qualitative improvement in the teaching of foreign languages, and to ensure that the work-force of the future has the linguistic expertise to take advantage of the market place. The first phase of the programme is for five years, 1990–94, with an estimated budget of ECU 250m. LINGUA arises from a decision based on Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome, which covers guidelines on all measures of vocational training, and Article 235, covering issues related to schools and curricula. The first year is seen as a preparatory one, with the main activity commencing in year two. The target is to involve up to 20% of the schools and vocational training institutions in the EC. A five-year programme span is proposed, based on the experience of COMETT and ERASMUS which were for the shorter duration of three years. It is felt that disruption to the regular base of the participating establishment soaks up much of the first two years in a programme, preventing adequate evaluation. Article 5 of the LINGUA programme aims to encourage young people to acquire a working knowledge of two Community languages other than their own. In particular, university students are encouraged to take a foreign language alongside their main discipline. Naturally, teachers are encouraged to improve their language skills and employers to offer appropriate language training at the work-place. As with other schemes, a co-ordinating committee with two members from each country will supervise the scheme. The Annex to the main articles of LINGUA proposes (in Action 1) financial aid for a body in each Member States to support educational exchanges lasting a minimum of fourteen days, organized as an integral part of school and vocational training programmes. Participants should be aged thirteen to eighteen and a target of 5% of schools in the EC, rising to the 20% figure in 1994, is mooted. Financial aid would not

22 YOUTH POLICY

normally exceed 80% of the total journey and programme expenses. Criteria for any higher rate will be established by the Commission. The amount of grant allocated to each Member States will take into account demographic factors, average resources available to young people in each country, distance, and the balance of exchanges within the Community. Priority for grant support is to be for: specific skill improvement in a foreign language; projects which give an insight into the working life of a country; those young people who lack the opportunity or the motivation to learn a foreign language; and the less widely-used languages of the Community. Preparatory visits to set up these exchanges will have grants of ECU 500 each. During the initial phase financial aid will be on an experimental basis. Joint applications will be invited from institutions submitting a three-year development plan for the necessary teaching materials. In the start-up phase not more than four projects will be supported for each language. Schools which establish joint projects to intensify language teaching can submit a three-year plan. A maximum of fifty schools per Member State will be assisted. The schools selected will be invited to develop a Community-wide network of exchange and mutual support. It is likely that with the strong objections of the UK towards the extension of the EC Commission’s competence into the area of secondary education, that not all of the elements of LINGUA will proceed at once. Those elements of the programme which will stimulate language skills in vocational and business schemes should make initial progress. Social Education The spirit of a People’s Europe has also attempted to encourage the Commission to include the general contact on a human level which can build the delicate social fabric of a harmonized Europe. This has led to a series of discussion proposals over the years, particularly focusing on young people, which have tried to stimulate mobility of a less academic or vocational intent. Accepting the need for interchange of young people on the verge of adulthood for even the shortest of periods led finally to the agreement of a ‘Youth for Europe’ scheme in May 1988.

YOUTH POLICY 23

Youth for Europe—a Youth Exchange Programme In order to facilitate a general traffic in the movement of young people, it has been felt for a long time by both youth organizations and a growing number of MEPs that the Commission should intervene with a modest, yet positive, contribution towards basic youth exchanges. By that we are looking at the elementary desire of young people to move and meet each other as equals in an atmosphere of good will and understanding. Naturally, too open a scheme would be hard to administer and may be abused. Since at least 1983, reports from European Parliamentary sub-groups like the Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport Committees, have made recommendations. Eventually, in June 1988, the Council of Ministers formally agreed to an action programme, though not at the financial level generally proposed by the youth agencies and some Member States. What Kind of Exchanges? The Commission and its advisers were enthusiastic to bring to the mobility process the less advantaged of the Community’s youth. By this they meant those who for economic, social or geographical reasons missed out on the opportunity to meet constructively with their peers. This also meant those whose view of another country may have been jaundiced by cheap commercial tourism. The experience, therefore, becomes defined almost always as shortterm, due to the resources and confidence of the young people concerned. However, one major emphasis is that where possible, exchange projects, should be created, implemented and managed by the young people themselves. The age-grouping is fifteen to twenty-five years and the minimum duration of a project is one week. The Commission support includes grants towards the hosting or travel costs of a group (Action A) . In addition (Action B), there is a programme of support arrangements for short study tours which will enable organizers of exchanges to spend up to seven days in another Member State on a familiarization exercise. This study-visit grouping is multinational in character. The third component (Action C) offers administrative start-up grants for up to two years for organizations which have formed themselves at a European level and who wish to undertake a programme of youth exchanges.

24 YOUTH POLICY

Agencies supported in 1989 included the European Confederation of Youth Clubs; EUROCO (a work-based project to give technical skills to disadvantaged young people) and Internationale Bouworde (workcamps which integrate young people from other cultures into the host Community). To give infrastructural support, money is available to each Member State to build an active administration and support service for youth exchanges (Action D). To make the organizers on the ground better at their exchange job, training at a European level is proposed to stimulate skills, with an emphasis on how to build the European dimension into a youth exchange process (Action E). Finally, Action F encourages information support services which can supply young people with fresh and adequate information on mobility questions in general and exchange programmes in particular. The overall budget is ECU 18.5m which will run from June 1988 to December 1991. An advisory committee composed of two nominees from each Member State oversees the working of the scheme, while a centrally supported European Community Youth Exchange Bureau (ECYEB) based in Brussels assists the day to day working of the scheme. The ECYEB has some administrative duties and also supervises progress on the Young Worker Exchange Programme. The Grants System of Youth for Europe In dealing with a broad target-group, and one which is difficult to define precisely, the Commission has agreed to decentralize the mechanics of grant-giving to a series of national agencies. Groups of young people, some eight to thirty in number, with a joint maximum of sixty in any one project (which may have additional designated leaders) will apply to their national agency for support. Although many proposals will be bilateral in nature, Youth for Europe does permit applications for support from trilateral or multilateral projects, within the same maximum number of participants. Priority is given to contact-building between the geographical extremes of the Community and each project is meant to reflect a learning process about Europe. The national agencies will communicate regularly and a full evaluation of the scheme will be undertaken by the ECYEB. Multilateral projects from European-level youth agencies will be dealt with in the first instance by the ECYEB. The Youth for Europe exchanges scheme will be diverse and divergent within each Member States, but it does offer an access point

YOUTH POLICY 25

to the Community. It is also complementary to the other more technical and academic initiatives. A new development in Youth for Europe is the promotion of youth exchanges in Eastern Europe (Appendix 1). Youth Organizations Although the Commission has a desire to support new European-wide networks of youth agencies, it is not selective and sets no priorities for the activities of such agencies. Youth associations fiercely retain their independence. Such associations vary greatly in their approach to the issues affecting young people. However, closer co-operation between bodies such as National Youth Councils and an awareness that youth has a voice in the particularly ‘modern’ issues of environment, energy, drug-abuse and health education has led, more and more, to a European dimension in the policy, management and programmes of the voluntary youth movements. ‘The Youth Forum of the European Community’ is the political platform of national and international youth organizations. It has a small full-time staff and its chief officers are elected by the member organizations. The Youth Forum strongly supports the idea of a ‘Youth Portfolio’ being set up under a single Commissioner, backed by administrative support. By the end of 1992, whatever youth policies emerge, the Youth Forum is adamant that there should be no groups penalized as a result of discrimination which could arise against the young people of ECresident migrant families. Any other potential negative side-effects of the single market should also be offset by positive social policies. Alongside the Commission’s main interests, the Youth Forum would like more progress on a non-commercially based European Youth Card. This is a discount and access scheme which has been piloted in France, Portugal and Scotland, mostly with commercial sponsors. The hope is that all young Europeans can benefit from carrying the card, not simply as a financial proposition, but also as a tool for mobility. In the same hope, the Youth Forum supports a previously wellestablished proposal for a European-level system of voluntary community service, whereby young people would give of their time and energy to help those from other Member States who are severely disadvantaged. This kind of service would offer a longer experience without necessarily demanding a high level of technical expertise. In a recent edition of its journal, Youth Opinion (July 1988) the Youth Forum expressed ‘cautious optimism’ towards the various

