interim evaluation of third country cooperation of … · 2017-01-26 · evaluation of third...

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE GENERAL EDUCATION AND CULTURE

INTERIM EVALUATION

OF

THIRD COUNTRY COOPERATION

OF THE

YOUTH PROGRAMME

2000-2002

FINAL REPORT

I VOLUME

Ecosfera S.p.A

Viale Castrense, 8

Roma

August 2003

WORKING GROUP

Project Manager

Anna Teodoro

Evaluation Team Leader

Antonella Samoggia

Researchers

Lucia Costanzo

Ivan Curzolo

Assunta De Nicola

Marina De Nigris

Michelangelo Dragone

Cecilia Elia

Andrea Marcelloni

Cecilia Rosica

Evaluation of third-country cooperation of the Youth Programme 2000-2002 – Final Report

2

INDEX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 7

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 13

1.1. The structure of the Report......................................................................................................... 13

1.2. The YOUTH programme ............................................................................................................ 13

1.3. The scope of the evaluation ......................................................................................................... 16

2. THE METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................ 18

2.1. Key Principles and main indicators............................................................................................ 18 2.1.1. Relevance ................................................................................................................................................. 18 2.1.2. Outputs .................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.1.3. Results and Impact ................................................................................................................................. 19 2.1.4. Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................. 21 2.1.5. Management ............................................................................................................................................ 22 2.1.6. Communication, promotion, dissemination and visibility................................................................... 22 2.1.7. Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................... 23

2.2. Collecting information................................................................................................................. 24

3. RELEVANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 29

3.1. Relevance of the third-country cooperation of the YOUTH Programme with respect to the EU Policy with Third Countries .............................................................................................................. 29

3.2. Relevance of the instruments ...................................................................................................... 31

3.3. Relevance of the objectives in relation to the needs of the target groups................................ 31

3.4. Relevance of the geographic reach ............................................................................................. 33

4. EFFECTIVENESS, OUTPUTS, RESULTS, IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY............................ 34

4.1. Outputs.......................................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1. Overview of projects by Actions and by regions ...................................................................................... 34 4.1.2. Themes and aims of the projects............................................................................................................... 38 4.1.3. Participants ............................................................................................................................................... 41 4.1.4. Country cooperation by Regions............................................................................................................... 42

4.2. Results and impact ....................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.1. Results and Impact on young people ....................................................................................................... 45 4.2.2. Results and Impact on youth workers and structures................................................................................ 50 4.2.3. Results and Impact at local and national level .......................................................................................... 57

4.3. Sustainability ................................................................................................................................ 61 4.3.1. Ownership of the Programme’s objectives and aims ................................................................................ 62 4.3.2. Capacity building...................................................................................................................................... 62 4.3.3. The Programme’s design .......................................................................................................................... 65 4.3.4. Mainstreaming and national policies ........................................................................................................ 66

Evaluation of Third Country Cooperation of the Youth Programme 2000-2002 – Final Report

Ecosfera SpA 3

5. EFFICIENCY AND MANAGEMENT................................................................................................. 68

5.1. Financial review ........................................................................................................................... 68 5.1.1. Funds availability, programme strategy and management........................................................................ 68 5.1.2. Financial absorption.................................................................................................................................. 69 5.1.3. Cost effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 71

5.2. Management of the Programme ................................................................................................. 74 5.2.1. Application and selection process............................................................................................................. 75 5.2.2. Elements on the role of NAs..................................................................................................................... 76

5.3. Communication and promotion.................................................................................................. 78 5.3.1. European level .......................................................................................................................................... 78

5.3.1.1. Communication and Promotion in the SEE Region ........................................................................ 78 5.3.1.2. Communication and Promotion in the CIS Region ......................................................................... 83 5.3.1.3. Communication and Promotion in the LA Region........................................................................... 84

5.3.2. National level............................................................................................................................................ 84 5.3.3. Organisation level ..................................................................................................................................... 86

5.4. Dissemination of results............................................................................................................... 87 5.4.1. National Agencies..................................................................................................................................... 88 5.4.2. Organisations ............................................................................................................................................ 88

5.5. Visibility of the Programme ........................................................................................................ 90 5.5.1. Visibility of the Programme from the organisations’ perspective in PC and in TC.................................. 90 5.5.2. Visibility of the Programme from the National Agencies’ perspective .................................................... 91 5.5.3. Visibility of the Programme at national level ........................................................................................... 92

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................. 93

6.1. SWOT analysis ............................................................................................................................. 94

6.2. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 96

6.3. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 104 6.3.1. Relevance................................................................................................................................................ 104 6.3.2. Effectiveness and sustainability .............................................................................................................. 105 6.3.3. Efficiency................................................................................................................................................ 106 6.3.4. Visibility ................................................................................................................................................. 107

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES......................................................................................................................... 109

LIST OF NATIONAL AGENCIES ............................................................................................................. 113

LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................. 114

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 115

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................... 117

ANNEX 1 – ADDITIONAL TABLES ......................................................................................................... 118

ANNEX 2 – QUESTIONNAIRES USED FOR THE SURVEYS............................................................... 119


Ecosfera SpA 4

The present evaluation report was produced by Ecosfera S.p.A. on behalf of the European Commission and represents the evaluators’ views on the YOUTH programme – third-country cooperation. These views have not been adopted or in any way approved by the European Commission and should not be relied upon as being the Commission’s.


Ecosfera SpA 5

INDEX OF TABLES

Table 1 - List of Programme countries (PC) ................................................................................................... 15

Table 2 - List of third-countries (TC).............................................................................................................. 15

Table 3 - Outputs: set of indicators at the Programme level ........................................................................... 18

Table 4 – Results and impact: set of indicators ............................................................................................... 20

Table 5 – Efficiency: set of indicators............................................................................................................. 22

Table 6 – Communication and promotion: set of indicators ........................................................................... 22

Table 7 – Dissemination and visibility: set of indicators ................................................................................ 23

Table 8 - Tools and sources of information for primary data.......................................................................... 24

Table 9 - Countries visited .............................................................................................................................. 25

Table 10 - Dates of country visits.................................................................................................................... 26

Table 11 - TC organisations contacted by Ecosfera ........................................................................................ 27

Table 12 – N° of projects submitted/approved in the period 2000-2002 ........................................................ 35

Table 13 – N° of projects approved by Action in the period 2000-2002 ........................................................ 35

Table 14 – N° of projects accepted by Region in the period 2000-2002......................................................... 35

Table 15 – N° of projects involving young people with less opportunities in the period 2000-2002 ............. 36

Table 16 – Number, geographical distribution and area of venue of projects approved under Action 1 in the period 2000-2002.................................................................................................................................... 36

Table 17 - Number and geographical distribution of projects approved under Action 2 in the period 2000-2002 ........................................................................................................................................................ 36

Table 18 – N° of projects and host /sending organisations in Programme countries and in respective region under Action 2 in the period 2000-2002 ................................................................................................. 37

Table 19 - Number and geographical distribution of projects approved under Action 5 in the period 2000-2002 ........................................................................................................................................................ 38

Table 20 - Type of activities under Action 5 to be undertaken by region in the period 2000-2002................ 38

Table 21 – Themes of the projects by Action in the period 2000-2002 .......................................................... 39

Table 22 - Themes of the projects by region in the period 2000-2002............................................................ 40

Table 23 – Aims of the projects by region in the period 2000-2002............................................................... 41

Table 24 – N° of participants in approved projects in the period 2000-2002.................................................. 42

Table 25 - Country Cooperation by Region in the period 2000-2002 ............................................................. 43

Table 26 - Typology of organisations.............................................................................................................. 52


Ecosfera SpA 6

Table 27 – N° of projects by number of partners per project by Action and by Region in the period 2000-2002 ........................................................................................................................................................ 52

Table 28 – N° of organisations by partners' choice in the period 2000-2002.................................................. 55

Table 29 - Cooperation with transnational partners in the period 2000-2002 ................................................. 56

Table 30 – NAs’ suggestions on how to find a partner in the period 2000-2002............................................ 57

Table 31 – N° of local subjects involved in the projects for Action 1, 2 and 5 in the period 2000-2002. ...... 58

Table 32 – N° of organisations which keep on cooperating with their partners.............................................. 65

Table 33 - Comparison between 2002 and 2003 financial data....................................................................... 69

Table 34 - Financial data for the period 2000-2002 ........................................................................................ 70

Table 35 – Increase of consumed budget in the period 2000-2002 ** ............................................................ 71

Table 36 – Financial data per type of Action (2000-2002) ............................................................................. 71

Table 37 - Sources of additional funding in the period 2000-2002................................................................. 72

Table 38 - N° of organisations which found further funding for their activities in the period 2000-2002...... 73

Table 39 - N° of organisations whose projects could have been financed by other funds in the period 2000-2002 ........................................................................................................................................................ 73

Table 40 - Problems or delays faced by organisations in the period 2000-2002............................................. 74

Table 41 - Common issues on which project promoters asked NA for support in the period 2000-2002....... 77

Table 42 - Ways of supporting project promoters in the period 2000-2002.................................................... 77

Table 43 - Means used to disseminate information ......................................................................................... 85

Table 44 - Institutions that carried out promotional activity in the period 2000-2002.................................... 86

Table 45 - Promotion means in the period 2000-2002 .................................................................................... 87

Table 46 – N° of organisations in favour of/against better communication and promotion ........................... 87

Table 47 – Means used to disseminate results................................................................................................. 88

Table 48 - N° of organisations which carried out dissemination of results in the period 2000-2002 ............. 89

Table 49 - N° of organisations which carried out dissemination of results by target group in the period 2000-2002 ........................................................................................................................................................ 90


Ecosfera SpA 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background The Report presents the findings and recommendations about the “Interim evaluation of third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme 2000-2002”. The evaluation was carried out by ECOSFERA S.p.A. on behalf of the European Commission from March to August 2003. The main purpose of the evaluation was to provide the Commission with recommendations for the second phase and first indications for the new YOUTH programme to be established as of 2007. The YOUTH Programme is open to young people aged between 15 and 25 and covers the 2000-2006 period. Its main objectives are “to contribute to the achievement of a Europe of knowledge and to create a European arena for cooperation in the development of youth policy, based on non-formal education”. The main aims of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme are to extend and deepen the solidarity among peoples, promote universal peace, dialogue, tolerance, give participants a better understanding of other countries’ situations and cultures. More specifically, out of the five Actions of the YOUTH programme, only Action 1 - Youth for Europe, Action 2 - European Voluntary Service and Action 5 - Support Measures are open to cooperation with Third Countries. From a geographical point of view, the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme is aimed at organisations from Programme Countries - 15 EU Member States, 3 countries of the European Economic Area (EEA) and 12 pre-accession countries – and from Third Countries - 5 countries from South East Europe (SEE), 7 countries from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and 18 countries from Latin America (LA). It is to be pointed out that the present evaluation did not consider the Mediterranean region, as it was included in the “Mid-term evaluation of the Euro-Mediterranean Youth Action Programme”. Methodology The evaluation was mainly based on qualitative aspects although some quantitative research was also undertaken. This approach was due to the particular nature of the objectives of the YOUTH programme third country cooperation strand which cannot be easily translated into outputs. In other words, the amount of projects approved, the number of participants and the resources spent to run the projects provide a partial measure of how general and specific objectives of the Programme are being achieved. In this context, the evaluation focused more on qualitative than on quantitative aspects. As far as the period 2000-2002 is concerned, primary and secondary data collected during the evaluation - questionnaires, interviews with beneficiaries and official data - were used to appreciate how the YOUTH programme third country cooperation strand is being implemented, to assess whether the projects were in line with the objectives of the YOUTH programme third country cooperation strand, to evaluate the degree of interest expressed by beneficiaries and their attitudes during and after the implementation of the projects, and to evaluate results and first impacts. A set of indicators was developed to analyse the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and visibility of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme. The Directorate General Education and Culture – D1 of the European Commission and the Socrates-Leonardo-Youth Technical Assistance Office provided the evaluator with support and secondary data. As far as primary data are concerned, the evaluator collected information through face-to-face interviews and a


Ecosfera SpA 8

questionnaire-based web survey. Face-to-face interviews involved 62 organisations in 5 Programme Countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain), 3 South Eastern Europe countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia), 2 countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (Russia and Ukraine) and in 2 Latin America countries (Brazil and Mexico). Furthermore, interviews were also held with representatives of the EC - Directorate General External Relations (RELEX) and with the governmental representatives of two Third Countries. The questionnaire-based web survey involved a sample of 138 organisations from Programme Countries and Third Countries and all National Agencies. Relevance The EU cooperation policy with the three regions under consideration is implemented through the “Stabilisation and Association process” with Western Balkan countries, the TACIS programme with Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the “Strategic partnership between EU and Latin America and the Caribbean”. The objectives of these actions are to strengthen democracy, promote human rights and preserve cultural diversity. Education is one of the fields in which the above mentioned objectives can be achieved and young people are the actors to be mainly involved in this process. The third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme supports non-formal education and intercultural learning among young people from Programme and Third Countries. At the same time, youth organisations, youth leaders and youth workers are supported by training activities and the transfer of know-how in the youth field. The general objectives of the YOUTH programme third country cooperation strand to strengthen civil society and democracy in the participating countries, to promote peace, tolerance and solidarity through intercultural dialogue, to reinforce cooperation in the field of youth between Programme and Third countries and in the same three third country regions are relevant to the implementation of EU cooperation with such third countries.

All this appears to be in line with the needs of young people to strengthen civil society by understanding other cultures as well as with the needs of youth organisations to develop further cooperation in the youth field.

Finally, the instruments of the YOUTH programme third country cooperation strand are coherent with its general objectives. Indeed, youth exchanges of 6-21 day duration to discuss topics of common interest contribute to promote peace, respect for human rights, tolerance and solidarity through intercultural dialogue. Voluntary work of 6-12 month duration agrees with the objectives of facilitating the active participation, responsible citizenship and integration of young people into society. The training activities and the transfer of know-how for youth organisations and youth workers to establish or strengthen partnerships reinforce cooperation in the field of youth between the EU and third countries and also the third country regions.

Effectiveness The effectiveness of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme, assessed with regard to its general and specific objectives, was satisfactory both from the quantitative and the qualitative point of view. The main outputs achieved by the Programme are reported below, together with the results and first impact observed, concerning the local and national scale and beneficiaries.


Ecosfera SpA 9

Main outputs

Approved projects under the three actions open to third-country cooperation have been in total 498 in the period 2000-2002.

With regard to the number of approved projects by Action, the significant interest showed by the organisations in the voluntary service was confirmed by the highest number of projects approved under Action 2 – European Voluntary Service – (51%) if compared with the other two Actions (respectively 36% for Action 1 and 13% for Action 5). Many European organisations, in fact, strongly believe in voluntary service and are highly experienced in this sector. Anyway, organisations have to face also many obstacles due to the lack of status and recognition of volunteers as well as to the different perception of volunteering in the different regions concerned.

With regard to the number of approved projects by region, 44,8% have been realised with the Latin America region, 25,9% with South and Eastern Europe and 29,3% with the Commonwealth of Independent States. This distribution was mainly due to the long tradition of cooperation between European and Latin America organisations.

As to participants, most of them resulted to be involved in projects under Action 1 (75%), whereas participants in approved projects under Action 2 were 6% and under Action 5 were 19%. The limited number of participants in projects under Action 2 derived from the fact that each project involved few volunteers, whereas each project of the other two Actions were open to many participants.

With regard to their distribution within the Actions, it emerged that participants in projects under Action 1 were equally distributed among the three third-country regions whereas important differences emerged within both Action 2 and 5. A very limited number of participants from the South Eastern Europe region was involved in Action 2 if compared with the other regions. On the contrary, beneficiaries from the South Eastern Europe were half of Action 5 participants. With regard to their distribution within the regions, there is a clear predominance of participants in Action 1 projects for all the three third-country regions concerned.

As concerns young people with less opportunities, it emerged that, even though the participation of such a group is a priority of the Programme, the number of projects involving young people with less opportunities in the period 2000-2002 was only 17% of the whole third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme. Indeed, involving people with less opportunities is extremely difficult due to the very significant resources and planning activities necessary to arrange projects involving such people and to the lack of facilities, especially in Third Countries.

Results and first impact Overall, the results of the whole third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme were found to be positive.

• Results and first impact on young people Interviews carried out showed that Action 1 and 5 projects had important results in terms of intercultural learning and understanding, the abandoning of stereotypes and prejudices as well as the understanding of other cultures, while Action 2 projects had much more results and impact on the personal dimension of young people as let them explore their identities and interpersonal skills.


Ecosfera SpA 10

Other results which almost all young people reported were the improvement of their language skills and the firm intention to keep on working either in the voluntary sector and cooperating with the organisations they got in touch with. In general, the main aims of the YOUTH programme third country cooperation strand toward young participants were mainly concentrated on self-awareness, tolerance, mutual understanding rather than on learning how to draw a project.

• Results and first impact on youth workers and youth structures The impact of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme on youth workers and youth structures resulted to be significant. As regards youth workers, from both the interviews and the questionnaires-based web survey it emerged that their involvement in the projects increased their skills and competencies; in particular, youth workers from Programme Countries learned much more about Third Countries conditions, needs and problems, while youth workers from Third Countries learned new working methodologies and different ways of approaching problems. Besides, it was noticed that, by participating in study visits, seminars and training courses, important results were obtained in relation to the exchange of experiences on youth work expertise, know-how, youth work provisions and good practice. With reference to youth structures, as the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme is still on going, it is possible to say that it reached important signs of a positive development rather than complete and stable results. In particular, the fight against prejudices and stereotypes at the organisation level and the dissemination of a culture of solidarity among Programme Countries and Third Countries youth structures were found to be satisfactory. Besides, the establishment or strengthening of partnerships or stable relationships among organisations of Programme Countries and Third Countries and the establishment or strengthening of associations or groups working for peace, dialogue, tolerance, solidarity, democracy resulted to be other significant ones. As such results were achieved in all the regions, this confirmed the great interest among organisations from both Programme Countries and Third Countries to cooperate together. Finally, it was noticed that by participating in contact seminars, organisations from the same region developed a common interest in themes and issues which fostered the creation of new partnerships and projects.

• Results and first impact at local level The impact at the local level was significant, particularly for Action 1 projects and for those implemented in rural areas. This was mostly due either to the kind of activities carried out, usually much more likely to allow the direct involvement of the local community representatives, or to the greater press coverage they can obtain. Almost all organisations visited consider the involvement of local community actors fundamental for the success of their projects. Furthermore, from the analysis carried out it emerged that the projects where the impact on the local community has been greater were the ones where local actors have participated in the activities since the beginning or anyway during the project itself. Finally, projects involving local community actors had a large visibility on both local and national media, thus contributing to the promotion of the YOUTH programme third country cooperation strand aims and objectives and the projects’ results.