26 YOUTH POLICY

measures adopted by the Commission which affect young people. There is a very strong view that the vocational training programmes should not be used to reduce unemployment figures artificially, nor to depress youth wages. One recent initiative (February 1989) of another DG, this time Development (DG VIII), has looked to contribute towards a particular kind of activity in youth organizations. Development Education As part of Article 955 of the Community Budget the Commission, through the Directorate General for Development, is contributing towards a programme which will raise the awareness of development education amongst European youth. The 1989 budget amounts to ECU 300,000, part of which will go towards a specially convened youth conference in November 1989 on ‘The European Community and North-South Interdependence’. The prime objective of the conference is to bring together representatives of youth organizations in order for them to strengthen networks and pursue action on development issues at both a national and European level. The remaining budgetary support is aimed at projects which improve co-ordination, or target specific awareness raising programmes at a European youth audience. These can be in the form of seminars, publications and administrative structures, with a maximum grant of ECU 20,000 for each action. This is of considerable interest to the many small, inadequately resourced youth organizations operating in this field. IV The European Parliament and Youth Questions A very wide-ranging committee touches on youth affairs in the European Parliament: this is the Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport (YCEIS). This catch-all committee produces many reports and several are translated into resolutions or recommendations. A recent proposal in the areas of social education has emerged around the growing desire to see more productive use of town twinning and civic linking agreements.

YOUTH POLICY 27

The Town Twinning Proposal Twinning schemes have existed for some fifty years and are a foundation stone of intra-European cooperation. However, they are unevenly distributed; patchy in activity; under-resourced and often slide into stagnation. The YCEIS Committee proposes more contact through decentralized projects which will bring about exchanges, especially of young people. A draft budget was proposed for 1989 to reduce the cost of travel to more remote towns; improve existing twinning; establish information facilities; improve links for small communities; increase student and young worker exchanges; and create reciprocal language courses. Governments were urged to overcome any administrative problems to linking while current twinnings were encouraged to diversify. Currently, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) has a number of EC links, whereas the United Towns Organization (UTO) focuses on large towns worldwide. Over 6,000 links are recorded by CEMR: Federal Republic of Germany (2,000); France (1,900); UK (1,000); Italy (270); Belgium (200); Netherlands (180); and others, including Austria and Switzerland (500). Twinning should be productive through constructive events in the cultural, sporting and scholastic fields. A pooling of experience and economic know-how could see clear joint initiatives in areas such as the environment, drugs control and the integration of disabled people. The YCEIS Committee estimates the average budget to support each twinning locally to be around ECU 3–7, 000, which is obviously low per capita. The priority should be to support initiatives which improve knowledge of the Community’s languages; encourage young people to travel and establish new twinning in the context of the single market. Cultural understanding is a key factor. The report recommended a budget of ECU 10.5m to cover some 3, 000 operations. Logistical support could be subsidized by ECU 500,000, making a complete budget total of ECU 12.3m. The practical results of this proposal are awaited. The 1989 budget for the improvement of twinning links is ECU 3m. It is not clear how far this initiative will contribute to youth mobility.

28 YOUTH POLICY

Racism One other area which has consistently concerned the YCEIS Committee is racism and xenophobia. After a series of reports, the Commission introduced three special legal proposals in the areas of information, education and training. To combat prejudice, the Commission proposed a comparative assessment of legal instruments already in place in each Member States, including legal texts and precedents, in order to highlight positive action against racism. To add to this, studies were commissioned in the ways in which different groups perceived democratic values and the functioning of inter-communal relations. They encouraged anti-racist training for those public servants who came into contact with immigrants and for teachers who work with the immigrant youth population. The latter includes the promotion of original language and cultural heritage. The overall objective is to impress the values of pluralism and tolerance on young Europeans. This naturally leads to the consideration that any youth exchange programme should ultimately be extended to the countries of origin of the present European ethnic mix. The YCEIS Committee was concerned to preserve the use of minority languages, including the right of migrant workers to retain access to their language and culture. This has been emphasized in a series of resolutions from 1981–83, although nothing concrete has really emerged. Minority Languages There are nine official and many minority languages spoken by the residents of the Community. The YCEIS committee recommends that unofficial languages should be taught in schools, and associations supporting their upkeep supported. Direct legal backing should be given for the use of minority languages in administration (such as placenames). They push for greater recognition of the Dublin-based ‘Bureau for Lesser Used Languages’ which was set up in 1982. The first colloquium for young people from regions where minority languages are spoken took place in Brittany in September 1985. The main recommendation from that is that exchange programmes should take account of such young people.

YOUTH POLICY 29

Problems in Sport In November 1987 the YCEIS Committee reported on the problems of vandalism and violence in sport, partly as a reaction to the Heysel Stadium disaster. Previously, resolutions to produce a positive European policy on sport had not met with much success (October 1985). The Committee sought to strengthen the co-ordination of information between Member States; particularly legal measures to facilitate the extradition of hooligans guilty of serious offences. Controls on violence in and around sports grounds were also urged, for example in the sale of alcohol and ticketing procedures. A preventative policy is urged to educate young people away from violence. Campaigns on fair-play should be directed at parents, schools and sports coaches. Young people should be encouraged to join organized sport, and clubs should take initiatives to draw in disaffected youth. The Committee wished to stimulate more European-wide events for amateurs and increase exchanges of young sports people. V National Government Ministerial Responsibility No two Member States are alike in their response to youth questions. Cabinet responsibility ranges across the culture, education, interior and employment portfolios. It is no easy matter to draw together ‘Ministers of Youth’ to pronounce on European-wide youth policy. The Council of Europe has had some success in pulling together ministerial officials whose departments of state lead on youth affairs, but this has been a fairly cosmetic exercise. In the EC an understanding has been reached that Ministers responsible for youth policy might meet periodically. The first unofficial meeting was in Athens in July 1988. Under their presidency of the EC in the first half of 1989, the Spanish offered to arrange a more structured highlevel meeting on youth affairs. It should fall to the French presidency to convene the meeting at the end of 1989. The Athens meeting supported more creative events by young people and more networking in education, job mobility and other areas of cooperation. Direct aid was emphasized towards new employment projects which were themselves set up by young people. It is to be noted that the European Social Fund has ECU 3.2 billion which supports

30 YOUTH POLICY

employment activity for young people within its overall structural support. Future meetings of Ministers having a concern for youth matters should have clear objectives with something quite specific to discuss. Otherwise there is a tendency towards vagueness which would lose the political will of those attending. Demographic trends may imply that young people will become less of a ‘problem’ in European thinking and more of a scarce resource. It is certain that there will be political initiatives to come to terms with a youth policy which fits the spirit and direction of a Peoples’ Europe. VI European Parliamentary Debate MEPs have shown interest in youth questions. It is not clear what the level of debate has been since no analysis is readily available, but the key issues of unemployment and social stability appear regularly. Written questions reveal an interest in unemployment trends amongst the under-25s, the growth of fascism amongst young people facing mass unemployment, and funding mechanisms for youth seminar centres. There is also some anxiety about young peoples’ attitude towards the Community. MEPs have also sought initiatives over drugs through using European Social Fund monies to set up special advice and treatment centres. Some concern has also been expressed on soccer hooliganism, supporting projects which act creatively with provision rather than punishment. Work in the Netherlands has been cited as a positive example. However, once such items touch upon such matters as public order, they become the responsibility of each Member States and not that of the EC. There is always a debate concerning Community and/or Member States’ responsibility which permeates the process of decisions and actions in the life of the Parliament. In looking at European systems which affect young people it is relevant to conclude by briefly looking at some of the organizations which handle youth affairs in the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe and Youth Questions The Council of Europe with its headquarters in Strasbourg promotes cooperation amongst its twenty-two Member States as an older and entirely separate body from the European Community. Membership is

YOUTH POLICY 31

open to European parliamentary democracies. If a government stops being democratic it can be expelled. The most tangible types of co-operative agreement reached by the Member States come in the form of international treaties or conventions which become incorporated into the laws of countries which ratify them. The most widely known of these is the European Convention on Human Rights which dates back to the first treaty agreement of 1950. There are special input conferences by Ministers, which include youth and there are very specific structures which support the activities of youth organizations. The European Youth Centre and the European Youth Foundation To allow young people to participate in the work of international institutions the Council of Europe set up the Youth Centre and the Youth Foundation (later complemented by the Youth Forum of the European Community). The Youth Centre arose from a decision by the Committee of Ministers in 1967. There is also an Ad Hoc Committee of Experts to Promote Intergovernmental Co-operation in the Field of Youth. Most international youth organizations have members in a majority of Council of Europe states. They represent a wide variety of interests from party politics to religious movements; trade union organizations to work-camp programmes and many others. The European Youth Centre opened its present facilities in 1978. It is an educational institution designed to provide the European-level youth organizations with a venue for running courses and seminars. It can accommodate up to seventy-five people and has a professional staff of tutors who can give technical assistance. The 1987 programme had 1,400 participants with operational costs of FF 15 million. Many of the course topics are related to the training of the future leaders of organizations in European affairs, whereas others cover youth topics such as unemployment, peace, disarmament, the north-south dialogue and drug abuse. The Centre also runs four-week language courses in the UK, FRG, Italy and Spain for members of youth organizations. The European Youth Foundation was established in 1972 to provide financial support for international youth activities by giving grants to the member organizations with a budget in 1987 of FF 10.5 million.

32 YOUTH POLICY

The Centre and the Foundation produce a bulletin three times a year, ‘Youth of the 22’, which contains reports on supported activities and deals with a specific theme concerning international youth work. Other Forms of Co-operation The Ad Hoc Committee on Youth Questions, set up in 1981, concerns itself with issues which: could require joint action by governments; pools information; and advises on the development of youth exchange programmes. In December 1985, during the International Youth Year, the first conference of European Ministers responsible for youth was held in Strasbourg. It was agreed to hold regular meetings and a second conference took place in Norway in 1988. The Council of Europe agenda for Youth Ministers follows closely the kind of issues developing in the meetings promulgated by the Commission of the European Community. There is a European Co-ordination Bureau of International Youth Organizations (ECB) which has twenty-six members. The ECB promotes co-operation between various institutions dealing with youth issues through raising the profile of the work of international youth agencies. The Council of European National Youth Committees (CENYC) coordinates the work of National Youth Councils, having seventeen members (all EC countries except France). CENYC played a useful role in creating an East/West framework through the All European Youth and Student Co-operation which was established in 1980. Although these organizations tend naturally to involve ‘organized’ youth who are clearly not the majority of young people, they are important vehicles for conveying opinion and communicating responses on issues which affect young people in a two-way process. New international youth organizations are emerging to meet the challenge of a changing European social landscape which will have some, however limited, access to the power structure of the European Community and the Council of Europe.

CONCLUSION

There are a vast number of subject areas which could, or should, warrant intervention from the EC Commission. Whilst these subject areas are constantly developing, it is clear that youth mobility is enhanced when greater resources are made available and when access to particular activities is eased. A fully-formed and effective EC youth policy would enhance the social fabric of the Community and also ensure its future vitality. How such a policy will be constructed, with what research and analysis, and with what input from those representing youth questions, cannot at present be made clear. By a process of accretion, acquiring a broader range and depth of programmes, the EC Commission accrues to itself a greater interventionist role in youth affairs. The marrying of programmes to policy is a complex task which may not gain the full, or partial, support, of every Member States. There is a strong feeling against interference in the education rights of each country, most vocal in the UK, but it is a feeling also adopted elsewhere. Any efforts to extend the competence of the EC into the youth field may fall foul of a wider political debate over sovereignty. Other countries such as Portugal are positively active in pushing a coherent youth policy forward and it is the hope of most that cooperation precludes confrontation. Co-operation can stimulate healthy discussion of problems which affect young people and which the EC could be encouraged to address. In areas such as information for young people, both about mobility and employment opportunities, there is much work to be done. Member States are designing their own systems for delivering youth information and it will be extremely difficult to harmonize structures to ensure a seamless efficiency both in access and input. What is needed and demanded by young people in one corner of the European Community may not be the same in form and content as another.

34 YOUTH POLICY

In more specific forms of mobility such as the Community programmes outlined above, the Commission is beginning to play a role in facilitating improved information for the national networks. Some cohesion is needed at national and European level if the array of programmes is not to fragment and each grow in isolation. Whether the Human Resources Task-Force emerges as a separate Directorate General is certain to be a long and complex debate. What it should do, is serve to highlight the issues which face a future generation of Europeans. This concentration of minds could bring a concentration of resources which, whilst in itself a problem, may put a more human face on the bureaucracy and bring to the fore a People’s Europe.

SECTION II

36

DOCUMENTS EMANATING FROM THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

38 YOUTH POLICY

YOUTH POLICY 39

40 YOUTH POLICY

YOUTH POLICY 41

42 YOUTH POLICY

YOUTH POLICY 43

44

APPENDIX 1: ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO YOUTH EXCHANGES BETWEEN EC COUNTRIES AND COMECON COUNTRIES

European Youth Exchange Exchanges of young people between the European Community and those European COMECON countries who have diplomatic relations with the Community (1). Preliminary remarks 1. The European Parliament has created a budget line of ECU 100,000 for the exchanges of young people between the Member States, of the European Community and those European COMECON countries who have diplomatic relations with the Community. 2. This is the f irst time such activities have been supported from the Community budget; projects should therefore be particularly carefully prepared, run, evaluated, and documented. 3. The general guidelines for the scheme follow those of the ‘Youth for Europe’ youth exchange programme; although some specific adaptations have been made. One important change, however, is that only reciprocal exchanges (i.e. those where a group of young people from the Community received first a group from the COMECON, and in turn go back to that group to be hosted there) will be eligible for support. 4. Given the limitation in time and budget, projects supported in 1989 will probably be run by those groups and organizations which have already had contacts with young people in COMECON countries, such as youth organizations (whether local, regional, national or European); or towns/regions with active twinning arrangements.