• Results and first impact at national level According to the results emerged from the field visits the impact of the third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme at national level resulted to be not very significant. However, the YOUTH Programme


Ecosfera SpA 11

did help some Programme and Third Countries to improve the recognition of the non-formal education sector and develop their youth policy. The low impact was mainly due to the recent start of the YOUTH programme third country cooperation strand. Anyway, as the Programme is still half-way of its programming period, a more significant impact at national level is to be expected in the future. Efficiency On account of the information about the number and quality of the projects approved as well as the budget absorption, it emerged that the performance of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme was on the whole satisfactory due to a very strictly and quality-oriented selection process at the EU level and also to the fact that the initially planned budget was fully spent. All this was of great importance in terms of efficiency considering that the Programme resources were in large part concentrated on the implementation of the activities and, to a limited extent, on the running costs of organizations. Even though the budget for the third-country strand increased from 2.8 Meuro in 2000 to 4.6 Meuro in 2002, it is to be pointed out that - without considering the funds allocated to Mediterranean countries which participate in the Euro-Med Programme - the ratio of allocated budget to the entire YOUTH Programme budget resulted to be very low (around 4%). Sustainability The analysis of the sustainability of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand took into account two elements: ownership by beneficiaries and capacity building. Ownership – As emerged from the interviews, youth structures, youth workers and young people participating in the YOUTH programme third country cooperation strand showed a satisfactory understanding of its objectives. This was a consequence of the fact that organisations were committed to strengthening values of peace, tolerance and democracy in young people from and outside Europe. Moreover, young people participated in the projects with enthusiasm and expressed a strong desire for new initiatives of cooperation. Capacity building – From the analysis of the programming documents and the qualitative and quantitative data collected, it emerged that the implementation of Action 5 projects created the conditions for reinforcing the capacity building of the organisations. In particular, the Programme supports the capacity building of organisations in South East Europe countries through the Balkan Youth Project, YouthNET and the SEE Youth Resource Centre. In addition, the field visits showed that the third country organisations, even though they were partners and not contractors of the projects, felt fully committed to achieving the project activities and strengthened their management capacity. Finally, the establishment and strengthening of partnerships among organisations, one of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand objectives, performed well in terms of sustainability. Visibility

The communication, promotion and dissemination of the YOUTH programme – third-country strand can be regarded as not fully satisfactory.


Ecosfera SpA 12

The European Commission promoted the Programme mainly through the Website and the User’s Guide. However, even though both instruments provide helpful information, various organisations regarded them as being not particularly user friendly.

In Programme Countries, National Agencies promoted information and disseminated the results through seminars, workshops, internet, publications, bulletins and newsletters. In so doing, the Programme resulted to be widely known among organisations.

Moreover, regardless of the dissemination of results carried out by EC Delegations, many Third Country organisations were made aware of the Programme through other organisations from the same country or through partner organisations from Programme Countries.

In the South Eastern Europe region the level of information was increased thanks to the activities undertaken by the SEE Resource Centre, the Balkan Youth Project and YouthNET. Instead, in Latin America and in the Commonwealth of Independent States there was very little information about the Programme and there were few contact points enabling organisations to get in touch with Programme Country counterparts. On the ground of these elements, the visibility of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme remained quite low, especially in CIS and LA countries. Conclusions

In the period 2000-2002, the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme has achieved good results, thus laying the basis for a more significant impact on beneficiaries during the second phase of the Programme.

The Programme presents positive elements of relevance in relation to the EU cooperation strategy with Third Countries as well as to the needs of the Programme target groups. Moreover, its instruments resulted to be coherent with the programme general objectives.

As far as effectiveness and efficiency, the results achieved by the Programme have been satisfactory. The first impact on young people and youth workers appeared to be good. Inclusion of young people with less opportunities resulted to be particularly difficult because of the unclear definition of this target group with regard to young people from Third Countries.

Results appeared to be satisfactory as for the Programme sustainability. Many young people that participated in Action 1 and 2 projects are now involved in new activities of cooperation in the youth field. Youth workers and youth structures in Third Countries were, on the whole, effectively supported by Action 5 projects and are willing to maintain partnerships in the future.

Finally, the visibility of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme resulted to be satisfactory in Programme Countries thanks to activities undertaken by the European Commission, National Agencies and organisations. The same can be said in the South East Europe region, due to the running of specific long-term projects, such as YouthNET, the Balkan Youth Project and the SEE Youth Resource Centre. On the contrary, visibility in Commonwealth of Independent States and Latin America was unsatisfactory.


13

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The structure of the Report

The Final Report includes two Volumes.

The Final Report – Volume I presents the main findings and recommendations of “Evaluation of third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme 2000-2002”.

Chapter 1 reports a brief contextual analysis of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme and of the present evaluation exercise and Chapter 2 illustrates relevant methodological improvements.

Chapter 3 to Chapter 5 present the main findings in terms of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the whole Programme under third-country (TC) cooperation. In particular, Chapter 3 focuses the attention on the relevance of the Programme’s objectives in consideration of the European Union (EU) External cooperation with Third Countries and in relation to the instruments adopted, the relevant target groups, the geographic reach and the complementarity with other EU programmes. Chapter 4 analyses the effectiveness, the outputs, the results and the impact reached in relation to the overall and specific Programme’s aims, whereas Chapter 5 examines the efficiency and management of the Programme.

Finally, in Chapter 6 conclusions and recommendations are formulated on the basis of the elements previously analysed and assessed.

Finally, Annex 1 – Volume I contains the additional tables, Annex 2 – Volume I contains a full and detailed description of the methodology adopted for the study and Annex 3 – Volume I contains the two questionnaires used for the surveys – one for the National Agencies (NA) and the other one for the organisations.

The Final Report – Volume II presents a synthesis of each country visit carried out. The list of the consulted organisations and projects visited is reported in Annex 1- Volume II and the guidelines adopted for the country visits’ reports are synthesized in Annex 2- Volume II.

1.2. The YOUTH programme

The general objectives of the YOUTH Programme are to allow young people to acquire knowledge, skills and competencies, to exercise responsible citizenship so as to become an active part of society as well as to promote equal opportunities.

These main objectives are to be reached through the following specific objectives2:

a) to promote an active contribution by young people through their participation in transnational exchanges within the Community or with Third Countries so as to develop understanding of the cultural diversity of Europe and its fundamental common values, to promote respect for human rights and to combat racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia;

2 Decision N. 1031/2000/EC of 13 April 2000


Ecosfera SpA 14

b) to strengthen their sense of solidarity through more extensive participation of young people in transnational community-service activities;

c) to encourage young people’s initiative, enterprise and creativity and to stimulate recognition of the value of informal education acquired within a European context;

d) to reinforce cooperation in the field of youth by fostering the exchange of good practice, the training of youth workers/leaders and the development of innovative actions at Community level.

As regards the cooperation with third-countries, the objectives3 are:

e) To promote universal peace, dialogue, tolerance and solidarity amongst young people by extending and deepening cooperation and solidarity;

f) To build long-lasting and solid partnership;

g) To promote the exchange of youth work expertise and know-how between non-governmental and governmental structures in European Union and Third Countries;

h) To give participants a better understanding of their respective situations and cultures

i) To help them explore their identities;

j) To contribute to the development of the voluntary sector and civil society in the partner countries.

The YOUTH Programme is designed to obtain the above objectives through 5 main actions:

- Action 1 - Youth for Europe

- Action 2 – European Voluntary Service (EVS)

- Action 3 – Youth Initiatives

- Action 4 – Joint Actions

- Action 5 – Support measures

Only 3 of these actions apply to the projects run in cooperation with third-countries: Action 1, 2, and 5.

For the achievement of the above objectives, the European Commission (EC) has established 30 National Agencies (NA) in each of the Programme countries.

Their primary role is to promote and implement the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme at national level. Each National Agency, as a key contact point, acts as a link between the European Commission, project promoters at national, regional and local level and the young people themselves. The Agencies are responsible for disseminating general information about the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme as well as encouraging and facilitating the establishing of partnerships. They advise project promoters and organise different kinds of training activities. The National Agencies are the primary sources of information for the users of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme.

3 European Commission – Education and Culture, User’s guide 2003


Ecosfera SpA 15

Table 1 - List of Programme countries (PC)

EU COUNTRIES EEA COUNTRIES AUSTRIA ISLAND BELGIUM LIECHTENSTEIN

DENMARK NORWAY FINLAND PRE-ACCESSION COUNTRIES FRANCE BULGARIA

GERMANY CZECH REPUBLIC GREECE CYPRUS* IRELAND ESTONIA

ITALY LATVIA LUXEMBOURG LITHUANIA NETHERLAND HUNGARY

PORTUGAL MALTA* SPAIN POLAND

SWEDEN ROMANIA UNITED KINGDOM SLOVAK REPUBLIC

SLOVENIA

*Cyprus and Malta participate in the Euromed Programme

Table 2 - List of third-countries (TC)

COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES (CIS)

LATIN AMERICA

ARMENIA ARGENTINA AZERBAIJAN BOLIVIA

BELARUS BRAZIL GEORGIA CHILE

MOLDOVA COLOMBIA RUSSIA COSTA RICA

UKRAINE CUBA SOUTH AND EASTERN EUROPE (SEE) ECUADOR

ALBANIA GUATEMALA BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA HONDURAS

CROATIA MEXICO FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

(FYROM) NICARAGUA

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO PANAMA PARAGUAY PERU EL SALVADOR URUGUAY VENEZUELA


Ecosfera SpA 16

1.3. The scope of the evaluation

The general objective of this evaluation is to provide recommendations for the second phase of the YOUTH Programme third-country cooperation strand, and to provide suggestions for the reorientation of the new programme which will start in 2007.

The specific objectives are intended to respond to the evaluation questions underlined in the Terms of Reference in order to assess the efficiency, effectiveness, impact and relevance of the third-country cooperation of the YOUTH Programme from a more qualitative than quantitative point of view.

Therefore, the focus is on the TC cooperation as a means of promoting young people understanding of cultural diversity, strengthening of solidarity, and self-identity, as a way of promoting the exchange of youth workers expertise and know-how and finally, as a way of reinforcing or promoting structural initiatives at society level and within or among organisations and associations such as transnational exchanges outside the European Union and all Programme Countries in order to facilitate respect for human rights and to combat racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia.

The evaluation therefore considers the instrument from a thematic point of view. It is a strategic evaluation seeking to assess the value of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme, and not only focusing on the direct or indirect results of Programme’s actions.

This strategic approach of the evaluation exercise aims at reaching the following general objectives :

• Providing relevant information to the Commission’s DG EAC (Education and culture) - The analytical work acts as a “clearing house” mechanism facilitating the interpretation of the evolution of the Programme in a dynamic, integrated and demand-driven approach;

• Providing the essential analytical tools for decision makers at various levels. The analysis provides the YOUTH decision-support system with thematic, retrospective or prospective viewpoints, essential for placing specific aspects in a broader policy and management vision, in relation to the evolving discussion on the future development of the European Union Education, Training and Youth programmes after 2006;

• Improving YOUTH programme management performance by providing conclusions and recommendations which can strengthen the effectiveness of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme and of single actions.

The service carried out intends to contribute to the fulfilment of the following specific objectives:

• to give recommendation in order to increase the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the Actions under examination;

• to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme in the period 2000-2002;

• to give useful recommendations for the visibility of the action in Programme and Third Countries;

• to examine the added value in developing new activities and partnerships;

• to examine the contribution in the reinforcement of the cooperation with Third Countries;


Ecosfera SpA 17

• to give recommendation for the reorientation of the action in the second half of the programming period, for the design and implementation of the new Programme and for its management procedures.


Ecosfera SpA 18

2. THE METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1. Key Principles and main indicators The evaluation methodology is intended to examine various areas of analysis as described below in details.

2.1.1. Relevance

The objectives, priorities and instruments of the Programme have been defined to address a certain number of needs, issues and problems. It is important to understand to what extent the current structure of the Programme is relevant in relation to the wider EU third-country cooperation strategy, the evolving needs of the relevant target groups and the design of the instruments and Actions. Therefore, the evaluation addresses the following questions:

- To what extent are the objectives of the Programme relevant to the implementation of EU co-operation with third-countries?

- To what extent do the objectives respond to the needs of the relevant target group in Third Countries?

- To what extent are the instruments of the action coherent with its objectives?

- To what extent are Action 1, 2 and 5 formulated adequately in the perspective of the objectives they should obtain?

- According to your needs to what extent are all the Actions necessary in order to obtain those aims?

- Are there differences among the priorities that the various regions assign to the objectives of the Programme?

- What is the role of the involvement of Third Countries in relation to the rest of the Programme and its different strands?

2.1.2. Outputs

The evaluation is based on a detailed analysis of the outputs of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme, in terms of number and characteristics of the activities undertaken, regions and countries mostly selected as partners, number and gender of the participants of the actions.

The analysis is carried out on the basis of the database provided by the European Commission or other sources of information.

Table 3 - Outputs: set of indicators at the Programme level

From TAO database N° of projects submitted N° of projects approved N° of participants in approved projects Grants requested Grants allocated


Ecosfera SpA 19

N° of part. from Programme countries N° of part. by various regions N° of projects taking place in Programme countries N° of projects taking place in respective region N° of projects involving young people with less opportunities N° of projects accepted by Action per region Grants allocated by applicant country per region Project venue by applicant country and region N° of send/host organisations by region country

From survey and interviews N° of projects in relation to the sources of information used by the organisations N° of projects in relation to the various aims N° of projects by strategies for contacting the participants N° of projects by role of the partner organisations in the different phases of the projects

2.1.3. Results and Impact

As third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme is currently half-way of its life-time, there is still limited information regarding the overall impact the Programme has achieved. In particular, as it is still running, it is possible to evaluate the achievement of the specific objectives (achieved results compared with expected ones) and only to a limited extent the global objectives (achieved results compared with the final objective foreseen). Specific attention is given to the results produced by the different Actions and regions.

To conclude, the attention of this evaluation can mainly be focused on the results, even though some indications of the impact can already be provided.

The main evaluation questions to be addressed are:

- To what extent has the Programme helped young people to acquire knowledge, skills, and competencies?

- In how far has it developed young people’s understanding of cultural diversity and fundamental common values?

- Has the Programme enhanced mutual understanding and respect among young people from different countries?

- Has the participation to projects carried out in cooperation with Third Countries helped young people to explore their identities?

- Has it increased the solidarity amongst young people?

- To what extent has the Programme encouraged the development of youth structures and the voluntary sector as a means to strengthen civil society in Third Countries, promoted exchanges of information, experience and good practice between NGOs and youth structures, and built solid and long-lasting partnerships of Programme countries and of Third Countries?

- To what extent has the Programme facilitated the training of youth workers? What kind of impact has it had on the youth workers?

- How far and in which way have third-country cooperation projects developed youth work methods?


Ecosfera SpA 20

As regards the evaluation of the impact, a first relevant set of questions to be addressed is the following:

- Are there indications that active participation, responsible citizenship and integration of young people into society have been supported?

- Are there indications that the Programme has contributed to strengthening civil society and democracy in the participating countries?

- Are there indications that the Programme has produced an impact on peaceful relations cooperation between EU and the Third Countries in question? Between Central and Eastern European pre-accession countries and neighbouring SEE and CIS countries? Among the Third Countries of the same region?

- Has the Programme already created stable relationships between people of the different countries of origin of the participants? If so, how long have these relationships gone on for? What is the aim of the relationship? How is it structured?

- Has the participation to the Programme encouraged the young people involved to increase or improve the acquired knowledge of the societies of the exchange countries? If so, what kind of study and/or activity have they carried out?

- Has it already created stable relationships between non-governmental and governmental structures in the European Union and Third Countries? If so, how long have these relationships gone on for? What is the aim of the relationship? How is it structured?

- Has the participation to the Programme contributed to the creation or further development of the voluntary sector and civil society?

Table 4 – Results and impact: set of indicators

Project results and impacts • on participants

N° of projects with participants with better skills N° of projects with participants who developed personal/social networks N° of projects with participants who developed professional networks N° of projects with participants more involved at the local level N° of projects with participants with better understanding of the other participants’ cultures N° of projects with participants helped in exploring their identities N° of projects with participants encouraged in increasing and improving the knowledge of the participating countries N° of projects allowing participants to abandon stereotypes and prejudices N° of projects with participants who learnt how to submit a project N° of projects with participants who learned techniques of fund-raising N° of projects with participants who learned about theoretical approaches to young people initiatives N° of projects with participants who improved the management of projects N° of projects with participants who shared experience and know-how

• on the organisations N° of projects that helped the establishment or strengthening of associations or groups in peace, dialogue, tolerance, solidarity, democracy


Ecosfera SpA 21

N° of projects that helped the establishment or strengthening of partnerships or stable relationships among organisations of Programme Countries and Third Countries N° of projects that helped the establishment or strengthening of partnerships or stable relationships among organisations of the same region (CIS, SEE, LA) N° of projects that stimulated the involvement of a higher number of people in the voluntary sector and civil society N° of projects that stimulated the creation of other projects of the same kind N° of projects which brought together potential partners N° of projects which promoted the exchange of experiences and good practice among young workers N° of projects which contributed to the development of youth work methods

• at the local and national level N° of projects that increased the awareness on European / intercultural issues on the local level N° of projects that increased the awareness on European / intercultural issues on the national level N° of projects that stimulated the creation/strengthening of local and / or national initiatives on topics similar to the ones of the Youth Programme N° of projects that increased the recognition of non-formal education sector

N° of projects that contributed to the development of voluntary sector and civil society N° of projects that contributed to the development of the youth policy

Partnership N° of projects by n° of partners per project N° of projects by the different ways in which projects contacted the partner N° of projects according to the different role the partners played N° of projects in which the same partnership will be adopted in future projects

2.1.4. Efficiency

The evaluation is focused on the efficiency, intended as the inputs, outputs and results obtained by taking into account the available resources and the management procedures for the realisation of the actions.

The evaluation of the operational management of the actions is fundamental in order to assess the ability of the actors involved to act efficiently for the fulfilment of the expected objectives. In particular, it is important to evaluate:

o The ability of the actors involved at European, national, regional and local levels to collect or provide information, by means of the analysis of the informative flow;

o The ability of the actors involved in the disbursement of the funds to the beneficiaries;

o The monitoring and reporting procedures through:

1. verification of the efficiency of the tools adopted for the monitoring of the Programme;

2. verification of the modalities of access to the resources from the beneficiaries;

For the assessment of the financial procedures and economic benefits, the analysis aims at assessing the use of the financial resources in terms of:

o Cost-effectiveness;


Ecosfera SpA 22

o Co-funding;

o Trigger of additional funding.

Table 5 – Efficiency: set of indicators

Financial and physical monitoring systems and data Average grant per participant Average grant per project N° of projects per source of co-funding N° of projects which triggered additional funding N° of projects which would have been funded anyway Allocated amount: Total, for TC projects Absorbed amount: Total, for TC projects Annual distribution of the budget Financial payment of NAs

2.1.5. Management

Emphasis is put on the management of the YOUTH Programme third-country cooperation strand in terms of division of work and responsibilities, analysis of the management structures and procedures and on how these are perceived by the various actors.