46 APPENDIX 1

However, projects will be judged on their content rather than on the basis of who proposes them. Guidelines 5. Participants; Groups of young people aged fifteen to twenty-five years residing in the Community or in COMECON countries (1). In general a group is taken to be not less than twelve and not more than sixty participants per project; some preference will be given to projects including young people from more than one Community country. 6. Projects: Projects with a coherent educational structure, carefully prepared, run, evaluated, and documented. Given the rule as to reciprocity, each project will include at least two gatherings of the group of participants: the first hosted in a Community country, the second hosted in a COMECON country. Duration of a gathering: minimum six days (excluding time for travel), normal maximum three weeks. 7. Financing; For gatherings in a Community country, the accommodation and programme costs for the whole group are eligible for grant. For gatherings in a COMECON country the travel expenses for the participants from Community countries are eligible for grant. Not more than 50% of costs will be borne by the Community, and the average grant is likely to be less than this. 8. Applications; Applicants must use application form (EYE/EC-C/3) attached to this note. It should be carefully completed, and accompanied by the necessary additional information. Applications should be sent to the European Community Youth Exchange Bureau (ECYEB) , place du Luxembourg, 2–3; B–1040 Brussels 9. Deadlines; Applications must be received by the ECYEB before 20 July 1989 for projects taking place between 15 August 1989 and 31 December 1989. Another selection will be made in the autumn. No grants will be given for projects starting before 15 August 1989. (1) Bulgaria, Czechslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, USSR.

APPENDIX 2: THE COMETT PROGRAMME

The following section describes the objectives of the COMETT Programme, the actions to be supported under the Programme, and the timetable for the implementation of the programme during 1987–89. COMETT II will operate from 1990–94, with a budget of MECU 200. A call for bids for COMETT II will be put out in November 1989 and decisions agreed by the end of February 1990. The conditions for the revised COMETT programme will extend and deepen some of the original strands. The objective of COMETT are: – to give a European dimension to co-operation between universities and enterprises in training relating to innovation, and the development and application of new technologies and related social adjustment; – to foster the joint development of training programmes, the exchange of experience, and also the optimum use of training resources at Community level; – to improve the supply of training at local, regional and national level with the assistance of the public authorities concerned, thus contributing to the balanced economic development of the Community; – to develop the level of training in response to technological and related social changes by identifying the resulting priorities in existing training arrangements which call for supplementary action both within Member States and at Community level, and by promoting egual opportunities for men and women.

48 APPENDIX 2

What Actions Will COMETT Support to Further These Objectives? COMETT will focus on five inter-related areas of action, each of which constitutes a strand within the Programme as a whole: Strand A; the development of University-Enterprise Training Partnerships (UETPs) in the framework of a European network Strand B; schemes for the exchange of students and personnel between universities and enterprises Strand C; the development and testing of joint university-enterprise projects in the field of continuing training Strand D; multilateral initiatives for the development of multi-media training systems Strand E; complementary information and evaluation measures designed to support and monitor developments of relevance to the COMETT Programme. Who Can Participate in the COMETT Programme? COMETT is a programme for the support of training initiatives between universities and enterprises. For the purpose of COMETT, the following definitions will apply: – the term ‘university’ is taken to comprise all types of post-secondary education and training establishments which offer, where appropriate within the framework of advanced training, qualifications or diplomas of that level, whatever such establishments may be called in the Member States. – the term ‘enterprise’ is taken to comprise all types of economic activity, including both large-scale companies and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SME), whatever their legal status or their manner of applying new technologies. In this context, the definition of small—or medium-sized (SME) is an enterprise employing not more than 500 persons. This definition will be understood to extend eligibility to organizations such as public authorities, financial and insurance institutions, chambers of commerce, federations of industry, and organizations representing employers or employees.

APPENDIX 2 49

– the term ‘training’ is taken to comprise all forms of training at the post-secondary level (undergraduate, postgraduate, short-cycle higher education, etc), and encompasses both initial and continuing education and training. Participation in the COMETT programme is open to all companies irrespective of size, research institutes, universities and other interested organizations acting on behalf of universities and enterprises (e.g. in the fields of student placement in enterprises or continuing education) within the European Community, provided that the training actions proposed are to be carried out in institutions situated within the European Community. Participation by universities and enterprises may take the form of financial, personnel, or equipment contributions to the project in questions. What are the General Criteria for the Selection of Projects? The following general criteria will govern the selection of projects for support under COMETT: Eligility: A. any co-operation must involve both university and enterprise in strands A, B, C and D; B. projects must be conducted within a transnational European Community framework, i.e. the project partners must come from at least two different Member States (except for strand A); C. projects must relate to post-secondary training, either at initial or continuing level (it should therefore cover both undergraduate and postgraduate training, training which may or may not lead to a formal qualification, and continuing education of all types, including conversion training); D. the areas of training involved should meet the criteria mentioned below. General criteria: E. projects should stimulate interest in a European context and serve as a model for others contemplating similar ventures;

50 APPENDIX 2

F. projects should strengthen a European sense of identity; G. a connection between the project and a major Community scientific and technical research and development programme is desirable but not a prerequisite; H. projects involving small- and medium-sized enterprises (SME) will be given particular attention; I. where scientific and technological quality is comparable, projects involving less-developed regions or regions suffering economic decline will be given particular attention; J. new training initiatives as against existing initiatives will be studied with particular interest; K. the Commission will examine with particular interest projects relating to equal opportunities for men and women; L. projects presented by industry will receive particular attention. Additionally, there are a number of more specific criteria of relevance to particular strands of the COMETT programme. These specific criteria are set out in the annual Guide for Applicants. COMETT projects must fall within the following two areas of training: Area 1 Technology, science, and management development (not management training in general) related to the research and development fields established as priority areas for European Community research development and demonstration activities. Area 2 Fields in which technological change is significantly altering skill requirements and giving rise to the need for combinations of skills or qualifications not sufficiently provided for at present; and fields concerned with the social implications of technological change (e.g. industrial relations, occupational psychology, legal questions, health and safety). Training within these areas is regarded as eligible for funding, and the Commission will take a special interest addressing new interdisciplinary skills required as a technological change, and in projects concerned with the trainers.

COMETT in projects result of training of

APPENDIX 2 51

The Funding Available: How Much And For How Long? Except in the case of strand E (information and evaluation measures), the Community support under COMETT is allocated on a principle of cost-sharing between the Community and those undertaking the project. The exact proportions of project costs to be met by the Community and by applicants are set out below. For every project supported, there is a maximum amount which can be met by the Community. These maxima vary from strand to strand and in 1988 they were as follows: The Community contribution is a ceiling amount. It should be noted that in order to assist the maximum number of projects the contribution actually awarded may be considerably less than that stated. The project costs not met by the Commission will have to be met from any other non-Community source (income, whether governmental or nongovernmental, accruing to the enterprises or universities, or combination of sources). The origin and nature of the funding not covered by the Commission must be clearly specified. The relevant application forms and detailed guidelines are to be found in the annual publication ‘Guide for Applicants’ available from the EC Commission. The first stage of the COMETT programme will be completed at the end of 1989.