Particular attention is placed on the different strategies of the management of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme as defined by the European Commission as regards National Agencies, the EC Delegations, the SEE Youth Resource Centre, etc.

The topics mainly investigated are: application and selection process, communication and promotion, monitoring, reporting, dissemination of results, visibility.

2.1.6. Communication, promotion, dissemination and visibility

The analysis of the communication and promotion strategy of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme is of extreme importance in order to evaluate the level of information accessibility, diffusion of the capacity of impact of the Programme, means of communication and the way information is spread, whether by word of mouth or in a more structured way.

In addition, a major issue is the visibility of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme, both at the national and at the European level. An analysis is carried out in relation to both the impact and the complementarity that YOUTH has in relation to national policies and other European Programmes.

Table 6 – Communication and promotion: set of indicators

N° of NA organising promotion and communication activities about the Programme N° of projects by ways in which projects’ organisations obtained information about the Programme N° of organisations which gathered information from the various bodies involved in managing the Programme


Ecosfera SpA 23

Table 7 – Dissemination and visibility: set of indicators

N° of NAs organising dissemination activities N° of organisations promoting activities for the dissemination of the Programme/projects’ results N° of NAs and organisations by ways of disseminating information on the Programme/projects’ results N° of NAs and organisations by target groups of the dissemination of Programme/projects’ results N° of NAs which consider the Programme adequately visible

2.1.7. Sustainability

The assessment of the sustainability of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme is of great importance in order to evaluate its long-term impact. The sustainability that the Programme has reached during these first years supplies valuable elements on which to base suggestions and recommendations to adjust the Programme strategies for the second period of the Programme’s implementation.

The sustainability of the Programme is linked to the capacity of the actors of perceiving themselves as owners of the Programme thanks to the sharing of the general aims and the flexibility and adaptability of the Programme. This feeling allows to live and manage the Programme from a “personal” point of view, to shape it accordingly to the needs expressed by the different contexts and therefore to increase significantly the probability of determining a positive and sustainable impact of the Programme.

Many of the indicators applied in order to evaluate the long-term impact are related to the sustainable effects achieved by the projects and the Programme so far. In order to identify a longer-term sustainable impact, the information is mainly collected through face-to-face interviews.

Actually, the evaluation intends to:

o verify the modalities of realisation of the objectives;

o put into evidence the gap between the realisations and the expected results;

o improve the functioning of the procedural advancement;

o and, to conclude, work out a reorientation of the Programme.


Ecosfera SpA 24

2.2. Collecting information

The evaluation activity has required the collection of qualitative as well as quantitative data through the following steps:

1. Analysis of the available information and data

A review of relevant documentation4 such as, programming documents, previous evaluation reports, manual and User’s Guide, web-documents, data provided by actors involved in the management of the whole Programme (Commission, Technical Assistance Office-TAO, National agencies) was carried out. Also elements emerged during the Evaluation workshop held in Brussels on 26-27 February 2003 have been taken into account.

All this has shown that there is much variability in the nature, content and completeness of the information drawn from secondary sources. In order to guarantee an adequate level of reliability, it was necessary to make use of primary data.

2. Gathering primary data

Secondary sources of information were supplemented by primary data, carefully targeted to provide necessary information for the specific purposes of the evaluation exercise.

Table 8 - Tools and sources of information for primary data

Sources of information Tools PC/TC organisations and other institutional actors Field Missions / Interviews NAs and PC/TC organisations Questionnaires / Web survey

In line with the Terms of Reference, two different questionnaires were created and addressed to the two main groups of actors involved in the management of the Programme: organisations and National Agencies.

• Organisations

The total number of organisations interviewed through the field missions are 62 while the organisations that answered the web-survey both in PC and in TC are totally 138 representing the 25% of the total number of the organisations contacted .

Field missions

In order to provide an adequate representativeness of the experience of the organisations participating in the TC cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme, a total of 62 organisations were visited and one-to-one interviews were carried out.5

Field missions provided the opportunity to investigate projects’ work and achievements in great depth in relation to the specific aims of third-country cooperation, and in particular their contribution in:

- helping young people to acquire new knowledge skills and competencies

4 The complete list of the documentation is reported in the bibliography section, page 115 5 The full list of organisations and contact names can be found in Annex 1 of Volume II.


Ecosfera SpA 25

- better understanding of the cultural and linguistic diversity and consequently in enhancing mutual understanding and respect

- encouraging the development of the youth structure and of youth work methods especially in the countries lacking infrastructures and experience through the exchange of human resources, good practices and training

- promoting an active contribution and response on the part of young people as regards the respect for human rights and fight against racism and xenophobia

As requested in the Terms of Reference and in agreement with the EC, the countries visited are the following.

Table 9 - Countries visited

NUMBER OF VISITS PER REGION COUNTRIES

5 visits in Programme Countries – first priority Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain

3 visits in Southern Eastern Europe (SEE) countries – first priority

Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia,

2 visits in the Commonwealth of Independent States ( CIS) Countries – first priority

Russia, Ukraine

2 visits in Latin America (LA) Countries – second priority

Brazil, Mexico

For each region the projects have been selected by taking into consideration:

- the type of project with the aim of guaranteeing an adequate balance among the Actions;

- the type of project with the aim of guaranteeing an adequate balance among the regions of exchange;

- the experience of the organisation within the YOUTH programme during 2000-2002;

- the number of partners involved in the project;

- the financial efficiency of the project;

- the list provided by the European Commission;

- the suggestions of the SEE Resource Centre and of the Interkulturelles Zentrum Project YouthNET as far as SEE countries were considered.

On the basis of the workplan proposed in the Inception Report, the field missions have been carried out from April to the end of June 2003. A significant number of interviews have been carried out before the submission of the Interim Report, as shown in the following table which illustrates the period of the visits for each country. Spain, Russia and Ukraine have been visited after the presentation of the interim report during the month of June 2003.


Ecosfera SpA 26

Carrying out field missions in Third Countries has been extremely interesting and useful in order to get a complete view of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme. Even the difficulties of finding the correct contact details, arranging the interview and identifying the most suitable person to interview have contributed to provide essential information for the evaluation.

Table 10 - Dates of country visits

COUNTRIES PERIOD

PROGRAMME COUNTRIES 20/03/2003-30/06/2003

SEE COUNTRIES 20/03/2003-30/04/2003

CIS COUNTRIES 18/06/2003-26/06/2003

LA COUNTRIES 15/04/2003-8/05/2003

• Web-survey

In order to carry out the web survey on the beneficiary organisations both in PC and TC, the following steps were taken:

1. a specific web site was created

2. the structure of the questionnaire was inputted on the web in English, Spanish and German

3. a letter was sent out to beneficiaries explaining how to fill in the questionnaire

As regards the organisations located in PC, according to the indications of the DG Education and Culture, the total number of contracting organisations in 2000-2002 period was 2906. A total number of 512 communications7 were sent by TAO offices either by e-mail or fax to all project beneficiaries in the TAO database system on 23rd April 2003 and out of the 512 communications 58 failed as they could not be delivered. A follow-up was carried out between 7th and 8th May 2003. Out of this second mailing, 71 communications failed probably, as indicated by TAO, due to full mailboxes.

As regards organisations in TC, Ecosfera selected a group of 346 organisations from the TAO database, considering those which indicated an e-mail address and/or a fax number in the project application. The first mailing was sent on 15th April respectively to 106 organisations in the CIS area, 98 in the SEE area and 142 in the LA area. As out of the 346 e-mail messages 111 were not delivered, a second communication by fax was sent to the organisations not reached. Out of the 111 faxes, only 20 were delivered8. A follow-up was carried out with the same modality between 6th and 7th May. A third follow up was aimed at obtaining the

6 We assume that all the 290 organisations have been reached by the communication sent by TAO. 7 This number is due to the fact that TAO database sent automatically the e-mail to all the project’s applicants. Consequently, organisations that applied for more than one project received the same communication many times but referred to different projects presented. 8 In many cases the fax number was incorrect and telephone calls were made in order to contact the organisations and obtain the new contact details.


Ecosfera SpA 27

questionnaires from the organisations visited during the field visits and the organisations who tried to access the web survey but had some technical problems.

The total number of TC organisations contacted by Ecosfera was 255, respectively 85 in the CIS area, 79 in the SEE area and 91 in the LA area.

The following table indicates the number of TC organisations contacted by geographical area.

Table 11 - TC organisations contacted by Ecosfera

Region E-mail Successful

email Fax Successful fax Total

CIS 106 80 26 5 85 SEE 98 72 26 7 79 LA 142 83 59 8 91

Total 346 235 111 20 255

• National Agencies

We asked the NAs to fill in the questionnaire through a communication sent out by e-mail on April 8th. Two follow-ups were made on 17th April and 8th May. It was then sent back, duly completed, by 23 out of 30 NAs.9

It has to be pointed out that some of the NAs which did not answer have very limited experience with third country projects10.

• Other face-to-face interviews

With a view to carrying a sound and complete set of interviews, the DG External Relations (RELEX) has been contacted and interviewed after the presentation of the interim report. The findings of those meetings are included in this report.

• Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology

The evaluation methodology adopted presents both strengths and weaknesses. The approach is a combination of both quantitative and qualitative sources of information and data so to allow a good balance between the various elements which characterise the Programme. The aims and the goals and, therefore, the results and the impact of the Youth programme are related to non-formal education and intercultural learning which have mostly a qualitative dimension. Consequently, the primary data of the methodology were largely collected through interviews and field missions and also through questionnaires and surveys. As requested from the Terms of Reference the field missions covered all the regions with a minimum of two countries per region which gave the evaluation a complete and reliable set of information for each area considered.

9 See list of NAs for details 10 For example LATVIA NA wrote to us that they had not had TC projects.


Ecosfera SpA 28

The unit of analysis of the primary data is both the organisation and the project according to the method utilised. Because of the lack of information on the participants (intended as the young people participating in the projects), it has not been possible to address the survey also to the participants. Thus, various interviews were carried out also with the volunteers and their reports, when available, were carefully analysed. Because of the characteristics of the Programme requiring the involvement of young people and of the time that had already passed since the end of the projects, it has not always been easy for the organisations to get in touch with former participants and arrange a meeting.

Finally, the choice of carrying out the survey through a web application resulted quite effective, even though it had some weaknesses. Given the short time available for the evaluation, the extremely wide geographical coverage, going from Russia to the whole of Latin America, the impossibility to reach the organisations via mail or by fax because of the time required to reach them, the continuous change of address and fax numbers of the organisations’ offices and the high cost that the organisations (most of them NGOs) would have met if they had had to return the questionnaires by fax, the most adequate and effective system of collecting the data was a web application. However, this created some problems as some organisations are not very familiar with web surveys or just put up some resistance to these technologically advanced systems of communication and research.

In addition, as the turnover within the NGOs, especially in TC, is high, it is very likely that their present personnel staff consists of people not involved in 2000-2002 projects; besides, many organisations consists of a very small group of people and volunteers who generally work only for a limited time and do not have the adequate resources and knowledge to answer the questionnaire and finally, even though the questionnaire on the Web was available in English, Spanish and German, some Third Country organisations, particularly in CIS and SEE countries, probably could not understand the communication or did not have the linguistic skills to complete the questionnaire. In spite of all these difficulties, the number of organisations who replied to the questionnaire can be considered satisfactory.


Ecosfera SpA 29

3. RELEVANCE

3.1. Relevance of the third-country cooperation of the YOUTH Programme with respect to the EU Policy with Third Countries

Under Article 149 of the Treaty, subsection 3, “The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with Third Countries and the competent international organisations in the field of education, in particular the Council of Europe”. In this context the EU launched a series of programmes leading to mobility and exchange schemes for young people11.

The YOUTH Programme objectives as regards third-country cooperation12 are exactly in line with those expressed in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament “Wider Europe- Neighbourhood: a new framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours”.

Greater efforts to promote human rights, further cultural cooperation and enhance mutual understanding should be made: “Shared values and mutual understanding provide the foundations for, inter alia, deeper political relations… ….The EU should contribute to the development of a flourishing civil society to promote basic liberties such as freedom of expression and association. The EU also needs to make a greater effort to create a positive image in the neighbourhood and act to combat stereotypes which affect perceptions of the neighbouring countries within the EU…. Exchange programmes between youth and universities, ‘people-to-people’ activities, including professional exchange/visit programmes, activities in the field of media, training and journalists exchanges merit close consideration. …”13

In addition to these mention must be made of the Stabilisation and Association process (SAp), which is the European Union’s policy framework for the countries of the Western Balkans. Through this process, the EU is promoting values related to democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights, protection of minorities and a market economy. Sharing these values is a key part of the SAp and the basis for EU candidate status.

11 In order to better specify the operational context of the EU cooperation with third countries in the education and training field, some of the current

programmes and actions are worth being mentioned:

• The Tempus programme, which covers the countries of the former Soviet Union, the western Balkans and Mongolia, and which was

extended in June 2002 to the EU’s Mediterranean partners;

• The ALFA and Alßan programmes for Latin America;

• AsiaLink, which involves many countries in Asia;

• Agreements with the USA and Canada, which were renewed at the start of 2001 for five years;

• Pilot projects with Australia and Japan. 12 Decision N. 1031/2000/EC of 13 April 2000 13 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament “Wider Europe- Neighbourhood: a new

framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours”


Ecosfera SpA 30

Besides, the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe is worth mentioning. Among the various Tables set up by the EU and the other actors, the one on Education and Youth considers education as a key factor for the creation of a stable and prosperous civil society14.

Relations between Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States are regulated by the TACIS regulation15, which aims at promoting cooperation between the partner states themselves, between the partner states and the EU and between the partner states and Eastern Europe.

Relations between Europe and Latin America, established since the sixties and based mainly on economic co-operation, institutionalised political dialogue and strengthening of trade relations, are based on the bi-regional level (European Union-Latin America16) and between the EU and specific nations (Mexico and Chile).

As concerns relations at the bi-regional level, actually they are carried out between the EU and the Rio Group, which includes representatives from all of Latin America as well as from the Caribbean countries. Through such kind of relations, the EU and the Rio Group aim at fostering the political, economic and cultural understanding between the two regions in order to strengthen a strategic partnership on several issues, in particular in the cultural, educational, scientific, technological, social and human fields.

Finally, several horizontal programmes administered by the EuropeAid Co-operation Office17, some of which in the field of formal education, are carried out.

With reference to the above political context and the broader EU cooperation with Third Countries, the YOUTH Programme – TC cooperation strand objectives are extremely significant and relevant and their scope be widened. In fact, the YOUTH programme objectives are coherent with EU policy of cooperation with Third Countries, as its initiatives are specific and complementary with the activities of the other similar EU programmes. Moreover, within the framework of aims and objectives, the European stakeholders, as well as the local and national actors interviewed, identify the necessity to set more specific thematic priorities which could better meet emerging needs.

14 During Austria’s term of EU presidency in November 1998, Graz hosted a conference on ”European Educational Co-operation for Peace, Stability and Democracy”. The recommendations of this conference led to the formation of a Task Force and thus initiated the Graz Process. At the first meeting of Working Table 1 - Democratisation and Human Rights - in October 1999 in Geneva, education was identified as one of the priority areas. Upon Austria’s proposal, the Graz Process was charged with the co-ordination of the Task Force Education and Youth within the Stability Pact. The Graz process was initiated by Austria in order to promote democratic and peaceful development in the region by supporting and co-ordinating educational co-operation projects in South Eastern Europe. Non-formal education and intercultural learning of the Youth Programme represent key factors within the overall political and programming strategy for this area. 15 Council regulation n.° 99/2000 of 29 December 1999 concerning the provision of assistance to the partner States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. 16 A number of specialised dialogues within this broader relationship are ongoing with specific sub-regions (the Mercosur, Andean Community, and Central America). 17 These are: Al-Invest, Alfa, Alure, Atlas, @lis, Alβan and Urb-Al.


Ecosfera SpA 31

3.2. Relevance of the instruments

The current design of the Programme allows TC cooperation only for Action 1, 2 and 5.

• Action 1 promotes short-term group exchanges;

• Action 2 promotes voluntary service;

• Action 5 promotes various types of support measures.

The formulation and the content of the activities to be carried out under these Actions are coherent and relevant to the Programme objectives.

In consideration of the weakness of some associative structures at local level in terms of managerial capacities and experience in international exchanges in PC, and particularly in TC countries, the criterion according to which youth exchanges must be multilateral and therefore involve a minimum of four countries18 appears to be demanding.

In addition to this, the current application procedure based on the one application-one project principle hinders the possibility of establishing stable relationships and partnerships with TC organisations. In consideration of the difficulties of relations with TC due to the recent development of this field of activity, most organisations would welcome the possibility of developing with one application a series of projects based on a long-term strategy in which considerable resources and time could take to important results.

In conclusion, even though the current instruments at the basis of the Programme seem to be relevant and coherent with the programme objectives, a higher degree of flexibility of the instruments could greatly increase the overall effectiveness and possibility of achieving the set goals.

3.3. Relevance of the objectives in relation to the needs of the target groups

The three Actions of the current design of the YOUTH programme open to TC are as follows:

• Action 1 is open to young people aged 15 to 25;

• Action 2 is open to individuals aged 18 to 25;

• Action 5 is open to youth workers, trainers, support persons, mentors, project managers, youth leaders, groups of young people and other actors involved or interested in non-formal education.

This means that young people between 15 and 25, youth workers and youth organisations are target groups of the YOUTH programme TC cooperation strand.

The most frequent needs expressed by the different target groups are the following:

- Many young people would like to have the opportunity of meeting young people from other European and non-European countries in order to discuss their ideas, to confront their values and to face new political beliefs and social attitudes;

- Many young people would like to be more active locally and at the international level;

- Many young people would like to spread values of peace, democracy and solidarity;

18 2 EU Member States + 2 TC of the same Region


Ecosfera SpA 32

- Many young people would like to carry out a voluntary service as this activity might not be recognised in their country;

- Need for support in obtaining visa and residence permits;

- Need for support in planning the stay of the host volunteer from other organisations;

- Need for better infrastructure within small grass-roots organisations, in particular in TC;

- Need for a higher quality in the work carried out by TC organisations;

- Need for training of youth workers and structures;

- Need for sharing experience and know-how with other youth structures;

- Need for establishing contacts and partnerships with other organisations;

- Need of a good promotion system and reliable communication means in order to obtain information on EU programmes;

- Need for a new understanding of “voluntary service”, in particular in CIS countries;

- Need of resources for non-formal education and intercultural activities in many countries, both PC and TC.

The objectives of the Programme are relevant to the needs of the young people and organisations participating in the Programme. To different extents and in various manners the general and specific objectives of the Programme respond to the needs expressed by the target groups. However, in order to smooth the achievement of the objectives of the Programme and fully address all the aspects above, a more targeted approach towards specific elements of the management of the Programme such as the obtainment of the visa and residence permits is needed.