52

APPENDIX 3: EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: 1989–92

APPENDIX 3: EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITY: 1989–92

54

55

56

APPENDIX 4: ERASMUS: EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ACTION SCHEME FOR THE MOBILITY OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS— GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANTS (ACADEMIC YEAR 1990–91) PUBLISHED APRIL 1989 The ERASMUS Bureau, an autonomous body of the European Cultural Foundation, assists the EC Commission in the implementation of the ERASMUS programme. Further information can be obtained from: ERASMUS Bureau 15, rue d’Arlon B–1040 Brussels Telephone: (32) (2) 233.01.11 Fax: (32) (2) 233.01.50 The academic year 1990/91 is the fourth year of implementation of the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS), adopted by the Council of the European Communities on 15 June 1987. In the context of ERASMUS, the term ‘university’ is used to describe all types of higher education institutions—regardless of their designation in the individual Member Statess—which are either State sector institutions or, alternatively, recognized, or financed by the Public Authorities. Continuing education is not part of the ERASMUS programme. Financial Support to Universities Inter-university Co-operation Programmes (ICPs) The aim of ERASMUS financial support is to encourage universities of different Member States to establish amongst themselves interuniversity co-operation programmes (ICPs) concerning one or several of the following activities:

58 APPENDIX 4

– – – –

student mobility programmes; teaching staff mobility programmes; joint development of new curricula; intensive programmes.

Support for the above activities may be cumulative. Moreover, grants may be awarded to enable the preparation of new co-operation programmes for one or more of these activities. Co-operation in the fields of research or continuing education are not eligible for ERASMUS financial support. Inter-university co-operation programmes linking university faculties or departments must be endorsed by the central authority of the participating universities. The teaching staff and student mobility programmes funded through ERASMUS together constitute what is known as the European University Network. Administrative principles Irrespective of the number of participating universities in a given interuniversity co-operation programme, a single application must be submitted by one of the universities acting on behalf of all those participating. Each application must, however, contain an endorsement letter from each participating university stating its willingness to cooperate as outlined in the application presented by the coordinating university. Where financial support is granted, it is paid to the co-ordinating university, which is responsible for administering the sum involved and distributing it among the participating universities. ERASMUS support to universities party to an inter-university cooperation programme is granted for a period of one year. It may be renewed annually on the basis of information supplied in each new application. Interaction with other programmes of the Commission: – The COMETT programme (Community action programme for Education and Training for Technology) provides funding inter alia for transnational placements of students and/or teaching staff in industry in fields relating to technologies. ERASMUS may also award financial support to programmes in which a placement in industry abroad constitutes an integrated part of the programme of

APPENDIX 4 59

study. However, where the planned period abroad consists exclusively of a technology related placement in industry, potential applicants are encouraged to submit their application to COMETT (COMETT programme, Directorate General V/C/3, 200 rue de la Loi, B–1049 Brussels; or COMETT Technical Assistance Unit, 71 avenue de Cortenberg, B–1040 Brussels). – Universities planning to exchange postgraduate or doctoral research scientists should consider the possibilities for funding provided by the SCIENCE programme (previously known as the STIMULATION programme), which aims at the stimulation of cooperation and interchange between European research scientists (SCIENCE programme, Directorate-General XII/H1, 200 rue de la Loi, B–1049 Brussels). Support for student-mobility programmes This support is intended for universities which organize programmes providing the chance for students of one university to undertake, within a university of another Member States, a period of study which will be fully recognized by the home university when awarding these students their diploma or qualification. The recognized period of study in another Member States must be of substantial duration (normally at least one academic ‘term’, and in no case less than three months). The Commission will accord preference to programmes which allow students to satisfy the criteria enabling them to benefit from ERASMUS mobility grants. Student mobility programmes in any field of study and in any level of study (up to and including doctorate or equivalent) are eligible. However, the Commission will grant definite priority to reciprocal exchange programmes. Financial support from the Commission to the participating universities may cover the following expenses entailed by a studentmobility programme: – the costs of the development and operation of the programme: costs of travelling and staying abroad for university staff members who take part in meetings to plan, develop, implement, monitor and evaluate the programme (organization and content of teaching and courses, accommodation and other practical arrangements for the students’ stay in another Member States, supervision of students,

60 APPENDIX 4

– –

– –

examination boards and panels, questions relating to academic recognition, etc); expenditure relating to the preparation and translation of documents and teaching materials for the student mobility programme; expenses incurred by the universities for the preparation of students: information prior to departure, linguistic preparation provided for students, especially in cases where such preparation extends over a significant period of time prior to departure, or where speciallydesigned courses are organized for the benefit of students at the expense of their home and/or host university. expenditure for making information about the programme more widely available; other expenditure directly related to carrying out or developing the programme.

In no case may financial support be used to cover the normal salary costs of staff working in the programme, nor any costs of infrastructure (such as language laboratories, computer equipment, etc). For each student-mobility programme, the maximum support which may be awarded is ECU 25,000 per year per participating university (with the average amount of such support standing at some ECU 10,000). Support for teaching staff mobility programmes This support is intended for universities which organize programmes providing an opportunity for the teaching staff of one university to teach in a partner university in another Member States. Priority will be given to programmes for reciprocal exchanges in which the visiting staff members make a substantial contribution to the regular teaching programme of the host university over a period of normally at least one month. Teaching staff interested in a shorter period of teaching abroad not implying any formal co-operation between the universities concerned are provided for under another heading. The financial support from the Commission may be used to cover the following expenses: – the costs of the development and operation of the programme: costs of travelling and staying abroad for meetings concerning the organization and content of teaching activity of staff abroad; cost of translating teaching material; cost of the linguistic preparation of

APPENDIX 4 61

teaching staff, etc. The maximum financial support available with regard to these expenses is ECU 5,000 per university per year per programme; – the mobility costs of teaching staff: by this is meant the mobility costs (return journey and additional cost of stay abroad) of teaching staff who go to the partner university in order to teach; the maximum amount of financial support available varies with the length of the period spent abroad; for a three-month period, for example, the maximum support available is ECU 3,500 per teaching staff member; – the costs of replacing teaching staff: when the staff member on mission abroad has to be replaced during his or her absence, the Commission may grant a maximum financial support of ECU 2,500 per month per staff member replaced. Such support may only be paid where a replacement teacher is really employed at the expense of the home university of the staff member who goes abroad. No such support may be granted when the absence of the staff member abroad occurs during a holiday period or a period of sabbatical leave normally provided for by his or her home university. Neither may support be granted when the staff member is replaced free of charge as part of an exchange arrangement with a staff member from the host university. The Commission will only grant financial support for the replacement of teachers who are absent abroad for a period of at least three months (but for a maximum of one academic year). Support for the joint development of new curricula Support of this kind is intended for universities of different Member States which are seeking to work out jointly a new curriculum (resulting either from the mutual adaptation of the respective curricula of the various participating universities or from the creation of a genuinely new curriculum), with a view to its incorporation or implementation in all the universities taking part in the project. The Commission will accord preference to projects involving the joint preparation of an entire curriculum (i.e. organization and content of all studies leading to a given degree or diploma), or at least substantial parts of such a curriculum. Special consideration will be given to projects which clearly contribute to the progress of academic recognition between Member States, to those which are adapted to the new techniques of multi-media