• Young people with less opportunities

One of the most important priorities of the YOUTH programme is to give access to the activities of the Programme to young people with less opportunities. Young people with less opportunities are the ones coming “from a less-privileged cultural, geographical or socio-economic background, or with disabilities”19.

Many youth organisations visited rose this issue and said that they found extremely difficult to fully define the concept of young people with less opportunities and that it is not entirely applicable to the exchanges with TC, especially as Action 2 is concerned. In order to achieve the best results and in consideration of the difficulty to design and manage a youth project with people with less opportunities, many organisations pay limited attention to this Programme priority. Moreover, given the definition of the EC, the organisations reported that most of the young people in TC, if not all, should be considered as young people with less opportunities.

During the interviews, when this issue was brought up, it has always been regarded as tightly connected with the quality, the infrastructure level of some TC countries and the preparation of the youth organisations in TC both in hosting volunteers and in organising youth exchanges. As it is a sector relatively new for several

19 User’s Guide – Version valid as of 1 January 2003, p. 5.


Ecosfera SpA 33

PC organisations, the need of reliability, safety and therefore energy and resources to be invested in the preparation of youth projects with this target group becomes extremely significant and time-consuming. The specific financing arrangements (exceptional volunteer costs - actual costs, backed up by invoices / receipts; advance planning visit - actual costs + flat rate for 2 days max) and the project length (short-term activities - 3 weeks to six months) of the current YOUTH programme design only partly respond to the difficulties faced.

3.4. Relevance of the geographic reach

The current geographic reach allows the involvement of 30 PC - 15 Member States of the EU, 3 EEA countries, 12 Pre-accession countries – and the TC – South East European (SEE), Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and Latin American (LA) countries. Also Mediterranean countries are part of the YOUTH Programme but are not included in the third-country cooperation strand, thus, they are not covered in this evaluation.

The geographical coverage of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH Programme was a topic of great attention and at times of criticism. The main unsatisfactory element is related to the limitation of the full potentiality that the Programme might have in other areas of the world. The same observation was made in relation to the rule according to which “projects should involve Third Countries from the same region”. Most of the organisations said that, given their experience in youth projects and the openness that young people have towards each other, they do not see any reason why participants from different regions cannot join the same project.

Despite these comments, the current geographic reach is generally adequate in relation to the Programme’s objectives.

According to the actors contacted, both at the NAs and the organisation level, a further widening of the current geographic reach would improve and increase the results and impact that can be achieved but, in consideration of the limited financial resources available for the third-country cooperation, it must be said that opening the Programme indiscriminately to all countries could affect negatively the coordination, the provision of adequate information in the PC countries and finally the control on the quality of projects.

A deeper analysis of these issues is carried out in the conclusions and recommendations section.


Ecosfera SpA 34

4. EFFECTIVENESS, OUTPUTS, RESULTS, IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY

The aim of this section is to analyse what has been the effectiveness of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme. As defined in the Terms of Reference, this section assess whether their results and impact have contributed in achieving the Programmes’ aims and global and specific objectives of the Programme, as reported in Chapter 1.

The following considerations assess the effectiveness in relation to the outputs, results and first impact achieved in 2000-2002, which is a first phase of the implementation of the Programme running until 2006. Therefore, these results are to be considered part of a longer and still on-going process.

4.1. Outputs

4.1.1. Overview of projects by Actions and by regions

Action 1 (Youth for Europe), Action 2 (European Voluntary Service) and Action 5 (Support Measures) of the YOUTH programme are open to third-country co-operation. As shown in the Table below, submitted and approved projects under such Actions have been in total respectively 898 and 498 in the period 2000-2002. This clearly implies that 55.45% of the submitted projects were accepted. The grants allocated are 47.5% of those requested.

The high number of projects with the LA region if compared to SEE and CIS is due to a number of reasons. First, cooperation with LA has a much longer tradition with NGOs in Europe if compared to the other two regions. As a matter of fact, the cooperation with CIS and SEE regions has been strongly promoted and become more accessible only during the last 10-12 years. Second, projects with the LA region seem to be more attractive for many young people coming from PC and cooperation with these countries has a much higher visibility and recognition among people. Third, as it emerged during the interviews, the organisation and management of projects being easier with LA if compared to SEE and CIS, many PC organisations prefer cooperating with Latin American countries.

As regards the number of projects by Action, the high number of projects in Action 2 is clearly related to the significant interest showed by the organisations in the European Voluntary Service. Many organisations are interested and “specialised” in this kind of activity as they strongly believe both in voluntary service and in carrying it out at the international level, therefore Action 2 of the YOUTH programme is well suited and effectively responds to the organisations’ aims. Besides, many of the organisations involved in the Programme are highly experienced in the sector of voluntary service, therefore, their preference towards this Action is obvious. Anyway, organisations active in this sector have to face also many obstacles due to the lack of status and recognition of volunteers (e.g. having visa and residence permits, taxation of volunteer allowances) as well as to the different perception of volunteering in the different regions concerned. In particular, in formerly Communist countries the figure of the volunteer is still linked with the soldier, thus the voluntary service in the social and cultural sector is not always seen positively by national authorities.

Finally, in consideration of the lack of professional and managerial skills of youth structures and workers in Third Countries and of their interest in learning new working methodologies from PC organisations, Action 5 projects – Support measures – despite the lower percentage if compared with other actions (13%) are particularly appreciated by TC organisations and it is assumed that their number will increase in next years.


Ecosfera SpA 35

Table 12 – N° of projects submitted/approved in the period 2000-2002

SEE CIS LA TOTAL 129 146 223 498*

No. of projects approved 25,9% 29,3% 44,8% 100%

226 265 407 898 No. of projects submitted

25,2% 29,5% 45,3% 100% Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission updated to 14.02.2003, YTH-D03-035 *The number of approved projects is 55,4% of submitted ones in 2000-2002.

Table 13 – N° of projects approved by Action in the period 2000-2002

Action 1 Action 2 Action 5 Total 178 256 64 498 36% 51% 13% 100%

Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission updated to 14.02.2003, YTH-D03-035

Table 14 – N° of projects accepted by Region in the period 2000-2002

Region Action 1 Action 2 Action 5 TotalSEE 57 42 30 129CIS 57 67 22 146LA 64 147 12 223

Total 178 256 64 498 Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission, 14/02/2002, YTH-D03-035

As it emerges from the above table, in the SEE region there is a higher number of Action 1 projects if compared to the number of projects in the other two Actions. However, the SEE region records the highest number of projects in Action 5 if compared to the other regions. In CIS and LA regions, the most frequent projects are the ones approved under Action 2. Actually, the number of Action 2 projects carried out in LA is much higher if compared to the other two Actions. The total number of projects approved in LA is also significant as, despite LA is a priority 2 region, it is higher than in the other two regions. Anyway, it is also to be considered that in LA there are much more countries than in SEE and CIS regions.

Following there is a detailed focus and analysis of the regional distribution under each Action.

• Projects involving young people with less opportunities

Moreover, it is to be pointed out that the number of projects involving young people with less opportunities are 87, corresponding to 17% of all projects approved. Evenly distributed among the three regions, there are 77 projects under Action 1 and 10 under Action 2. These data are justified by the fact that first of all it is extremely difficult to involve young people with less opportunities in projects to be carried out in cooperation with TC organisations, especially when the venue is in a TC. Involving young people with less opportunities requires good planning before the actual project is submitted which if realised with organisations not yet very well known as it often happens with TC organisations can be highly risky. Therefore, many organisations would rather organise activities with “normal” young people, and organise


Ecosfera SpA 36

projects targeted at young people with less opportunities within PC. As regards the distribution among the Actions, it is obvious that it is much easier to involve young people with less opportunities in a two/three-week activity than in a few month one.

Table 15 – N° of projects involving young people with less opportunities in the period 2000-2002

SEE CIS LA Total 30 32 25 87 (17%*)

Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission updated to 14.02.2003, YTH-D03-035 * Percentage of the number of projects involving young people with less opportunities if compared to the total number of approved projects (498).

Action 1

Under Action 1 there is a quite even distribution of projects among the three regions. Out of 178 projects approved in the years 2000-2002, both SEE and CIS countries count 57 projects (32%), while the LA region 64 (35.95%). As regards the venue, 94 (52.8%) took place in Programme countries and 84 (47.19%) in the three third-country regions. If we do not take into account the flow of the participants but only the number of projects, these data show that the distribution of Action 1 projects among the three regions in 2000-2002 has been balanced.

Table 16 – Number, geographical distribution and area of venue of projects approved under Action 1 in the period 2000-2002

Action 1 SEE (%) CIS (%) LA (%) TOTAL (%)

TOTAL (%)

57 57 64 178 178

32% 32% 35.95% 100% 100%39 33 22 94

41.48% 35.10% 23,40% 100%18 24 42 84

21.42% 28,57% 50% 100%

No. of projects approved

No. of projects taking placein Programme Countries

52,80%

No. of projects taking placein the respective region

47,19%

Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission, 14.02.2003, YTH-D03-035 Note: Percentage in brackets

Action 2

Under Action 2, projects approved were 256 and their geographical distribution is as follows: 147 concerning Latin America, 67 CIS and 42 SEE. As mentioned, for many young people coming from PC the opportunity of living in LA for a few months or a year remains very attractive. This is facilitated also by the very close cultural, historical links of countries such as Spain, Portugal and Italy with this region. Finally, also the language skills of many young people in PC push organisations to set up projects with LA countries.

Table 17 - Number and geographical distribution of projects approved under Action 2 in the period 2000-2002

Action 2 SEE (%) CIS (%) LA (%) TOTAL 42 67 147 256 No. of projects approved

16% 26% 57% 100% Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission, 14/02/2003, YTH-D03-035


Ecosfera SpA 37

As regards the analysis of the country placement of the volunteers, it generally appears that PC are mostly sending volunteers who will be placed in TC. In particular, the number of host organisations in the Programme countries (141) is half the number of sending organisations (285). The situation is completely different in the three third-country regions, where host organisations largely exceed sending organisations (353 to 89).

Also in this case, we do not take into account the flow of the participants but only the number of projects; in the table below we can see that most of Action 2 projects are realised in LA (181 host organisations) while the other two regions, and in particular SEE, count a lower number of projects.

Anyway, the table below shows also that, considering sending and hosting organisations in both PC and TC, the CIS region seems more balanced as to number of projects.

Table 18 – N° of projects and host /sending organisations in Programme countries and in respective region under Action 2 in the period 2000-2002

Action 2 SEE CIS LA TOTALNo. of hostorganisations inProgramme countries

18 89 34 141

No. of sendingorganisations inProgramme countries

48 70 167 285

No. of hostorganisations inrespective region

47 125 181 353

No. of sendingorganisations inrespective region

14 38 37 89

Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission, 14.02.2003, YTH-D03-035

Action 5

Approved projects under Action 5 are 64 and about half of the projects are carried out in SEE region. This is a very interesting finding as it shows how youth workers and youth organisations in this region are greatly interested in improving their skills, establishing contacts with foreign organisations, increasing their know-how on youth working methods and sharing information with other organisations. It can be considered a sign of maturity and awareness that these organisations have as regards their limits and capabilities and the way they tend to improve their skills by cooperating with foreign organisations. As a matter of fact, the most significant results of cooperation achieved in the same region have been obtained in SEE.


Ecosfera SpA 38

Table 19 - Number and geographical distribution of projects approved under Action 5 in the period 2000-2002

Action 5 SEE CIS LA TOTAL 30 22 12 64 No. of projects approved

47% 34% 19% 100% Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission, 14.02.2003, YTH-D03-035

Among the activities carried out within Action 5, the main requested activities turn out to be training courses (25), study visit (17) and seminars (13). It emerges very clearly that TC are mostly interested in improving and learning new skills and that in the SEE region many projects focus on study visits. Within this region there seems to be a high interest in increasing the knowledge and establishing contacts for future well-planned projects.

Table 20 - Type of activities under Action 5 to be undertaken by region in the period 2000-2002

Type of activity SEE CIS LA TOTAL

Study visit 9 3 5 17Job shadowing 1 - - 1Training course 11 10 4 25

Seminar 5 7 1 13CMS 2 - 1 3

Preparatory visit - 1 - 1

Support to Action 1 and 2

- 1 1 2

Youth information 2 - - 2

Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission, 14/02/2003, YTH-D03-035

4.1.2. Themes and aims of the projects

The themes20

Action 1

The most recurrent themes of the projects under Action 1 are European awareness (73 projects), social exclusion (61), arts and culture (51), youth information (34) and environment (29). Within this Action, the projects have covered different issues according to the region. For CIS and SEE, European awareness and its constituent elements, such as democracy, peace, tolerance, conflict resolution, fight against racism and xenophobia are relevant issues. In projects concerning LA, great emphasis is put on arts and culture and social exclusion.

20 The analysis of the themes is carried out on the basis of the predefined themes indicated in the application form. Each applicant had a maximum of two themes to select.


Ecosfera SpA 39

Action 2

Under Action 2, most of the projects relate to social exclusion (123). We find then projects dealing with the environment (34), youth leisure (33), rural development (32) and youth information (30). Considering that most of the Action 2 projects are carried out in LA, it is clear why issues such as social exclusion affecting probably, children, disabled and drug addicts were given priority by many organisations and participants.

Action 5

The project promoters’ top choice of themes under Action 5 are quite evenly distributed among few themes, in particular European awareness (24), social exclusion (23), youth information (21) and youth policies (11). This situation results from a need for Third Countries, especially for those in SEE and CIS, to be introduced to a European youth culture on which work methods can be built. This thematic analysis of the projects shows that the projects approved are consistent with the rationale for the third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme.

Table 21 – Themes of the projects by Action in the period 2000-2002

Theme Action 1 Action 2 Action 5Art and Culture 51 22 3Environment 29 34 2Heritage protection 5 6Rural development 6 32 2Urban development 3 14Equal opportunities 7 14 2Anti-racism/xenophobia 14 4 8Health 4 17 2Anti-drugs/substance abuse

6 7 1

Social exclusion (ingeneral)

61 123 23

Measures againstdelinquencyYouth Information 34 30 21Youth policies 16 29 11Youth leisure 13* 33** 2***Youth sports 5 3Media andcommunications

12 8 3

European awareness 73 10 24Entrepreneurial activities 1

Crime prevention 1 1Training systemsOther 30 41 19

Source: Technical Assistance Office of the European Commission, 14/02/2003, YTH-D03-035 Note: * 6 projects are linked to sports

** 3 projects are linked to sports *** 1 project is linked to sports


Ecosfera SpA 40

Table 22 - Themes of the projects by region in the period 2000-2002

Themes CIS SEE LAArt and culture 9 11 15Environment 4 4 7

Heritage protection 2 2 10Rural development 4 2 0Urban development 2 0 2Equal opportunities 6 6 14Anti-racism/Xenophobia 16 19 8Health 2 8 3Anti-drugs/substance abuse 4 0 2Social exclusion 13 13 5Measures against delinquency 0 0 0Youth information 6 8 7Youth policies 2 4 7Youth leasure 9 4 3Youth sports 0 0 7Media and communications 4 2 2European awareness 17 17 8Other 0 0 0% 100 100 100

%

Source: Web survey carried out by Ecosfera S.p.A.

By carrying out an analysis by region, it emerges that the main themes developed in projects concerning CIS are, in order of priority, European awareness, antiracism/xenophobia and social exclusion. For SEE, most projects deal with the same themes as CIS but in a different order: antiracism/xenophobia, European awareness and social exclusion. Finally, for the LA region the most recurrent topics are art and culture, equal opportunities and heritage protection.

This situation clearly stems from the fact that Eastern European countries appreciate the importance of bridging the political, social and cultural gap between them and the EU. On the contrary, LA countries are much more involved in issues related to culture as well as to human rights.

The aims

The web survey is also of great help to understand the aims underlying projects. The most recurrent ones in projects concerning CIS and SEE are to promote peace, dialogue and tolerance amongst young people, to provide participants with a better understanding of the respective situations and cultures and to build long-lasting and solid partnerships between non-governmental and governmental structures in the EU and TC. For LA, the most frequent aim is to extend and deepen cooperation and solidarity between people.


Ecosfera SpA 41

Table 23 – Aims of the projects by region in the period 2000-2002

Aims CIS SEE LAPromote peace, dialogue, tolerance amongst young people 18 19 13Promote solidarity amongst young people 6 9 7Extend and deepen cooperation and solidarity between people 10 4 21Build long-lasting and solid partnerships between non-governmental and governmental structures in the European Union and third countries 16 9 0Give participants better understanding of the respective situations and cultures 18 21 13Explore identities 4 6 0

Development of voluntary sector and civil society in the partner countries 12 4 13Training of youth workers 4 15 13Exchange of experiences between organisations 8 13 13Impact on youth policy and youth work methods 4 0 7% 100 100 100

%


4.1.3. Participants

As to participants, most of them are involved in projects under Action 1 (75%), whereas participants in approved projects under Action 5 are 19% and under Action 2 are 6%. The limited number of participants in projects under Action 2 derives from the fact that few volunteers are involved in each project, whereas support measures are open to many participants.

From the TAO database it emerged that participants in the projects are slightly more from PC than from TC. In particular, out of a total of 9.151 participants in approved projects, 57% are from PC and 43% from TC regions.

Moreover, it is interesting to see that, as regards Action 2, the number of sending organisations located in TC diminished in CIS (from 31 to 22), whereas in SEE and LA it remained stable21. Besides, from the number of host/sending organisations (see Table 18) it is possible to infer that it is very likely that the number of volunteers going from PC to TC is higher than the number of TC going to PC. As regards Action 1 (See Table 24), in consideration of the good balance between number of projects taking place in PC and TC

21 It would have been extremely interesting to have the exact number of participants going from PC to TC and vice versa in all the Actions, but the database does not provide this kind of information.


Ecosfera SpA 42

(respectively 52,8% and 47,2%), it could be possible to infer that the flow of participants in Action 1 is quite balanced.

Table 24 – N° of participants in approved projects in the period 2000-2002

SEE CIS LA TOTAL %

Action 1 2.403 2.100 2.329 6.832 75

Action 2 66 241 264 571 6

Action 5 892 610 246 1.748 19

TOTAL Actions 1, 2 and 5 3.361 2.951 2.839 9.151 100

% 37 32 31 100


As shown in the table above, the participants in projects under Action 1 are equally distributed among the three third-country regions. Conversely, relevant differences are to be pointed out when Action 5 and 2 are taken into account. Support measures involve 892 participants in projects concerning SEE, 610 in those concerning CIS and only 246 concerning Latin America. The situation is the other way round as regards to EVS (European Voluntary Service). This time, it is Latin America to boast the highest number of volunteers in approved projects (264); then, we find CIS with 241 volunteers and, finally, there is SEE with 66.

The great interest in SEE with regard to Support Measures is likely to be part of the European Union and the international community readiness to support this war-torn region on the way to social and material reconstruction. Besides, it is to be emphasised that in the Balkan area there is a well developed and dynamic culture in the social sector, which was inherited from the previous political regimes.

4.1.4. Country cooperation by Regions

a) SEE countries

Germany is the leading Programme country in terms of cooperation with SEE countries with 30% of the projects approved and 37% of the grants allocated to this region. Italy counts 25% of the projects (corresponding to 21% of the grants allocated), then there are Austria (9%) and Sweden (8%).

b) CIS countries

Among the Programme countries mostly involved in projects with the CIS, Germany counts 42% of the projects accepted and 37% of the grants allocated to this region in the period 2000-2002. Italy’s projects are 12% (corresponding to 10% of the grants allocated) and Denmark’s are 8%.

c) LA countries

Spain boasts 28% of the projects approved with LA and 27% of the grants allocated to this region. With 21% Italy follows suit (receiving to 16% of the grants allocated to this region). Similarly to what already noted with respect to German links to CIS and SEE, cultural and linguistic ties between Spain and Latin American countries are at the heart of such a situation.


Ecosfera SpA 43

Table 25 - Country Cooperation by Region in the period 2000-2002

Country CIS LA SEE BE 2% 4% 1%

DK 8% 4% 1%

DE 42% 11% 30%

GR 1% 1% 2%

ES 2% 28% 3%

FR 6% 12% 7%

IE 1% 0% 0%

IT 12% 21% 25%

LU 0% 1% 0%

NL 3% 1% 1%

AT 4% 0% 9%

PT 2% 2% 3%

FI 5% 7% 2%

SE 1% 6% 8%

UK 7% 1% 4%

IS 0% 0% 1%

LV 1% 0% 0%

PL 5% 0% 3%

SK 1% 0% 0%

BG 0% 0% 1%

SI 0% 0% 2%

Countries with 0% are not included in the table.


Synthesis

In general terms, statistical data provided by TAO for the period 2000-2002 lead to the following findings:

1. Submitted and approved projects under all Actions have been 898 and 498, respectively. This means that 55.45% of the submitted projects were accepted;

2. Out of 178 projects approved under Action 1, 94 (52.8%) are to take place in Programme countries and 84 (47.19%) in the three third-country regions;

3. As far as Action 2 is concerned, projects approved were 256. The number of host organisations in the Programme countries (141) is half the number of sending organisations (285). Conversely, in the three third-country regions, host organisations largely exceed sending organisations (353 to 89);

4. According to the data provided with reference to Action 5, the main requested activities are training courses (25), study visit (17) and seminars (13).


Ecosfera SpA 44

Results concerning the SEE region are:

1. Accepted projects are 53 under Action 1, 39 under Action 2 and 22 under Action 5, totalling 114 (22,8% of all projects approved);

2. Germany is the leading Programme country in terms of projects approved.

Results concerning the CIS region are:

1. Accepted projects are 57 under Action 1, 67 under Action 2 and 22 under Action 5, totalling 146 (29,3% of all projects approved);

2. Among Programme countries, Germany counts 42% of projects accepted.

Results concerning the LA region are:

1. Accepted projects are 64 under Action 1, 147 under Action 2 and 12 under Action 5, totalling 223 (44.7% of all projects approved);

2. Spain boasts 28% of accepted projects to be carried out in the LA Region.

4.2. Results and impact

The results and the impact of the Programme so far obtained are assessed in relation to the overall and specific programme’s aims.

The evaluation of the results is concentrated on the effects realised on young people and on youth workers and structures, in order to measure to what extent TC cooperation achieved the specific objectives of the Programme by promoting young people understanding of cultural diversity, contributing to strengthening solidarity, self-identity, promotion of exchange of youth workers expertise and know-how and finally, reinforcing structural initiatives at society level and within or among organisations and associations such as transnational exchanges outside the European Union and all Programme countries in order to facilitate respect for human rights and to combat racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia.

As far as possible, the evaluation of the impact tends to verify the achievement of the general objectives of the Programme and therefore it focuses on whether there are indications that the Programme has contributed to or supported the strengthening of civil society and democracy, active participation in society or produced peaceful relations and cooperation among the different areas.

The overall results are positive even though significant differences have and will be pointed out in relation to the single country and region considered.

In order to provide a clearer picture of the results and impact of the Programme, the analysis is based on three main perspectives:

- young people;

- youth workers and structures;

- local and national level.


Ecosfera SpA 45

4.2.1. Results and Impact on young people

The Programme has reached the objectives set at the beginning and in particular:

- helping young people explore their identities;

- giving participants a better understanding of their respective situations and cultures;

- promoting universal peace, dialogue, tolerance and solidarity amongst young people.

In order to have a better and more reliable idea of the impact of the projects on young people, during all country visits we specifically asked the organisations to arrange a meeting with the young people involved in the projects. All the participants met were very enthusiastic about the experience they were making or had already lived. Some young people had participated in the project about a year before the interview, or had just finished the experience or were still experiencing it. Thanks to these different situations, it was possible to assess the impact within different time-frames.

The two levels mainly impacted as regards young people are: personal and cultural/social.

• Personal dimension

All young people and organisations’ representatives interviewed said that the experience made urged young people to explore their identity, to “work” on the personal dimension and capacity of interrelating with the other people they met. Facing a completely new social environment pushed them to think about their attitudes, personal habits, ways of behaving. The first period of stay led them to become aware of themselves, even if with significant difficulties, sometimes. Similar results were achieved in all Actions.

“At the beginning I felt lonely and I had to spend a lot of time on my own with no family or friend as support” (German volunteer participating to Action 2 project)

“By working with people coming from other countries volunteers are forced to put themselves into discussion” (Interview with an Italian organisation)

Then, after the first period of time during which they were forced to adapt to the new system, even without realising it, later they acquired a new perception of themselves.

“After I finished my three-week exchange all my friends told me that I was different, and that I was not anymore the same person they used to know” (German young girl participating to Action 1 project)

There seems to be some elements which strongly influence the impact on the young people. First of all, there is the age of the person. The younger the participant is, the more effective the impact on the personal dimension is, with no substantial difference between short-term and long-term projects. This is probably due to the limited previous personal experience, and also to the flexibility that younger people have. Another element affecting the impact is the type of project the young person has participated in. Many of the most experienced organisations interviewed confirmed that an experience in a long-term project which keeps young people away from the usual environment for a long time usually has a much stronger impact than a short-time exchange programme. The personal dimension of the young participants is much more affected by a long-term experience than by a one-three week project. Whereas Action 2 projects concentrate their impact on a deep and personal level, the short-term ones have significant results in terms of intercultural learning and in giving participants a better understanding of their respective situations and cultures. Short-


Ecosfera SpA 46

term projects represent important milestones for young people. Their effects, in the organisations’ view, in the short-term are concentrated on mutual knowledge among young people coming from different countries and on opening their minds to new cultures and traditions.

• Cultural and social dimension

The cultural and social dimension of the young people was strongly influenced by the participation in the YOUTH programme – third country cooperation projects in all Actions.

“The Programme allows the young Europeans and the young Brazilians, as well as the community of the host country, in the broadest sense of the term, to get to know each other, to compare and exchange their experiences and to bridge the cultural gap” (Interview with a Brazilian organisation)

“I really appreciated the experience of living in a European country. Before coming here I had the feeling of old and rigid countries with no opportunities for young people. But after this experience I must take it back.” (Brazilian volunteer participating to Action 2 project)

“One of the first objectives was to raise the awareness among the young Croatian people that they themselves are an important part of Europe, and this aim was certainly reached” (Interview with a Croatian organisation)

“Some of activities and the ways the volunteer carried them out taught us a different point of view, which we would have never thought of” (Interview with a Russian organisation)

As regards the impact on the cultural and social dimension, there have been significant findings. The theme on which the project is focused plays an important role in helping the group get well together, in creating a common element on which to exchange each other’s view and in building new ideas. This dynamic process recurs in both Action 1 and 5. Moreover, as reported by the youth leaders, the cultural and personal tensions which at times arise during the projects’ implementation are overcome thanks to this “external” element.

Moreover, many organisations reported that by involving the young people in a “physical” activity aimed at building and creating things, the group became much more closely united.

“Projects based on Action 1.2 succeeded in strengthening the relationships between young people coming from different backgrounds thanks to the involvement of all of them in reaching the same goal, which in this project was restoring the gardens of two Schools for blind people damaged during the war” (Interview with a German organisation)

Other organisations said that pushing young people into situations where they can bring a substantial and concrete help for the inhabitants of an area creates a much more significant impact.

“The projects provided participants with a significant non-formal intercultural learning experience. What made the difference was finding themselves involved in a environment radically different from their countries, featuring problems coming from a post-war situation” (Interview with a Bosnian organisation)

The other significant impact which all young people reported is the improvement of their language skills. Some young people said:


Ecosfera SpA 47

“One of the reasons why I wanted to go to Russia was to learn the language because in the future I would like to work with this country” (German volunteer participating to Action 2 project)

“We appreciated very much the fact that the volunteer tried her best to learn Ukrainian. We know that it is not an easy language” (Interview with a Ukrainian organisation)

Finally, an important number of organisations said that many young people participating to the YOUTH programme – third country cooperation projects expressed the wish and the intention to keep on working either in the voluntary sector and cooperating with the organisations they got in touch with, or to be active locally with other kinds of initiatives in the sector of non-formal education and intercultural learning. Most of the young people would like to work with the host organisation, but usually the organisations advised them to refer to their local organisation, which is either a “brother structure” or a partner.

“Many young people kept in touch with each other and some of them with our organisation in Germany and in the respective countries” (Interview with a German organisation)

As regards the volunteer, motivation, knowledge of the hosting country, language skills, interest in the activity to be carried out in the host country, independence, are elements which many organisations indicated as fundamental for the success of the project. Lack of attention during the selection process on these aspects can seriously compromise the sojourn and the activity of the volunteer in the host organisation.

“The lack of knowledge of the local language meant a lack of credibility of the volunteer since shadowing activities require a deep involvement of the volunteer into the adolescent life which can be obtained only with a proper knowledge of the local language and its culture – Bosnian organisation” (Interview with a Bosnian organisation)

“An important factor through the voluntary stay has been the language. I was the only foreigner, and even though most of the people spoke English, it often added to my feeling of frustration that I couldn’t just understand what was going on at every meeting, but that I always had to have an interpreter with me” (Danish volunteer participating to Action 2 project)

“In consideration of the strong experience of the organisation in international voluntary service with Russian countries, the selection criteria according to which identify the most adequate and suitable young people to be sent abroad are: independence, motivation, interest in the activities to carry out during the voluntary service and the language skills” (Interview with a German organisation)

Also an active involvement in the planning and preparation of the project’s application and in the activities’ organisation can have a very positive impact on the effectiveness of the experience. Quite a few projects were actually completely organised by strongly motivated volunteers who looked for and found a “sponsor” and were active during the whole application and selection process. After the end of the project, many of these young people stayed on and are now active in cooperating with the host country. It is to be said that this phenomenon is more frequently noted among PC young people.

Another element which is fundamental for the success of the projects is on one side, the capacity of proposal that the young person has when he cooperates with the host organisation. Some volunteers are


Ecosfera SpA 48

either too passive and wait to be told what to do or just do not have the adequate approach to the work to be carried out. Both elements can strongly influence the success of the placement.

“It is important that the volunteer asks what he can do for the project and not what the project can do for the volunteer” (Interview with a Ukrainian organisation)

Similar attention ought to be paid as regards the host organisation. Well supported and professionally managed projects did have a significant impact which helped the volunteers integrate and actively cooperate with the host organisation.

As a confirmation of the above finding, it is worth reporting the experience of a returned volunteer who experienced a difficult adjustment period during the placement.

“My stay has definitely made people more informed about what it takes from them to host a volunteer, and we all agree that before applying for another project, it would be a good idea if the organisation had more stable routines in the office, and maybe also more volunteer-friendly projects” (Danish volunteer participating to Action 2 project)

Adequate planning and tasks definition for the volunteer have to be fully considered and worked out before accepting the young person and starting the project. Otherwise, risk of drop out and lack of interest on the volunteer side can badly compromise the overall experience and represent a frustrating process on both sides. The volunteer cannot be on a par with any other human resource:

“The intention was not to benefit from the arrival of the young people merely as “skilled personnel at a low cost” (Interview with a Brazilian organisation)

Attention and planning is requested also for returned volunteers. Follow-ups, feedback meetings, ex-post evaluation can represent a significant support for young people who return to their own country after a long stay in the host one. As well as moments of help and exchange of experiences among the young volunteers and the sending organisation, these meetings are moments during which they can establish or strengthen relations and put the basis for future activities.

As regards the projects’ impact on the participants, the web survey and the interviews give a clear idea of the themes and issues which have aroused the greatest interest:

- to improve the understanding of other cultures;

- to help the participants in exploring their identities;

- to motivate the participants in increasing and improving the knowledge of the participating countries;

- to help the participants to abandon stereotypes and prejudices.

- to share experience and know-how

- to develop the participants’ social network;

- to motivate the participants in being more involved at local level.

The organisations’ view on the impact of the third-country cooperation YOUTH projects on the participants has been very positive. In addition, the level of the achieved results was reasonably even in the various regions, thus showing good coherence with the programme’s aims and objectives. Impacts on many social themes and issues, such as understanding other cultures and getting rid of prejudices


Ecosfera SpA 49

are the most significant ones, while the impact on the technical aspects has been negative. This confirms also that the main aims of the Programme toward young participants are more concentrated on self-awareness, tolerance, mutual understanding rather than on learning how to draw a project.

NAs have been asked to assess the impact of cooperation with third countries. As far as participants are concerned, the implementation of projects has strongly affected the knowledge of other cultures and the development of self-awareness. Moderate effects are signalled as to the improvement of project management skills as well as of skills in general. Finally, the impact on the development of fund-raising techniques, job prospects and theoretical approaches to youth activities has been low.

• Results and Impact on Young people with less opportunities

Specific attention has to be paid to the issue of the involvement of young people with less opportunities within the YOUTH programme – third country cooperation strand. As reported in the User’s Guide, one of the most important priorities of the YOUTH programme is to give access to the activities within the Programme to young people with less opportunities under all Actions. The participation of these young people is facilitated by the opportunity of carrying out short-term projects.

By analysing the first output data, it is clear how the number of projects involving young people with less opportunities is low. In this context, the interviews carried out during the country visits focused on understanding the reasons why this happens and, as a result, very interesting and controversial observations emerged.

The first and most evident elements is the extreme difficulty for organisations to understand and define what is a young person with less opportunities. For some youth workers, even the highly experienced ones, the definition is hard to make when EU Member States are concerned and it becomes hardly possible if referred to TC. This shifts the accent along three different directions:

“In my perspective all young people coming from TC are to be considered young people with less opportunities” (Interview with an Italian organisation)

“We would rather look for and select young people with strong motivation and determination rather than to their socio-economic status” (Interview with a Mexican organisation)

“We would not like to have people with problems within our organisation. We already have our own problems” (Interview with a Polish organisation)

In spite of these assumptions, there have been some very interesting results in those few cases in which young people with less opportunities have been involved.

“Some young people with less opportunities who participated in the project had great benefit from facing a new social and cultural environment” (Interview with an Italian organisation)

“We were aware that sending a “disadvantaged” volunteer was a risk. However, in projects where we sent “normal” young people sometimes we still had unsatisfactory results.” (Interview with a German organisation)


Ecosfera SpA 50

It is to be observed that in the cases when young people with less opportunities have been involved, they had a successful performance thanks to the great attention and energy spent prior to the project, which allowed to define a very well planned stay. Generally, the preparation and the quality of the host made the difference.

4.2.2. Results and Impact on youth workers and structures The main objectives of the Programme as regards youth workers and structures are:

- to extend and deepen the cooperation and solidarity

- to build long-lasting and solid partnership

- to promote the exchange of youth work expertise and know-how between non-governmental and governmental structures in European Union and third countries

• Youth workers

The impact on youth workers and structures has been significant, even though only initial successful results have been reached so far with good possibilities of improvement.

As regards the youth workers, the main results have been achieved in relation to the exchange of experiences on youth work expertise, know-how, youth work provisions and good practice among youth workers through study visits, seminars, training courses, youth information, etc..

“The Programme has a positive effect on Brazilian youth leaders and organisations’ workers in terms of their working methods and the approach taken to managing the activities, making it possible to compare methods and to adopt a new outlook on problems, together with new/different modes for addressing them” (Brazil field mission report)

Organisations usually tend to apply for Action 5 when they want to acquire advanced skills and knowledge for their activities or if they want to exchange experience and good practice and learn about youth work provisions in other countries.

As regards the feasibility visits, many youth workers said they tend to develop this kind of projects when they want to discuss a project idea before submitting an application under Action 1 and 2. They gained great benefit from these visits and the existence of this kind of project was considered very positively.

Similar and interesting comments have been reported as regards the share of know-how after the carrying out of the projects’ activities through follow-up meetings for the organisations:

“Sometimes I really feel the need to share what emerges during the project’s activities in order to fully understand some dynamics that might have happened, but also to better define future activities. It would be a kind of internal evaluation among the partner organisations” (Interview with an Italian organisation).

• Youth structures

As regards youth structures, the Programme has achieved significant results so far, but as the Programme is still on going, even a better performance could be achieved in the future. What has been reached so far are more important signs of a positive development rather than complete and stable results.


Ecosfera SpA 51

This first section covers the issues related to the impact on youth structures as regards the objectives of fighting against prejudices and stereotypes at the organisation level and of disseminating the culture of solidarity among PC and TC youth structures, whereas the second section focuses on the impact of the experience of working on a partnership level with other countries’ organisations. Some of the results achieved are of great importance. In Bosnia & Herzegovina many organisations declared that

“The participation in the Programme within a partnership involving EU organisations had a key impact on the development of our operators’ skills, both linguistic and technical mainly in relation to project preparation and planning” (Interview with a Bosnian organisation)

Besides, the involvement in the same project helped participants get rid of prejudices and tensions also at the partnership level, as it happened in the SEE region and become aware of other countries’ perspectives, as it occurred in Mexico:

“Participation of a Serbian and an Albanian organisation aimed to build mutual trust and encourage partnership between people divided by hatred at home” (Interview with a Croatian organisation)

“The representatives of Sweden and Portugal, for example, though both countries are part of the European Union, brought diametrically opposing experiences to the discussion, supplying food for thought, ideas and solutions that proved extremely interesting for the Mexican organisation” (Interview with a Mexican organisation)

“Increasing effectiveness of the Programme in terms of bringing together different cultures and favouring processes of solidarity and cooperation between European countries and third countries youth structures” (Interview with a Polish organisation)

The surveys carried out with organizations and NAs and the interviews made confirm that the impact on youth workers and organizations has been positive. The most significant effects are:

• Establishing or strengthening partnerships or stable relationships among organisations of Programme Countries and Third Countries

• Establishing or strengthening associations or groups working for peace, dialogue, tolerance, solidarity, democracy

• Bringing together potential partners • Exchanging experiences and good practice among youth workers • Establishing or strengthening partnerships or stable relationships among organisations within the country

and to a lesser extent within the same region • Exchanging experiences and good practice among youth workers

In particular, the establishment or strengthening of partnerships or stable relationships among organisations of Programme countries and Third countries and the establishment or strengthening of associations or groups working for peace, dialogue, tolerance, solidarity, democracy are the most significant ones in all the regions, thus confirming the great interest among organisations from both Programme countries and Third countries to cooperate together and validating the necessity of carrying out activities and projects in partnership. Furthermore, Action 5 recorded the greatest impact on exchanging experiences and good practice among youth workers and on establishing or strengthening of


Ecosfera SpA 52

partnerships or stable relationships among organisations within the same region thereby realizing the programme’s aims and design.