62 APPENDIX 4

or distance teaching, as well as to those aimed at building the European dimension into the content of courses. Only clearly identified projects, for which a detailed working programme and calendar have been agreed between the participating universities may be considered for support. The maximum financial support available from the Commission is ECU 20,000 per project. This support may only be used to cover expenses directly linked to the preparation of the new curriculum, such as: – travel and subsistence costs of teaching or administrative staff involved in meetings which are necessary to determine jointly the organization and content of courses; – costs of producing, translating and circulating the necessary documents. This support may not be used for costs entailed by the joint implementation and constant updating of already existing interuniversity co-operation programmes. Support for intensive programmes Support is available for universities of different Member States which jointly organize intensive teaching programmes of short duration bringing together students (from the participating universities and possibly others) and teaching staff from several countries of the European Community. These programmes must be full-time and have a duration of between one week and one month. Programmes consisting of a series of short consecutive seminars organized at several different places will be regarded as constituting only one intensive programme, and in such cases only one composite application should be submitted. Programmes consisting mainly in field work, practical training, research activities or international conferences are not eligible for support. In granting support, the Commission will pay attention to the number of students participating and to the potential contribution of the programme as a means of stimulating closer co-operation between the universities concerned. Preference will be given to teaching programmes which are genuinely ‘multinational’ in terms of students and teaching staff participating, and to those focusing on a specific theme not normally available at any one of the participating universities

APPENDIX 4 63

alone. Programmes which can contribute to the dissemination of knowledge in rapidly evolving or new areas will receive special consideration. The financial support of the Commission may be used to cover: – the travel and subsistence costs entailed by meetings necessary to plan the courses; – expenses incurred in producing, translating and circulating information literature and teaching material; – the costs of travelling and staying abroad for teaching staff and students who have to go from one Member States to another. The maximum support which may be granted is ECU 20,000 per programme. Applicants are referred to the original ‘Guideline’ document for full details.

64

APPENDIX 5: GUIDELINES TO TOWN-TWINNING GRANT AID

Why is Community Aid being Granted? The Preamble to the Treaty of Rome states that the Member States of the Community are ‘determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’. That objective of bringing people in the Community closer together underlay the report adopted by the European Parliament in 1988 which emphasized the need for the Community to expand town-twinning*. As a direct result of this report Parliament entered ECU 3 million in the 1989 Commission budget for town-twinning in the Community. The appropriation is to be used to help overcome problems impeding the extension of town-twinning (distance, languages, municipalities too small, etc.). For a number of years now the Commission has been taking an interest in the links formed between European towns, which help to involve the local Community and its representatives more closely in the Community venture. The report by the ad hoc Committee on a People’s Europe (the ‘Adonnino’ Committee), set up after the 1984 Fontainebleau European Council, recognized the importance of towntwinning in the process of European integration. The Commission hopes that this aid will foster the establishment of a true People’s Europe.

* Report by Mrs Nicole Fontaine on behalf of the Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport (European Parliament document A2– 0312/87)

66 APPENDIX 5

Information for Applicants for Grants for ‘Twinning Between Towns in the Community’ Applicants for grants should be submitted direct to the SecretariatGeneral of the Commission which will examine them on the basis of the information supplied by applicants on the attached form. It is in applicants’ interest to complete their application properly and attach all the documents required. Applications, with their attached papers, must be submitted at least three months before the event concerned is to begin. A grant application form should be completed only by the host town, i.e. the town in which the event is taking place. This means that other towns involved in the event (guest town(s)) may not submit a separate application. Applications for grants must relate to only one specific event connected with twinning and not to a programme, e.g. an annual programme, consisting of a number of events. The purpose of the Community backing is to promote twinning between towns in the Community located in regions which are disadvantaged owing to their geographical situation, because their language is less widely used or because they have recently joined the Community. It is also supposed to help improve the quality of twinning schemes by gearing them to the practical objectives of European integration. Against this background, Community grants may cover part of the transport costs incurred by a twin town or towns invited to an event as well as any other expenses associated with organizing the event, according to certain quantitative and qualitative criteria such as, for example, the quality of the programme and its European dimension. Support given is for a single financial year and comes in the form of direct aid for staging the particular event for which application was made to the Commission. When an application is accepted, the person responsible for the organization of the event will be required to sign an undertaking to supply evidence that the grant has been properly used (by submitting a report on the event and a duly certified financial statement showing the incomings and outgoings connected with it) and to allow the Commission and/or the Court of Auditors, should they so desire, to inspect the relevant accounts.

APPENDIX 5 67

Recipients of a grant from the Community will undertake to promote the European ideal and mention the aid supplied by the Commission in all publications issued in connection with the event concerned. Who is Eligible for an Aid? The Commission has established a number of criteria, based on Parliament’s ideas, for the use of the funds available for twinning operations. The following have first call on the Community aid: – twinned towns which are disadvantaged because of their geographical location, because their languages are not widely used, or because their countries have only recently joined the Community; – new twinnings; – small twinned towns; – twinning activities which enhance European awareness, take up original themes, utilize well-chosen methods of teaching and communication, and activities with high quality participants. The following, on the other hand, have no call on the aid: exchanges of any nature that fall outside the framework of towntwinning within the Community; operations which might come under other Community programmes (ERASMUS, COMETT, Youth for Europe, etc); – individual exchanges. What Does the Aid Consist of? Twinned towns (or towns being twinned) can receive financial assistance for gatherings they arrange with the other towns. The aid consists of a contribution towards travel expenses incurred in attending such meetings. The scale applied in 1989 for the refund of travel expenses is the following: – no aid where the two municipalities are less than 250 km apart (single journey); – ECU 0.02 per km per person where the return journey exceeds 500 km*;

68 APPENDIX 5

– where real expenses are lower than the amount refundable in accordance with this scale they are refunded in full; – in certain cases, such as the Greek, Portuguese or Spanish islands, exceptions might be made. In addition to subsidizing travel expenses, the Commission may make a contribution towards organization costs and subsistence expenses in connection with twinning operations where the programme and participation are of particularly high quality. Community aid will only be granted for one specific operation, i.e. not for a series of activities or, for instance, an annual programme. In order to enable those responsible for and engaged in twinning activities at local, regional, national and international level to compare their experiences and so to adapt and improve the content of twinnings and the manner in which they are carried out, the Commission may also grant aid for certain symposia, seminars and training sessions organized for this purpose. To Where Should Applications be Made? Applications for grants should be sent to the Commission of the European Communities (Secretariat General). Application forms (to be filled out by all applicants) can be obtained from: – the Commission Secretariat-General, Brussels; – the Commission or Parliament offices in the Member State; – European or national twinning organizations, such as the Council of European Municipalities and Regions or the United Towns Organization and their national sectors. There are two types of form: – for operations by twinned towns (or towns being twinned); – for applications for aid towards the organization of symposia, seminars or training sessions for persons involved in twinning work.

* A group of fifty people, for instance, travelling to their twin town 750 km away could expect to be refunded ECU 1500 (750 km x 2=1500 km at ECU 0. 02 per km per person: ECU 30 x 50=ECU 1,500).

APPENDIX 6: GUIDELINES FOR FUNDING UNDER ARTICLE 955 OF THE COMMUNITY BUDGET

Concerning the Programme of Raising Awareness of European Youth on Development Education In Europe I. The beneficiaries shall be European youth: youth organizations, or educational circles (technical vocational training) in connection with relevant authorities in the Member States of the Community. Article 955 can also be used to support actions initiated by relevant Member States’ Authorities in this field. Development NGO should not be the first beneficiaries of this support, except for their youthoriented development education activities. II. This article is applicable to actions undertaken in all Member States of the Community, and concerning questions, actions or nationals related to all developing countries. III. Priority should be given to actions aiming at creating or reinforcing exchanges and networks between Member States of the Community, at improving co-ordination of actions on a national level, and pointing out the specificity of actions on the European level as opposed to national actions. IV. The objectives of Article 955 are to finance, or to contribute to financing awareness raising actions undertaken within the Community, for a ‘European audience, and not projects in developing countries; the objective of Article 955 is not to support the sending of young Europeans to developing countries. It can, on the contrary, contribute to helping nationals from Third World countries to come to Europe to participate in the awarenessraising work.

70 APPENDIX 6

V. Actions to be supported are: seminars, meetings, experts, publishing and distribution expenses for pedagogical materials, travel and accommodation costs. VI. The financial support of the Community shall not exceed ECU 20,000 per action. VII Request for financing to be sent to: . Mr B.AMAT ARMENGOL., Head of the ‘Training Unit’ General Directorate for Development Commission of the European Communities 200, rue de la Loi B–1049Brussels Contact person: J.P Dubois (02/235.32.76) The request should include a clear outline of the action, a detailed budget, and mention should be made of any other financing sources for the same action.

APPENDIX 7: PETRA: EUROPEAN NETWORK OF TRAINING INITIATIVES

November 1988: Doc.02/PE/88/CN published by IFAPLAN, Brussels The European Network of Training Initiatives forms part of the Action Programme set up by the Commission of the European Communities in the framework of the Decision of the Council of 1 December 1987. The aim of the Programme is to support and supplement the efforts of Member States aimed at ensuring that all young people who so wish receive one year’s, or, if possible, two or more years’, vocational training after the completion of their full-time compulsory education. The aim of the European Network is to set up project partnerships between different Member States by providing opportunities to develop joint transnational activities, and, in doing so, give a European dimension to national, regional or local training activities for young people. The Network will emphasize particularly the importance of partnership at two levels: 1. at national, regional and local level—partnership to mobilize the collective resources of the public, private and voluntary sectors so as to develop a cooperative or integrated approach to vocational training, guidance and counselling for young people, and to promote a climate for effective partnership between the agencies concerned; 2. at European level—partnership designed to increase active co-operation based on the mutual understanding of the common economic and commercial interests of the local areas, of regions involved and their cultural and commercial ties. This co-operation,

72 APPENDIX 7

which may take many forms, will provide a strong European dimension to the Network. To facilitate interaction and the development of international cooperation, the Network will focus on certain chosen priority themes. I The Projects About 100 projects will be involved in the Network in 1988/89, generally for a maximum of two years. Further projects will be considered for admission in 1990 and later. The National Policy Co-ordinators, representing the national authorities responsible for vocational training for young people, are the channel for the transmission to the Commission of projects to take part in the Network. At Member- State level, they are also the co-ordinating point for the establishment and implementation of the Network. Criteria The projects/initiatives to form the Network must: – be relevant to one or more of the priority themes selected to give operational effect to the aims of the Council Decision (see Section III); – be innovative in character; – be capable of dissemination; – be of potential value in a Community context, i.e. of potential interest to other Member States for their own development of policy in the field of the Decision. The projects do not stipulate precise upper- or lower-age limits for the young people concerned, given the diversity of vocational training systems in the Member States. It is intended, however, to concentrate on the three years which follow the completion of full-time compulsory education, while taking into account the situation in each Member States.

APPENDIX 7 73

Sponsorship A project relevant to the aims of the Decision may be sponsored by any of the following; – local authorities; – guidance services or organizations; – education services or institutions concerned with pre-vocational, vocational or technical education/ training; – vocational training institutions or services providing short courses; – in the world of the economy, firms, trade unions and professional organizations; – private and voluntary bodies such as parents’ and young people’s organizations and other associations; – other public services such as employment, youth, leisure, health, probation and social work. In submitting projects to participate in the Network to the Commission, the National Policy Co-ordinators will indicate the type of grant requested: – Type A; to establish contacts; – Type B; to undertake a partnership activity. In addition, a number of annual grants (Type C) will be available to assist, in particular, the less developed regions of the Community in the setting up and development of new training projects, and to help them achieve the objectives of the Decision. The above reflects the priorities in the Council Decision of 1 December 1987 (87/569/EEC) . The projects/initiatives at national or regional level chosen to take part in the Network should be related to one or more of these theme areas. A Extending the Provision of Vocational Training A.1 New types of training consortia This theme area includes initiatives which bring together, at local level, partners from the public and private sector to establish or improve

74 APPENDIX 7

training schemes for young people through co-operation and pooling of their resources, e.g.: – (vocational) schools/colleges co-operating with large or smaller firms on the joint design and provision of integrated training courses, leading to recognized qualifications and possibly employment within (one of) the participating firm(s); – co-operation between small firms, including those with a more limited scope for youth training, and with (vocational) schools/ colleges to create new opportunities for fully-fledged training programmes or apprenticeships in which different parts of the training can be provided by different partners within the consortium depending on their strengths and possibilities and thereby overcoming the limitations of the training capacities of each individual partner. Such consortia could open up new possibilities to enhance provision of vocational training, especially in disadvantaged areas with a weak infrastructure or declining industries. Through their co-operative efforts they could introduce a new quality into existing apprenticeship systems, and provide a better framework for the acquisition of new patterns of skills (e.g. those related to the use of new technologies) . They could also play a role in extending training opportunities for girls and young women. A.2 Widening the range of training-providers This theme area includes initiatives aimed at the provision of training opportunities by non-traditional training-providers, e.g. set up by organizations in the voluntary sector, in ‘self-managed’ firms, or cooperatives.

APPENDIX 7 75

B Improving the Quality of Vocational Training B.1 Co-operation between vocational schools and firms Co-operation here has to go beyond this provision of work experience placements for students in local firms as already established in many parts of the Community. Through European exchange and co-operation, more diversified forms of links with industry can be explored, such as: co-operation in the field of inservice training for teachers and trainers; mutual staff secondment; production/training projects; the joint use of equipment, etc. B.2 Work experience schemes and enterprise education programmes with a European dimension This theme area will involve projects in which training establishments co-operate with firms, e.g.: – to organize (reciprocal) work experience placements for young people abroad in another Member State as an integral part of their training course; – to develop transnational contacts between enterprise education schemes (e.g. mini-companies, youth cooperatives), including the joint planning and implementation of transnational projects, exchange of students and staff, and the use of new communication technology; – to promote opportunities for young people in apprenticeships or alternance training schemes, to spend a period of their training in a partner firm abroad. Such schemes can draw on the international links of industrial organizations(such as Chambers of Commerce, employers, federations and trade unions) as well as firms (e.g. multi-nationals) and voluntary associations. Interaction in the European Network will not only provide for the actual placements abroad, but also stimulate the co-operation of trainers, teachers and instructors, and examination bodies. The Network can also provide support for the joint development (of employers’ federations, trade unions and training institutions from different