• Youth structures and partnership

Very significant results have been achieved also as regards the partnership issue, which, at this stage of the programme, represents an important target for both PC and TC organisations.

First of all, it is important to underline that the 60% of organisations participating in the Programme are Non-profit-making non-governmental organisation (NGOs).

Table 26 - Typology of organisations

Group of

young people

Non-profit-making non-governmental organisation

Public authority

EU non government

al Youth organisation

Other Total

Total 12 83 10 12 22 138 % 9 60 7 9 16 100

Source: Ecosfera SpA – Organisation Web-survey

As regards the partnerships, two types can be distinguished:

- established international network;

- project-basis partnership.

Moreover, as it emerges from the web survey, most of the partnerships, especially if related to projects of Action 1 and 5 carried out with CIS and SEE countries, include 4-6 partners per project. The only exception is given by projects realised under Action 2 which have 1-3 partners. This is probably due to the nature of the activities and the aims and objectives which necessarily involve fewer organisations.

Table 27 – N° of projects by number of partners per project by Action and by Region in the period 2000-2002

Action 1 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 10 > 10 Total 1 0 42 4 4 50 2 37 12 5 8 62 5 0 11 6 9 26 Total 37 65 15 21 138 % 27 47 11 15 100 Region 1 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 10 > 10 Total CIS 0 42 0 0 42 SEE 17 25 4 3 49 LA 8 6 18 15 47 Total 25 73 22 18 138 % 18 53 16 13 100

Source: Ecosfera SpA - Organisation Web-survey .

Many organisations belong to either European or international established networks with different “brother” organisations in various countries with which projects are developed. As a German organisation pointed out


Ecosfera SpA 53

“This choice is mainly related to the smoothness in communication and management of the projects. Working with brother organisations allows our organisation to work more easily because we know what are the mutual expectations and we all work with the same management arrangements” (Interview with a German organisation)

If this allows better quality projects and easier management procedures, it prevents organisations from looking outside their network, from searching for new partners and from involving new organisations. Thus, the innovation and dissemination of the YOUTH programme – Third Country Cooperation become possible only to a limited extent.

In the other cases, the project-basis partnership requires a significant effort for each project. Many organisations, in particular the less experienced ones in TC cooperation, have strongly invested in this first part of the Programme 2000-2002 in establishing and/or strengthening partnerships with TC organisations. For many of them, it was first necessary to identify TC partners and this step took lots of energy and resources, especially in finding organisations in CIS and partly also in SEE countries. In some cases even when the project was already on-going some contractors had to change the TC partner because of misunderstandings and lack of reliability. As a confirmation of this finding, in Ukraine it emerged that the organisations which were part of or affiliated with the local or national government appeared more reliable for foreign partner organisations:

“When we tell our potential partner that we are part of the local government, they have a better attitude towards us and it is easier for us to find organisations to work with” (Interview with a Ukrainian organisation)

In addition, also CIS organisations have reported that they feel they have to be very careful when cooperating with another partner organisation in CIS countries. This becomes particularly true when the partnership includes organizations from countries different from the one they belong to.

“There is a high number of NGOs which are not able to carry out projects with young people, and even less with volunteers, coming from other countries. We have to be cautious when we start a new project with CIS countries and we establish a new partnership to cooperate with” (Interview with a Ukrainian organisation)

After the first period of adjustment many organisations established and strengthened their relationships. In fact, it was noticed that most of the organisations visited said that they would be happy to continue working with the same partner organisations.

“In Albania projects’ partnerships worked quite well to the point that organisations hoped to have the possibility to cooperate with their partners in the future” (Albania field mission report)

Similarly,

“Mexican organisations have worked with the same organisations for different projects” (Mexico field mission report)

Having the opportunity to work with well-known and reliable partners represents the basis for the development of future projects.

“In Italy the tendency is for new projects to be carried out with known partners” (Italy field mission report)


Ecosfera SpA 54

As regards the establishment of links and relationships between TC organisations, the survey indicated that the organisations have created links with partners within the same region, and specifically, as emerged during the interviews, more significant results emerged in relation to the cooperation between organisations of the same country. This happened thanks to the participation in contact seminars held in the country by other organisations which are in charge of promoting programmes for NGOs, in particular, thanks to exchange of ideas and information related to the Programme or thanks to mutual help in solving problems related to the management and participation in the projects. In other words, organisations of the same country cooperate because they participate in the same programme.

This is to be considered an important result achieved by the Programme which is quite relevant to the Programme’s objectives and aims. As this result is related to the 2000-2002 period, the creation of a network within one country is to be considered an important effect which might favour a further development in the network of the organisations in the coming years. This first half of the Programme’s life is putting a stable basis on which organisations can build during 2003-2006 and therefore increase their coverage of action thus reaching the whole region they belong to.

As it emerged in Ukraine, the organisations already knew and worked with each other and the participation in the YOUTH programme pushed them to increase their cooperation.

“Yes, we do know GURT association. They are very active in the promotion of NGOs and we did talk to each other about our participation in the YOUTH programme” (Interview with a Ukrainian organisation)

Similarly, in Mexico the participation in the same programme and the need to solve similar problems and obstacles increased the mutual knowledge and promoted the cooperation.

Other experiences were noted. In Albania, in order not to lose the competitive advantage on other national organisations, very little information was spread around. On the contrary, thanks to the participation in the YOUTH programme and the development of seminars and conferences carried out at the national level, in Croatia most of the organisations now know one another and cooperate effectively.

From the interviews carried out, the participation in the international conferences and contact and training seminars emerged as very important and effective in order to increase the opportunities for TC organisations to get to know PC ones, and vice versa. Many organisations interviewed get to know each other by word of mouth, but many others were contacted thanks to their participation in these aggregation moments.


Ecosfera SpA 55

Table 28 – N° of organisations by partners' choice in the period 2000-2002

Total %We knew these partners because of previous cooperation in other European projects 82 38

We knew these partners because we all belong to an existing transnational network 41 19

With the support of external consultants 9 4

With the support of Technical Assistance Office 0 0

With the support of National Agencies 4 2

With the support of European Commission 0 0

Through databases 9 4

With the support of European Youth Forum 0 0

With the support of South East European Resource Centre 4 2

They were indicated by another organisation we had already worked with 41 19

Other 27 12

Total 217 100


“In Poland, in the case of the more experienced organisations the partnership relations were already established. In the case of relatively new ones the contacts were set up thanks to the participation in previous seminars organised under Action 5 of the YOUTH programme” (Poland field mission report)

This information is confirmed by the web survey: previous cooperation in other EU projects is the most common way to find a partner or to create a new partnership for a project (38%), followed by the belonging of the organisation to international/trans-national networks (19%). These data confirm also the tendency of many organisations to ask their usual or former partners to provide contacts with other organisations in order to build the partnership (19%). It emerges that it is comparatively easy to participate in the Programme if you have had contacts or have already participated in some international programme. In Albania, for example, a local organisation was involved in a project thanks to its close relations with another Albanian organisation already involved in the same project.


Ecosfera SpA 56

The cooperation among both PC and TC partners has been different in the various phases of the project. As shown in the table below, the level of cooperation constantly increases from the project definition to the implementation phase (from 18% to 46%) to fall down drastically in the final phase of dissemination of results. This indicates the relatively low interaction between PC and TC organisations in the project definition and the progressive increase of importance when they get to the implementation stage. The dissemination of results is not done in cooperation with the partner. It seems as if they did not consider it as part of the project. These findings are very clear and were confirmed by the interviews realised during the field missions: activities for disseminating the project’s results are considered a specific duty of the project contractor due to the limited financial resources and availability of means of communication of the TC partners.

Considering the single Actions, it is interesting to see that within Action 2 the cooperation between partners is significant also in the planning stage, indicating how cooperation between partners is particularly important when a volunteers’ project is to be realised.

Table 29 - Cooperation with transnational partners in the period 2000-2002

Total Action 1, 2, 5 CIS SEE LA Total %Project definition 4 18 3 25 18Planning stage 6 9 31 46 34Implementation of the project 32 22 10 64 46Dissemination of the results 0 0 3 3 2Total 42 49 47 138 100

Action 1 CIS SEE LA Total %Project definition 4 4 0 8 15Planning stage 4 4 6 14 26Implementation of the project 11 9 10 29 53Dissemination of the results 0 0 3 3 6Total 19 17 19 55 100





Ecosfera SpA 57

• NAs perspective

As seen above, a major problem for project promoters was how to find a partner. Most NAs advised applicants to opt for organisations that had been already involved in previous YOUTH projects. Another suggestion was to ask the South East European Resource Centre for help; organisations which are part of transnational networks or which are familiar with other EU projects were also seen as workable solutions to partner finding.

Table 30 – NAs’ suggestions on how to find a partner in the period 2000-2002

Among organisa

tions familiar

with

Among organisations familiar with

other EU projects

Among organisations which are part of

transnational networks

Contacting TAO

Contacting the European Youth Forum

Contacting the European Commission

Contacting the SEE Resource

Centre

Other

14 3 5 1 - - 8 - Source: questionnaire-based survey of YOUTH National Agencies carried out by Ecosfera SpA

4.2.3. Results and Impact at local and national level

The programme’s objectives as regards the expected results at the local and national level were so defined:

- to contribute to the development of the voluntary sector and civil society in the partner countries

- to promote universal peace, dialogue, tolerance and solidarity amongst young people by extending and deepening cooperation and solidarity

From the field visits carried out and the web survey derived a quite unanimous perception that the impact at the local level had been quite significant, whereas the impact at the national level had not always been very homogeneous.

In particular, increased awareness on European / Intercultural issues on the local level and increased recognition of non-formal education sector has been the issues which showed the most significant impact in all regions. Furthermore, contributing to the development of the voluntary sector and civil society had a very strong impact in Action 2 projects while increased recognition of the non-formal education sector had a significant impact in Action 5. These findings show that there has been a quite significantly homogeneous impact in the regions with, however, interesting and significant differences as far as the Actions were concerned.

Local level

The impact on the local community depends on various elements. Action 1 projects had a greater impact on the local community if compared to Action 2 or Action 5. This is mostly due either to the kind of activities carried out, usually much more likely to allow the direct involvement of the local community representatives, or to the greater press coverage they can obtain.

Local NGOs and associations, youth centres, schools and participants’ families are the local subjects most frequently involved in all the Actions as it emerges from the table below while local authorities rarely seem


Ecosfera SpA 58

to be involved even if during the interviews it has been pointed out that in certain cases they provide the venues for the exchanges.

Table 31 – N° of local subjects involved in the projects for Action 1, 2 and 5 in the period 2000-2002.

Total action 1, 2 and 5 Total % City council 2 1 Region 7 5 Employment centres 0 0 Training centres 3 2 Schools 16 12 Central government 7 5 Universities/research centres 3 2 Participants' families 13 9 Local NGOs 42 30 Associations 30 22 Youth centres 15 11 Other 0 0 Total 138 100


In certain cases the impact on the local community is much stronger when the activity is carried out in rural areas, where the visibility and the attention to any change or innovation is higher. In these realities also the opportunities of meeting and involving local actors are clearly greater.

“The local community involvement was a fundamental part for the success of the project itself as it involved the majors of three different cities, the director of a Museum and the directors of two schools” (Interview with a Croatian organisation)

However, some areas represented an exception probably due to the peculiar socio-economic heritage of recent conflict situations.

“The general tendency that we have is to involve large cities and their surroundings. This is because the rural, insular, and cross-border regions appear to be less participative. This feature is probably an effect of the different war exposition of the various Croatian geographical areas” (Interview with a Croatian organisation)

From the web survey it emerges that 63% of local actors in all the Regions object of this study knew about the Programme .

Interviews confirm this element but highlight how differently informed and interested areas within the same country can be as regards the involvement and the knowledge of YOUTH programme and youth organisations operating on the ground.

“While within Zagreb Municipality there’s an appreciable involvement of the local community (donors, sponsors and general participations to activities) other regions seem to be totally unaware of the youth themes/organisations that operate within their territory” (Interview with a Croatian organisation).


Ecosfera SpA 59

It is generally acknowledged by the participants to the web survey that the involvement of the local community is fundamental for the project itself but as far as the attainment of the impact is concerned, project visits put into evidence that its efficacy depends greatly by the stage at which the local community was to be involved and the role it had to play. The projects where the impact on the local community has been stronger are the ones where local actors have participated in the activities since the beginning or anyway during the project itself. Whenever the project experience was reported to the local community through press or media coverage, the impact has been mainly on the information of the activities, and not on the intercultural awareness.

“Representatives of the municipalities of Warsaw, Krakow and Wroclaw played an important role, offering available spaces and participating to the seminars. In particular, the Jordan Youth Centre of Krakow involved the Polish Prime Minister as “lecturer” of a workshop on racism and xenophobia” (Interview with a Polish organisation)

“The local community was involved during the exchange activity mainly through press coverage. Various articles were published on the local media in the Arendsee area thanks to the involvement and activism of the organisation” (Interview with a German organisation)

An important element at the basis of an effective local community involvement and successful impact is the visibility and networking that the local organisation has.

“Organisations that have a well-articulated identity and a good reputation in the community appeared to be doing well in targeting, recruiting, and retaining both educators and participants and local community representatives” (Croatia field mission report)

In various countries significant results have been achieved as regards the promotion of the principles of tolerance and understanding between people and countries. Many of the organizations met in TC confirmed that meeting and living with young people coming from other countries had an important impact for the local communities, especially if placed in rural areas.

“For many of the people leaving in those rural areas it was the first time that they could see a foreigner. It gave them the opportunity of seeing that he had “two legs and two arms” as they do” (Interview with a Ukrainian organisation)

“We are strongly involved in fighting the injustice that are still portrayed against young people during the military service within the Russian Army. We teach them and their families human rights and help them to defend their rights. Many of volunteers we had in our organizations are now helping us from their own country in our mission and carrying out our activities” (Interview with a Russian organisation)

“I strongly believe that only by seeing each other in the eyes and meeting in our mutual countries we can build solid basis of tolerance and reciprocal understanding” (Interview with a Russian organisation)

“We are a very young democracy as it is only about 10 years that we are an independent state. For our young people meeting other young people from European countries represents a unique opportunity of sharing different points of view” (Interview with a Ukrainian organisation)


Ecosfera SpA 60

National level

The main aims the Programme is supposed to pursue are:

- to contribute to the development of the voluntary sector and civil society

- to increase the recognition of the non formal education sector

- to contribute to the development of the youth policy

- to increase the awareness on European / intercultural issues at the national level

These are very challenging objectives, considering the short period during which some countries have been involved in the Programme so far, the difficulties inherited in reaching these aims and the limited resources available. However, in some countries there are signs that the participation in the YOUTH programme did help TC increase the recognition of the non-formal education sector and develop youth policy.

“The involvement of the National government representative in the YOUTH programme and YouthNET activity strongly helps the recognition of non-formal education sector in Croatia” (Croatia field mission report)

“The feedback of the Bosnian governmental representative on YOUTH and YouthNET is very positive. Biljana Ivanović reported about problems to link youth activities to the government in her country since a Youth policy ministry or department does not exist” (Bosnia field mission report)

“National institutions know the Programme, promote it and, in some cases, participate in the organisations’ activities” (Croatia field mission report)

At national level, another impact of the YOUTH programme is that some pre-accession countries better realise that they are acting as “bridges” to the future integration of CIS and SEE regions into the EU.

Their role can be strategic in terms of promoting the development of civil society, European citizenship, European values and the democratic growth in areas at the moment outside the European Union.

“There is a strong motivation in cooperating with Eastern European countries supporting them in their process of democratic growth. In fact, there is the awareness that Poland is a sort of “bridge” between EU Member States and Eastern Europe, strengthening the sense of responsibility of Polish civil society. This tendency is clearly visible on specific issues and arguments such as fighting against racism and xenophobia, social inclusion and environmental pollution, on which Polish organisations are more motivated in involving EEC partners” (Poland field mission report)

“After all it is of the utmost importance that EU Commission will support initiatives like “building Bridges”. It is extremely important for the future development of Europe that Russia and the neighbouring countries will be integrated in the development of Europe and in the way of thinking” (Denmark field mission report and interview with a Russian organisation)

“In Bosnia & Herzegovina, the notion of being on the periphery can be counteracted by the contacts created through the YOUTH programme which in a way integrates the "fringes" of


Ecosfera SpA 61

Europe both geographically and culturally and shapes a very special approach to European integration” (Bosnia & Herzegovina field mission report)

An observation which appears to be valid for all countries is that the elements detected on the current political and national situation leave significant room to believe that in the longer term an even more significant impact is to be expected.

Finally, NAs’ assessment is less clear-cut. As emerged from the questionnaire survey carried out, various NAs sustain that the awareness of European/intercultural issues has increased strongly at the local level but moderately or scarcely at the national level.

There is almost unanimous opinion that the strengthening of local and/or national activities on topics similar to those of the YOUTH Programme as well as the development of the voluntary sector and civil society has been moderate. The effects on the development of the youth policy and on non formal education are found to be either moderate or low.

4.3. Sustainability

This section assesses the sustainability and the capacity building of the Programme’s activities and results/impact. The main questions targeted are:

- is the Programme developing capacity building and sustainability of relations between PC and TC?

- which are the existing conditions for sustainability of the Programme’s activities and outputs/results?

- has the Programme developed a sustainable impact on the national policies of the countries?

The overall aim is to assess whether there are the conditions for the results obtained so far to continue if the funding were no more available. In other words, considering that the Programme is half-way, the main question to assess is: when the sustainable development strategy of the Programme was elaborated, were all possible critical factors taken into account? In order to analyse these crucial aspects, various elements are considered.

1. The Programme’s aims must be understood and shared by all the actors involved in its management at central level. All stakeholders must consider the opportunity of positioning their activities in the long term.

2. Organizations should have an established mission which must be translated into specific long-term objectives and aims. There is the need for a detailed set of principles so to bring forth new ideas for working in a sustainable way and achieving the goals as defined in the overall mission.

3. Training is crucial to attain the necessary awareness, skills and knowledge for transforming the beneficiaries’ activity into a sustainable development process.

4. Flexibility and adaptability of the Programme design to different social and cultural contexts.

5. financial dimension and possibility of integrating the Programme’s funds with other funding sources, both private and public.