76 APPENDIX 7

Member States), of proposals for guidelines and the development of advice manuals for organizers and contributors to such collaborative projects. B.3 Developing the use of computers and telecommunication technology in vocational training This involves the collaboration of members on the use of new information technologies in the different fields of vocational training in order to achieve a better conformity between their training approaches. To this end, interaction within the Network will stimulate bilateral or multilateral initiatives to explore the potential of the use of computers in fields such as: – the planning and organization of the training programme; and/or – the management of the learning process and the interaction between teachers, trainers and students (e.g. the use of computers for preparing and analysing tests; for diagnostic or examination purposes; for guiding students through individualized learning; for ‘practice’, stimulation, model-building, etc). C Improving Co-ordination between Providers of Training and Adapting Training to New Needs C.1 Promoting the development, at local or regional level, of effective mechanisms for the co-ordination of links between (vocational) schools/ colleges, firms and other organizations. The Network will offer facilities for the transfer of ‘good practice’, the identification of sources of expert assistance, and other technical support to help areas wanting to set up or improve such linking mechanisms. C.2 Adapting vocational training to new economic or technological needs This theme area involves co-operation between regions in different Member States in order to develop jointly training programmes responding to potential/actual economic growth/employment prospects

APPENDIX 7 77

in fields of common interest, according to particular regional/local needs/priorities. For example, training in new flexible manufacturing technologies, office automation, food processing, or new services in the tourist sector. Such co-operation can take the form of mutual expert assistance, exchanges of teachers and students, the development of mutually recognized training modules, the joint use of technology centres or business parks for training in advanced technology fields. D Improving Progression to, and within, Systems of Vocational Training D.l Co-operation between establishments of general, vocational and technical education and training This area involves initiatives aimed at the promotion of intensive working contact between teachers and trainers in these types of institutions in local areas, to help the co-ordination of curricula, the better use of training resources, and easier transfer and progression by students between the different streams of provision, including the wider participation of girls and young women in vocational training courses. D.2 Removing barriers to progression between different levels of training This theme area involves participation in the further development of programmes enabling students to move on from vocational/technical education at secondary level to higher education, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of vocational and technical education to young people (and to parents, who influence young people’s choices).

78 APPENDIX 7

E Action to Create Better Opportunities for Disad vantaged Young People and to Improve Provision in Disadvantaged Areas E.1 Exploiting the potential of off-site/inter-firm training workshops The Network will provide opportunities to explore and capitalize on successful models of co-operation between firms, training authorities and private bodies in setting up and running such establishments. E.2 Developing new forms of work-based training and training for working life The well-known Danish ‘production schools’ are a good example of this approach, which provides an alternative route for young people who have dropped out of, or lack the basic qualifications to enter, mainstream vocational or technical education. In the European Network, projects of this type will have the potential to develop transnational contact and cooperation, and to improve and extend their existing work. E.3 Forms of firm-based on-the-job training for young people with low or inadequate qualifications This theme area involves projects, flexibly organized within individual firms, which bring together the firm’s management, teachers/trainers and instructors in a concerted joint effort to provide on-the-job training for young people with no, or low, formal qualifications. One example is the ‘Operation Nouvelles Qualifications’ in France. A particularly interesting and new aspect of this type of project is the participatory approach to developing the training programme. This involves young people in negotiating its design and organization, and taking into account the evolution of job profiles and work organization within the firm, as well as the need for new types of qualification and combinations of skills.

APPENDIX 7 79

F The Development and Co-ordination of Diversified Forms of Vocational Guidance. F.1 Developing methods and mechanisms to co-ordinate the work of different kinds of guidance services and to support their co-operation with training institutes and schools Under this heading, some existing examples of inter-institutional co-operation, such as the ‘missions locales’ in France or the local ‘youth teams’ in Denmark, could be networked in order to stimulate similar developments in other Member States. F.2 Strengthening the capacity of vocational guidance services This theme area includes: initiatives designed to intensify efforts to help girls widen their vocational choices; special guidance help to assist disadvantaged young people; and extended guidance on the opportunities for continuing education and training throughout working life. It will also be important to raise the awareness of those in guidance services of the implications of the increasing scope for mobility within the European Community. F.3 The use of computers in the guidance field The European Network will bring together projects using computers designed to pool relevant information, keep it up-to-date and facilitate its accessibility to guidance specialists and young people. It will also develop individualized programmes for vocational guidance and decision-making.

80 APPENDIX 7

G Action in Rural Areas G.1 Rural training-resource centres in schools or other educational institutions, or in localities where no specific training resources exist This theme area reflects the fact that schools are frequently the only major Community resource in a rural area, and that many schools are still under-used and under-equipped. Rural training-resource centres should link up comprehensive vocational information, individual guidance and distance learning, and have the capacity to set up and run specific short courses. G.2 Developing new qualifications in fields of agricultural diversification This comprises joint research and co-operative action to establish the nature and the comparability of new qualifications required in new occupations created as a result of agricultural diversification. Some of these will relate directly to existing agricultural qualifications, others less so. Emphasis should be placed on multi-occupation qualifications. G.3 Creating new forms of training in new non-agricultural occupations This includes projects concerned with developing training opportunities in fields such as tourism and agro-tourism, ecology and environment, cultural heritage, etc. H Reinforcing Girls’ Access to Vocational Training in Industrial, Technical and Scientific Fields Action under any of the theme areas so far described can contribute to improving access to vocational training for girls and young women. But it is desirable to include also a set of initiatives which place a special emphasis on gender equality.

APPENDIX 7 81

Theme areas, therefore, involve initiatives run by (vocational) schools/colleges, guidance centres and equal opportunities bodies centred on: – organizing work experience schemes in non-traditional fields; – providing guidance courses and individual counselling aimed at helping girls overcome stereotypes; – monitoring girls’ options/subject choices to ensure that these do not restrict their access to technical and scientific training; – providing technology courses or introductory courses; – setting up specific in-service training courses aimed at helping teachers, trainers and industrial tutors to overcome stereotypes, and/ or including an egual opportunity dimension in their initial training.

82

APPENDIX 8: YOUNG WORKERS' EXCHANGE PROGRAMME

This is administered by the Bureau for Youth Exchanges of the European Community (BEJCE). For the address, see the relevant section in this volume. The general principles of this programme are discussed in Section I. The broad objective of the Young Worker Programme is to enable participants to gain vocational experience, to sample life in another EC country, and to improve their basic language skills. A summary is given here of the conditions and application procedure (see ‘Directives 1989–90’) There are now two dates for applications each year. In 1990, these will be 1 January 1990 and 1 June 1990. Applications involve two elements: (i) a brief selection; and (ii) a detailed application giving full information and details of those involved. The Bureau states that in making their selections, they will seek to ensure the quality of all the exchanges; maintain their professional character; assure the job creation potential; recognize the necessity to collaborate with relevant authorities such as MANPOWER/SEDOC; give priority to the tourism and new technology sectors; and recognize the importance of involving the longterm unemployed. For projects which the Commission judges ‘exceptional’ or ‘experimental’ special financial awards may be granted. The Commission has been concerned to ensure that the general administrative costs claimed for reimbursement should maintain adequate provision for research and also scope for other sources of finance to be obtained to support the exchanges.

84

APPENDIX 9: LIST OF USEFUL ADDRESSES

Youth Exchange Bureau 2–11 place Luxembourg B-1040 Brussels Belgium Tel: (02) 511 15 10 Council of European Municipalities and Regions—CEMR Headguarters:

41 guai d’Orsay 75007 Paris France Tel: 3314 551 4001

ERASMUS Bureau 15 rue d’Arlon B–1040 Brussels Belgium Tel: 32 2 233 01 11 European Co-ordination Bureau of International Youth Organization (ECB) Sq. Marguerite 35 Bte 22 B-1040 Brussels Belgium IFAPLAN Square Ambiorix 32 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Tel: (02) 230 71 06 European Youth Centre Rue Pierre de Coubertin 67000 Strasbourg