Ecosfera SpA 62

In order to cover the above issues the sustainability is evaluated according to the following factors:

- ownership of the Programme’s objectives and aims

- capacity building

- Programme’s design

- mainstreaming of Programme’s aims and objectives in the national policy.

4.3.1. Ownership of the Programme’s objectives and aims

Stakeholders and organisations involved in the management of the activities show a good level of understanding and personalization of the Programme’s objectives and aims. Actors involved perceive themselves as owners of the Programme.

This attitude allows to manage the projects from a “personal” point of view and therefore to shape it according to the needs expressed in the different contexts. This represents a good basis to start in order to develop a proactive approach and significantly increase the probability of determining a positive and sustainable impact of the Programme.

Similarly, most of the NAs confirmed their satisfaction with the aims and objectives of the YOUTH programme - Third Country cooperation. Their ownership allows them to understand the most appropriate design and need for further development of the Programme’s priorities and aims.

The most pertinent suggestions they made as to the aims and objectives of the next programme are the inclusion of TC cooperation specifically on issues such as conflict resolution, peace keeping, intercultural dialogue, etc. and the support to the development of democratic structures. At this stage of the Programme’s evaluation, the same thematic priorities emerged also from the bottom – organizations and young participants – showing their sensitiveness as regards the most evident actions to be undertaken.

4.3.2. Capacity building

In order to make the aims and objectives of the Third Country cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme sustainable in the long run, particular attention should be paid to strengthen the beneficiaries’ capacity building.

To this end, the following actions are to be strengthened:

i) transfer of know-how and training;

ii) give responsibility to TC organisations;

iii) support the partnerships.

• Transfer of know-how and training

This issue is realised through Action 5 – Support Measures. Training activities are regarded by TC organisations as one of the most important tools for learning from PC organisations as well as for getting in


Ecosfera SpA 63

touch with other organisations either from EU or within the region they come from. By participating in seminar courses, many organisation officers increased their awareness of the role they could play and of the activities they could carry out within the Youth programme.

From the analysis of the documents produced at the EU level, such as the User’s Guide, the web-site and other promotion material, the information on the training activities carried out appears to be good. In spite of this, many TC organisations visited had no information about the training opportunities provided by the Action 5 and only a few of them had ever consulted the web-sites covering these activities (e.g. www.training-youth.net and www.salto-youth.net).

A better knowledge of the training activities of YouthNET and the Balkan Youth projects was noted, even though some organisations reported that the cost of some of their activities was too high and they could not afford it.

A strategic role in terms of transfer of know-how in the SEE region is played by the SEE Youth Resource Centre. Its central role in providing information, support and expertise in all issues related to the involvement and promotion of youth cooperation with South East Europe has had substantial results and impact. Various organisations are learning to “use” the SEE Resource Centre and obtain the information and know-how needed to develop and carry out projects on youth cooperation. The interest showed by the European Commission by establishing a specific institution for SEE countries is interpreted as a confirmation, recognition and distinguishing mark of the central role played by this neighbouring region.

Various organisations, especially TC ones, expressed the need and wish to receive training activities on the following subjects:

- financial issues

- visa and residence permit procedures

- project management

- sharing working methods

- knowledge of best practices

As mentioned above, at the moment very good results have been achieved through the transfer of know-how among organisations, either of the same region or between PC and TC organisations.

• Responsibility

The sense of responsibility is related with the role that the organisation can play within the Programme. The role of contractor allows organisations to feel fully part of the Programme. For example, organisations in PC, in particular in Poland, expressed the satisfaction of being “upgraded” to the role of contractor and therefore being able to develop the projects directly. As a matter of fact, this had different kinds of impact, such as the development of new organisations which were highly motivated in promoting projects with TC and the increase of the awareness of the role that Poland can play in the relations with CIS and SEE countries.

“The inclusion of Poland in the group of Programme countries within the YOUTH programme has been felt as a great and significant path toward the integration of Poland


Ecosfera SpA 64

within the European Union and local NGO’s and Foundations are playing a very important role in this direction” (Poland field mission report)

Various organisations in TC expressed some degree of dissatisfaction for not having the opportunity of applying directly to the Programme.

“Bosnian project managers involved in the implementation of the activities do not have the perception of the financial instrument supporting their projects” (Bosnia & Herzegovina field mission report)

“During the phase of project definition Albanians felt on the same level of their partners, but during the realisation of the activities they did not have any managerial responsibility” (Albania field mission report)

“Brazilian organisations tend to wait for EU organisations to contact them” (Brazil field mission report)

“We have to wait for a PC organisation to contact us in order to participate in the Programme” (Russia and Ukraine field mission report)

Many organisations visited in TC are still in the process of increasing their experience and knowledge of European project application and management. Actually, their role as a partner is helping them to grow professionally and improve the inner structure.

The participation in the Programme is pushing the organisations in TC to help each other and increase the cooperation among them. This is already an interesting finding as it shows how organisations are increasing their capacity of looking outside their structures when needed and ask for help. The awareness of the organisation’s limits and the ability of taking a proactive action towards similar actors is an important result for the development of youth organisations in TC.

• Partnership sustainability

The YOUTH programme – third country cooperation has among its aims the creation and the strengthening of the partnerships, both between PC and TC and between TC organisations. The concept of sustainability is closely linked with the aims above mentioned. Both from the interviews and from the quantitative survey it emerges very clearly that the partnerships created have achieved positive results and are very likely to continue also after the projects end. However, the concept of sustainability goes further and analyses whether the partnerships continue or not, but also if the organisations have established partnerships which can work on independently from the Programme.

Many of the organisations have confirmed that their cooperation with the partners will continue in the future, therefore becoming part of the strategic programming of the organisation. Many of them had already started various projects with the same partners and had presented applications or had participated also in other programmes, both EU and international.

For many organisations it was the first time that they worked with TC partners, and even though there were some problems, such as getting in touch, language, mutual initial adjustment, they were generally solved, thus turning into stable relationships. It is to be said that on some occasions the partnerships had to be interrupted, usually because of lack of mutual trust and understanding.


Ecosfera SpA 65

Table 32 – N° of organisations which keep on cooperating with their partners


The table above indicates the sustainability of the partnerships: in the web survey organisations were asked to indicate if they would keep on cooperating with the same partners involved in the YOUTH project. The first element to be noticed is that 100% of the organisations would work with all or some of the partners involved in their project and that 56% would set up exactly the same partnership for future projects. In particular, organisations which realised projects in Latin America seem to be very pleased with their partners. As regards the single Actions, only in Action 5 there is a strong predominance of organisations which want to maintain the same partnership in future. Thus, it emerges that the contacts established during this Action appear to be very effective.

It is then possible to say that the YOUTH programme – third-country cooperation strand has so far reached a good level of sustainability of the partnerships.

4.3.3. The Programme’s design

In reference to the above conceptual framework, the Programme’s design can play a significant role in putting the basis for a long-term sustainable impact. In particular, the following issues are analysed:

- adaptability and flexibility

- financial aspects

Total Action 1, 2 and 5 CIS SEE LA Total %No 0 0 0 0 0Yes, but only with some of them 33 28 0 61 44Yes, with all of them 9 21 47 77 56Total 42 49 47 138 100

Action 1 CIS SEE LA Total %No 0 0 0 0 0Yes, but only with some of them 15 11 0 26 47Yes, with all of them 4 6 19 29 53Total 19 17 19 55 100

Action 2 CIS SEE LA Total %No 0 0 0 0 0Yes, but only with some of them 18 12 0 30 53Yes, with all of them 0 2 25 27 47Total 18 14 25 57 100

Action 5 CIS SEE LA Total %No 0 0 0 0 0Yes, but only with some of them 0 5 0 5 19Yes, with all of them 5 13 3 21 81


Ecosfera SpA 66

- management measurement

- evaluation and assessment

The Programme is showing a comparatively adequate level of adaptability even if conditions are considered too rigid by the organisations visited:

- youth age limit – 25 years is usually considered too low for the EVS projects and 15 years for the exchange project is considered too high. They were considered adequate for PC young people but did not meet the needs and the characteristics of TC;

- financial rules – the rule according to which travel expenses of TC participants to Action 1 are reimbursed for 70%22 does not adequately take into consideration the target group of the Programme – third country cooperation strand. Many young participants coming from TC cannot afford paying the remaining 30%. If the standards of living differ significantly in the various countries, travel costs do not, making it hardly possible to bear them for TC young people;

- partnership – in consideration of the difficulty in getting in contact with TC organisations, the impossibility of creating partnership with less than four organisations represented one of main obstacles for small grass-roots organisations in participating to the Programme.

As regards the financial dimension of the Programme’ design a few elements ought to be analysed in relation to the sustainability. Very few organisations are used to integrating the YOUTH programme’s funds with other funding – private or public, even though some important differences are worth specific attention. Various German organisations received funding from other public bodies, such as the Federal State or the Bund. This is to be accounted for, on the one side, to lack of managerial expertise in the organisations, especially in the smaller ones and, on the other, also to the Programme’s insufficient attention to this aspect. Further elements are analysed in the efficiency section.

4.3.4. Mainstreaming and national policies

As emerged in other sections of the present report, the performance of the Programme has not been very homogeneous as regards the impact on the national policies due to various reasons, such as the short time that has passed since the Programme was started, limited political attention at the national level in some countries, non-existence of relevant contact persons within the countries’ government to keep in touch with and lack of the necessary resources in order to interact with all the countries involved in the Programme.

However, this section focuses on the success that the mainstreaming of youth policies and non-formal education has had in some countries, to identify the elements that have favoured the process and the ones which are currently reducing its impact.

The main elements that affected the impact do not seem to be connected to the programme design, but rather to:

22 It is to be signalled that as from the User’s Guide – version 1 January 2003, both Action 1 and 5 travel costs are reimbursed for 70%.


Ecosfera SpA 67

- the country’s political and programming youth policy framework

- the managerial and personal investment within the country administration

“There’s an efficient and solid connection with Croatian national youth policies, especially due to the efforts made by the Ministry of Education and School that sets YOUTH programme support activities in the national budget” (Croatia field mission report)

“It would be helpful if there was a comprehensive Bosnian national youth policy that could provide a framework for all relevant interventions” (Bosnia & Herzegovina field mission report)

“There is a lack of relation among Albanian national policies and the YOUTH third country cooperation programme” (Albania field mission report)

“Youth policies in Russia are not very developed. They are mostly related to the promotion of sport activities among youth and they still often focus on the military service” (Interview with a Russian organization)

The other consideration is related to the short life-time of the Programme so far:

“It is just too early to say if Poland national policy may get some influence from the third country cooperation of the YOUTH programme” (Poland field mission report)


Ecosfera SpA 68

5. EFFICIENCY AND MANAGEMENT

Efficiency is the result of a strategy coherent with the expected objectives of a capable management, of a quality-oriented selection process as well as of an adequate communication and promotion system. Additional assessment focuses on whether the performance is achieved in a cost-effective way or on time.

5.1. Financial review

5.1.1. Funds availability, programme strategy and management

If we do not take into account the funds allocated to Mediterranean countries23, the ratio of allocated budget for activities with third country regions to the YOUTH programme total budget is low24. From 2000 to 2002 its level is around 4% and in 2003 it represents the 3,5% (see table below). This share is very small and proves that the Third Country cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme has little importance within the overall Programme from a financial point of view.

As regards the various Actions, Action 1 is the most representative with 1,5% while Action 2 has 0,8% and Action 5 1,1%. In addition, by comparing the budget allocated for both 2002 and 2003, it can be noticed that a considerably lower amount is allotted to Action 5 and a slightly higher one to the Action 2 budget.

Moreover, a further consideration is that the limited financial dimension of the TC cooperation strand does not allow adequate communication of the Programme, dissemination of the results or the promotion of pilot projects (see relevant paragraphs below).

In spite of the existence of the above difficulties, the current management of the Programme is rather efficient thanks to a very accurate and quality-oriented selection process. The most evident indicators of this process is, on one side, the success rate recorded by the projects’ applications, which for 2000-2002 is around 55% of the approved out of the submitted ones; on the other side, as described in detail below, the significant resources put into the selection process; and finally, the detailed and strict selection criteria adopted. This allows the financing of about half of the projects submitted, that is only the ones responding to quality criteria.

23 Mediterranean countries participate in the EUROMED-YOUTH Programme. 24 A reliable comparison between the years is not possible as the data of the different years are not homogeneous.


Ecosfera SpA 69

Table 33 - Comparison between 2002 and 2003 financial data

ACTIONS 2002 2003 a B c d Allocated Allocated % % € € b/a b/total programme Action 1: 1.500.000 1.450.000 -3,3% 1,5% Action 2: 750.000 800.000 +6,7% 0,8% Action 5: 1.400.000 1.100.000 -21,4% 1,1% Total 3.650.000* 3.350.000* -8,2% 3,5% Total budget Youth programme

83.911.873 96.876.000

*Allocated budget includes only funds allocated for LA, SEE, CIS countries’ activities.

Source: Elaboration of Ecosfera S.p.A on the data supplied by the European Commission

5.1.2. Financial absorption

This paragraph assesses the Third Country cooperation programme’s financial efficiency for the 2000-2002 period in terms of budget allocated and consumed. The capacity of financial absorption of the Programme is good.

Moreover, also the overall expenditure has increased through the years. Over the three years the spending has been 11.403.562 Euro with an increase from 2,9 MEURO in 2000 to 4,6 in 2002.

As it concerns the consumed budget sharing of the three Actions (table 27 – column f), there has been an increase in the percentage of expenditure as to Action 5, a decrease as to Action 2, whereas the percentage of Action 1 has been stable (around 50% in each year).

Moreover, as regards the efficiency performance, the year recording the best performance was 2001 (table 28- column e):

• In 2000 the Programme consumed 98% (-2%) of the initial budget;

• In 2001 the Programme consumed +50% in excess of the initial budget;

• In 2002 the Programme consumed +27% in excess of the initial budget.

With reference to the single Actions, the data show that Action 2 obtained the best efficiency performance over the years (table 28 – column e):

• Consumed budget for Action 1 was -30% in 2000, +40% in 2001, +44% in 2002 if compared to the initial budget;

• Consumed budget for Action 2 was +71% in 2000, +72% in 2001, + 59% in 2002 if compared to the initial budget;

• Consumed budget for Action 5 was -8% of initial budget in 2002, but it increased significantly in comparison with the previous year;

If the consumed budget over the years for each single Action is taken into consideration, Action 5 and Action


Ecosfera SpA 70

1 recorded a significant budget increase an increasing importance of their budget, whereas Action 2 slightly diminished its spending (table 29 - column f):

• from 2000 to 2002 Action 1 increased its spending by +53%;

• from 2000 to 2002 Action 2 decreased its spending by -7,1%;

• from 2000 to 2002 Action 5 increased its spending by +140%;

The comprehensive amount of consumed funds from 2000 to 2002 became constantly higher, thus indicating the increasing importance of the TC cooperation of the YOUTH programme.

Table 34 - Financial data for the period 2000-2002

BUDGETa b c d f€ % on total € € % d/d

Action 1: 2.000.000 72,70% 1.403.110 1.403.110 48,44%

Action 2: 750.000 27,30% 1.280.508 1.280.508 44,21%Action 5: 212.774 7,35%

2.750.000 100,00% 2.683.618 2.896.392 100%

BUDGETa b c d e€ % on total € € % ∆ d/a

Action 1: 1.500.000 66,70% 2.095.315 2.095.315 40%

Action 2: 750.000 33,30% 1.286.584 1.286.584 72%Action 5: 496.473

2.250.000 100,00% 3.381.899 3.878.372 50%

BUDGETa b c d e€ % on total € € % ∆ d/a

Action 1: 1.500.000 41,10% 2.595.636 2.152.921 44%

Action 2: 750.000 20,50% 1.595.254 1.190.039 59%Action 5: 1.400.000 38,40% 1.285.838 1.285.838 -8%

3.650.000 100,00% 5.476.728 4.628.798 27%

EU/EEA

INITIAL 2000 DECEMBER 2000BUDGET CONSUMED

e%∆ d/a

Youth for Europe -30%European voluntary service 71%Support measures

Total -2%

EUR 30


F% d/d

Youth for Europe 54,03%European voluntary service 33,17%Support measures 12,80%

Total 100%

EUR 30


f% d/d

Youth for Europe 47%European voluntary service 26%Support measures 28%

Total 100% Note to the table:

• Allocated budget in Action 1, 2 and 5 includes only funds allocated for LA, SEE, CIS countries’ activities; • 2000 data refer to EU/EEA countries, while 2001 and 2002 refer to all 30 YOUTH Programme Countries

(EUR 30); • Columns indicating INITIAL – BUDGET (letters a and b) refer to the budget allocated at the beginning of the

solar year; • Columns indicating DECEMBER – BUDGET (letters c) refer to the budget allocated at the end of the solar

year;


Ecosfera SpA 71

• Columns indicating DECEMBER – CONSUMED (letters d) refer to the budget spent by the end of the year; • Allocated budget for Action 5.1.2 for the 2000 and 2001 years was not available; • 2002 budget of Action 5 includes both data referring to projects managed by National Agencies and those

managed at central level respectively so distributed NA 582.165 Euro Central level 703.673 Euro, while for the other years such information are not available;

• Projects applied in the November deadline are counted in the following year’s budget.

Table 35 – Increase of consumed budget in the period 2000-2002 **

2000 2001 2002 2000-2002 a b c d e F € € % b/a € % d/b % d/a

Action 1 Youth for Europe 1.403.110 2.095.315 49,3% 2.152.921 2,7% 53,4%

Action 2 European voluntary service

1.280.508 1.286.584 0,5% 1.190.039 -7,5% -7,1%

Action 5 Support measures* 212.774 496.473 133,3% 512.165 3,2% 140,7%

Total 2.896.392 3.878.372 33,9% 3.855.125 -0,6% 33,1% * Only budget managed by National Agencies within Action 5 ** Budget in Action 1, 2 and 5 includes only funds for LA, SEE, CIS countries’ activities.

As concerns National Agencies’ financial and administrative costs, there are no specific information on the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme. In consideration of the importance of this issue, it is worth underlining that it would be useful to have such data available in order to assess the National Agencies’ management performance as well as their support to the dissemination of information and to the development of new partnerships for the TC cooperation strand.

5.1.3. Cost effectiveness

From the data provided by TAO, it is possible to analyse also the average grant per project. Given the different nature of the activities, it is relevant to carry out the analysis on an Action basis.

Table 36 – Financial data per type of Action (2000-2002)

Action Action 1 Action 2 Action 5 Average grant of project

per type of Action 32.406 14.841 21.862 Average grant per type of

participant 844 6654 800 Average number of

participants per project 38 2 27

The following elements emerge:

- Action 1 – on average, an Action 1 project absorbs a higher percentage of the budget. However, given the high number of participants, in each project, each participant receives a small quota of budget.


Ecosfera SpA 72

- Action 2 – a voluntary service project on average consumes a small amount of the budget. However, very few participants will benefit from it.

- Action 5 – on average, an Action 5 project absorbs a budget which is in between the other two Actions projects, but a significant amount of people will benefit from that money.

Further and very important considerations can be drawn from the projects visited and the web survey.

First of all, it is to be emphasised that all the financial support given by the European Commission is aimed at financing activities and is spent on the projects and the participants. No significant financial support is aimed at the organisations; thus, the European resources invested in the Programme have a direct and important impact on the activities.

In order to better explain this remark, it is important to stress that most of the organisations involved in the programme activities are non-governmental organisations whose motivation is mostly related to humanitarian principles, and not to profit-making. As a consequence, most of the NGOs participating to the Programme are funded out of philanthropy and therefore by donations. Actually, most of NGOs receive funding from foundations and other associations, usually foreign funding for TC organisations. The most common donors are: UN, UNICEF, USAID, UNDP, IDB, Soros foundation, Charles Stewart Mott foundation, etc.. Thanks to these donations and funding they can run the organisation, and then, thanks to the YOUTH programme, the organisations can organise the activities. Therefore, all the resources spent under the YOUTH programme go to the benefit of the final beneficiaries.

As emerged from the quantitative research made, a very significant number of organisations receive co-funding from other actors also in order carry out their projects. The participation in the YOUTH programme actually represents an incentive inducing to looking for further funding in order to help the organisations to expand their activities and gain a higher professional profile. As emerged during the interviews, this working method is becoming more and more familiar, but it was generally better accepted and managed in PC organisations. From the web survey, within the YOUTH programme, both PC and TC organisations generally utilise their own funds or local funds to cover their part of co-funding. According to the table below, most of the projects are co-financed by the same organisations’ funds (35%), followed by local funds (20%) and by the contribution of participants (18%). National funding and EU funding are very limited (respectively 4% and 5%).

Table 37 - Sources of additional funding in the period 2000-2002

Total % Other European funding 10 5 National funding 8 4 Local funding 42 21 Private funding 25 13 Contribution of participants 38 19 Funding of my organisation 74 38 Total 197 100%

Source: Ecosfera S.p.A. – Organisation Web-survey

Of course, this condition is much more common within Programme countries than in third countries, only few TC organisations are able to support their activities on their own. Within this framework, Mexico represents a special case as all the organisations visited received national funds or were able to provide additional funding by themselves for the realisation of the YOUTH project.


Ecosfera SpA 73

As regards the co-funding, TC organisations/participants have problems within Action 1 as regards travel expenses: this is, in fact, one of the major barriers for TC young people and youth workers when travelling to PC states for a YOUTH programme. In many cases, PC hosting organisations were asked to pay air tickets on behalf of TC participants who could not afford to buy them on their own. It is important to underline the necessity to rise co-funding for travel expenses within Action 1 from the current 70% to 100%.

The fact that organisations realise further projects and activities through both their own funds and local funding is confirmed also by the table below indicating the number of organisations which attracted further funding for other activities thanks to the participation in the YOUTH programme. According to the answers and information gathered, slightly more than half of the organisations contacted were not helped in attracting further funding by the participation in the Programme, while another 45% got some benefit (22% of them drew local funds and 14% private funds).

Table 38 - N° of organisations which found further funding for their activities in the period 2000-2002

Total % Yes, other European funding 5 3 Yes, national funding 13 7 Yes, local funding 40 22 Yes, private funding 25 14 No 98 54 Total 181 100


Moreover, 75% of both PC and TC organisations agreed that the YOUTH programme was the only way to realise the projects indicated in the survey, while only few stated that their projects would have been realised anyway thanks to different funding sources (see table below). This shows how useful the YOUTH programme – third country cooperation strand is for the promotion of such aims as tolerance, democracy, non-formal education and intercultural learning.

Table 39 - N° of organisations whose projects could have been financed by other funds in the period 2000-2002

No

Yes, but the project would

have been different

Yes, and it would have

been the sameDon't know %

Total 103 15 14 6 138% 75 11 10 4 100


The last part of this paragraph deals with the problems or delays faced by the organisations when managing a project. The table below indicates these problems.

The most significant data refer to financial problems (24%) and the issue of visas and/or residence permits (23%). The analysis by single Action shows that this is particularly true in relation to Action 1 and 2. In Action 5 the visa and residence permits still play a key role, but also other elements such as administrative difficulties and problems with partners are very important.


Ecosfera SpA 74

Table 40 - Problems or delays faced by organisations in the period 2000-2002

Total Action 1, 2, and 5 Total % ACT

1 ACT 1 ACT

2 ACT 2% ACT

5 ACT 5 %Administrative obstacles 27 13 11 15 10 11 6 14 Financial problems 49 24 19 26 24 28 6 11 Organisational problems 26 13 8 10 14 17 4 9 Personnel problems 4 2 4 5 0 0 0 0 Problems in identifying and/or selecting the participants 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 Problems with partners 8 4 2 3 0 0 6 14 Problems of coordination with local institutions and local actors 5 2 0 0 5 6 0 0 Issue visas and/or residence permits 48 23 17 23 24 28 7 18 Communication between partners 12 6 8 10 0 0 4 9 Vaccination and health care 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Travel distance to venue 4 2 0 0 0 0 4 9 Lack of national agencies' support 16 8 2 3 10 11 4 9 Other 4 2 4 5 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 205 100 75 100 87 100 43 100


Another financial problem is linked with bank transfers: in some countries bank transfers are not possible at all for security reason, while in others they are heavily taxed. In some cases, also pocket money to young people are subject to taxes: volunteers resident in Russia and Ukraine have to pay taxes on the funds they receive. This situation creates difficulties both for TC organisations, which have to find different ways to get the funds, and for the young volunteers themselves.

As regards the issue of Visas and/or residence permits, besides the administrative problems, there is also a financial question, as many participants were asked to pay high duties to get a visa in a reasonable time.

Finally, the funding of YOUTH programme – third country strand, thanks to its detailed and well specified rule, pushes the organisations towards projects of quality. It is thanks to the efforts made by the organisations in the preparation and management of the process and in trying to set up quality projects that youth workers and young people can successfully participate in these projects and have a benefit from it; moreover, the volunteers’ activities within Action 2 have a substantial impact on their host organisations. Volunteers have to be deployed in meaningful and effective ways, and NGOs are prepared to supply significant activities so that the volunteers can carry out a qualified service to their communities.

5.2. Management of the Programme

• DG EAC and TAO

DG EAC (Education and Culture) is responsible, in cooperation with the National Agencies and with the assistance of the TAO, for the management of the Programme. In particular, DG EAC presides over the selection panel and the overall selection procedure; National Agencies are responsible for the financial management of the projects within the context of decentralisation while TAO provides DG EAC technical assistance in making selections. This assistance is based on a continuous interaction between DG EAC and TAO.


Ecosfera SpA 75

• Technical Assistance Office

The Technical assistance office’s main tasks for the management of the TC cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme are:

⇒ to provide information and advice on how to participate in the various Youth activities and to give support to the selected projects;

⇒ to assist the EC in the analysis and in the selection process of applications, in the contractual and payment procedures and in the analysis of the final reports of the projects;

⇒ to perform secretarial work and organise external meetings, seminars, selection meetings and other activities;

⇒ to carry out on-site visits to projects.

As regards the selection procedure, TAO is responsible for carrying out the pre-assessment of the projects, preparing the list of selected projects to be sent to the NAs and calculating the grants.

• Other Directorates General and EC Delegations

At present, DG RELEX/AIDCO involvement in the YOUTH programme appears to be limited to the inter-consultation phase as consultation among the various DGs involved in third country cooperation is not very frequent with the consequence that the coordination between the YOUTH programme and the overall third country cooperation strategy of the EC turns out to be not fully effective.

As far as EC Delegations’ involvement is concerned , DG EAC and TAO send the various delegations the list of the approved projects taking place in third countries within the YOUTH programme. Moreover, they inform the delegations about the visits they intend to pay to third countries projects.

• National Governments and National Agencies

National governments are involved in the management of the YOUTH programme through the Programme committee to which they send their representatives. They are also responsible for designating and monitoring NAs (in cooperation with EC) to which they delegate the overall management of the Programme at national level.

The role of the NAs is to promote the Programme at national level and act as a contact point and link among the EC, the promoters and the young people.

Besides, NAs issue the contracts, monitor the projects and are responsible for the payments. As concerns the financial aspect, it is to be underlined that NAs manage a large part of the YOUTH programme Third Country cooperation strand budget on behalf of the Commission.

5.2.1. Application and selection process

• Project applications forms

The application forms used for Third Country cooperation are the standard forms of the YOUTH programme and are available in 11 languages from the website of the EC and in of the NAs. Generally, they are easily understood although someone suggested a more simplified application form.

The following difficulties are reported:


Ecosfera SpA 76

⇒ As concerns the language used for the application, the point is that the organisations of TC as well as some of the Programme countries – pre-accession countries in particular - do not speak English or other EU languages. Translating the application forms into the languages of pre-accession countries could enhance the visibility, the interest and therefore the participation in the Programme. Furthermore, even though TC organisations cannot apply directly to the Programme, making the application form and the other promotion and communication material available in the TC languages would have a similar positive impact.

⇒ The calculation of grant requests and the mechanism of fixed amount plus flat rate are not always clearly understandable by the organisations. The consequence is that project applicants receive less money than they requested in the application.

• The selection process/ Notice and communication about the applications and contracts

The selection process for the period 2000-2002 for projects with third countries is semi-centralised. Project’s promoters present their application to the relevant NA25 that forwards it to the EC.

As concerns the selection process, TAO provides a pre-assessment sheet before the selection panel26 (formed by the Commission officials responsible for the Youth Unit and by other representatives of EC, NAs, and EYF), which is responsible for the approval or the rejection of the projects. Successively, the Commission and TAO define a Draft Decision List which is discussed with other DGs and then turned into the Commission’s final decision. Finally, DG EAC authorises the respective NAs to issue the contracts. NAs are also responsible for the first advance payments and distribution of grants to the organisations.

The overall assessment process is considered too long – usually it takes more than six months before the applicants receive the official communication. Lack of clarity and information on the whole process and also communication problems in the phase of selection are often reported.

5.2.2. Elements on the role of NAs

Within the overall framework established for the management of the Programme, the role of the NAs is crucial. Their experience gained by the regular and direct contacts with the organisations of their country and their closeness to smaller grass-roots organisations make them a valuable source of information as regards the management and the implementation of the Programme. In order to fully understand the activities carried out and the kind of support the organisations ask for, specific questions were posed to the NAs through the questionnaire.

Financial matters and search for partners are the issues over which most NAs were asked for support by project promoters. Another frequent inquiry was how to obtain visa and residence permits. Among the issues not included in the questionnaire, 4 NAs indicated that they were requested to provide the following ones: feedback on the contents and quality of projects to be submitted, explanations about how to fill in the application form and even about the objectives of the YOUTH programme. See table below.

25 International and European organisations submit the application directly to EC. 26 Final recommendations are not showed to avoid influencing final decisions.


Ecosfera SpA 77

Table 41 - Common issues on which project promoters asked NA for support in the period 2000-2002

Search for partner

Logistics Vaccination and

heath care

Lack of national

government support

Financial issues

Obtaining visa and residence permits

Other

16 4 - 2 18 9 4 Source: questionnaire-based survey of YOUTH National Agencies carried out by Ecosfera SpA

Above all NAs are asked for support in financial matters or in situations of critical importance in the initial stages of the application (search for partner) or when participants in projects have practical difficulties (obtaining visa and residence permits).

NAs provide their support on their own. In few cases, they make use of the TAO, the European Commission, other National Agencies or national bodies (see table below).

Table 42 - Ways of supporting project promoters in the period 2000-2002

Internal structure

External structure

TAO Other NAs EU Commissio

n

EC delegations

Other national bodies

European databases

20 1 7 3 7 - 3 1 Source: questionnaire-based survey of YOUTH National Agencies carried out by Ecosfera SpA

• Instruments

NAs were consulted also as regards the instruments and one element in particular is worth mentioning. At present, organisations can participate in the Programme on a one-application – one-project basis, which forces organisations to invest a substantial amount of time and energy in the application and administrative procedure, rather than on the project realisation and effectiveness improvement. Many organisations would be happy to develop a series of projects with one application. The most significant advantages they identify are:

- opportunity of creating a coordinated set of projects linked over a significant period of time;

- improvement of the results and impact to be achieved;

- strengthening of the organisations’ partnerships;

- long-term strategy and vision;

- lower administrative burden;

- possibility of focusing on the projects’ content and management;

- higher visibility of the Programme;

- better and more effective involvement of the local community.

As regards the NAs, the idea of promoting applications for long-term projects is supported by 13 NAs and objected to by 9 NAs. The first group argues that such projects could help build up long term relationships and trust among organisations as well as increase the quality of projects. The achievement of these results, however, hinges upon an increase in individual NAs’ budgets and the strengthening of monitoring activities.


Ecosfera SpA 78

The second group contends that the promotion in question would prevent project promoters from being diversified. In fact, only big organisations have sufficient resources, both human and financial, to participate in such challenging projects. Due to current limited resources, it is said to be more practicable to fund small projects with many beneficiaries, which makes monitoring activity easier for NAs.

In conclusion, the promotion of long-term projects is a viable option on condition that resources increase and all organisations are given equal opportunities when participating in the projects. The best solution would be to introduce long-term projects alongside the existing ones.

5.3. Communication and promotion

In the main, communication and promotion of the YOUTH programme – third country strand can be regarded as satisfactory. In the following analysis, the system for providing information about the Programme is assessed with regard to the European, Regional, National and the organisations’ level.

5.3.1. European level

The European Commission has taken active steps to promote the YOUTH programme – third country strand. The means used have been the website and the User’s Guide. Moreover, National Agencies and governments have been asked to contribute to the promotional activity.

The website provides a lot of information about the opportunities to cooperate with third countries under the YOUTH programme. It then offers the links to other bodies’ websites, such as those of NA and the SEE Resource Centre’s. Finally, visitors are invited to consult the User’s Guide for further details of the Programme. Even so, it is worth pointing out that the website under consideration does not appear to be particularly user friendly.

The User’s Guide includes helpful information on how to apply for the Programme’s funds. For most of the organisations visited, the Guide had been very useful. Some of them visit it quite regularly to be kept up-to-date on the Programme.

It is important to stress that only PC organisations made use of the Guide. However, there are organisations in PC that are not familiar with it. For many organisations in Poland, for example, the previous version of the Guide was difficult to understand, whereas the new one is more straightforward. This situation is likely to depend on the poor knowledge that pre-accession countries still have of the EU administration and work methods.

Unlike what happened in PC, very few organisations consulted the User’s Guide in TC. Quite surprisingly, some organisations never heard of it.

5.3.1.1. Communication and Promotion in the SEE Region

One of the objectives of the YOUTH programme consists in reinforcing the co-operation between PC countries and countries in the region of South East Europe. In order to achieve this aim the EC promoted the following main activities.


Ecosfera SpA 79

• The SEE YOUTH Resource Centre, which is hosted at MOVIT, the Slovenian National Agency of the YOUTH programme, is intended to support the network of the National Agencies of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand to start or extend the co-operation between their countries and the countries in the region of SEE.

The Centre acts as a support service for:

• the network of National Agencies of the YOUTH programme in the field of cooperation with SEE;

• youth organisations, youth leaders, youth workers who are interested in developing youth cooperation between PC and TC in the SEE region.

The SEE Resource Centre plays an important role in promoting the YOUTH programme. From the interviews and the web survey it emerges that, although its relatively recent establishment – its activities started in April 2002 - many PC and TC organisations knew its existence and some fills the information and promotion gap which was present in the area until its establishment.

• The Balkan Youth Project, which is an important initiative to disseminate information and develop the non-governmental youth sector. Its aims are to enhance long-term development of a proactive youth policy and to strengthen the democratic youth NGO sector in South East Europe.

The Balkan Youth Project (BYP) is a project framework jointly developed and implemented by the European Youth Forum and CARE International in Bosnia-Herzegovina/Croatia (CARE BH/C). It is operational from 2002 until summer 2005. The BYP consists of youth NGO training activities, contact forums, study visits, youth exchanges and production and dissemination of information, essential to the further development of the non-governmental youth sector in South East Europe and for contact-making with young people in the rest of Europe. Furthermore, the political dimension will promote the development of national action plans on youth policy in the SEE countries.

From the interviews carried out it emerges that the BYP was not widely known. It is to be said that the activities of BYP started in mid-2002 which was only a few months before the interviews were carried out, a very short time in consideration of the scope of its activities, the accessibility of the information in the Balkan countries and of the organisational level of the SEE youth structures. In some cases the organisations met were not able to distinguish very clearly the activities carried out within BYP from the ones carried out within the SEE Resource Centre.

• Another initiative called YouthNET deserves particular attention. YouthNET is an initiative that was conceived within the framework of the Stability Pact for South East Europe. Its activities are sponsored by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Dept.7/7 and the European Commission and it is integrated into the workplan of the European Commission until the year 2005. The idea of YouthNET was developed by Interkulturelles Zentrum Vienna – Austria, an NGO with wide experience in international youth exchanges. Interkulturelles Zentrum has been entrusted with the implementation of the project.

YouthNET aims at the development of sustainable relationships, co-operation and joint projects in the areas of school education and youth within the region but also between countries in South Eastern Europe and


Ecosfera SpA 80

other countries in Europe. School classes and youth organisations should be informed, encouraged, consulted and trained to link with each other in order to exchange experiences and develop new partnerships focussing on topics like human rights, democracy, participation and peace.

Thanks to the several activities carried out, YouthNET is now widely known, especially in some countries such as Croatia where the government itself is involved in the activities. In addition, YouthNET, thanks to its links with the Stability Pact, is complementary to the wider strategy to be undertaken for the Balkan area, giving it a more substantial and effective role.

Strengths and weaknesses of the Balkan Youth Project and YouthNET

Initiatives such as the BYP and YouthNET have achieved good results so far. They present both strengths and weaknesses which deserve a careful analysis. The most significant strengths are the following:

- First, a long and detailed preparation process anticipated the actual start of the projects. The long process of the idea definition and of planning have made it possible to work out projects’ objectives and a programming strategy shared by their various actors.

- Second, these initiatives have brought together a high number of different actors - European Commission, National Governments, NGOs. Thanks to the long consultation process which preceded the start of the activities, the projects have involved a high number of actors contributing to the achievement of the projects’ objectives and which have been constantly informed about the results reached thanks to newsletters, bulletin, etc.

As regards YouthNET, the partnership includes various actors among which the Austrian Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Austrian Ministry for Social Affairs and Generations and many Balkan countries governments play an important role, either financially or by accepting to support the project. Some of the partners participated also to the first generation of the YouthNET project27. The stability achieved in the first phase was confirmed in this second phase. This appeared to be a clear sign of the sustainability of the partnership which was, moreover, reinforced by the funding of the European Commission.

In addition, from an organisation perspective, YouthNET is implemented with the help of a number of local actors, the so-called regional organisers, who are members of local NGOs. These regional “antennas” have a key role in various matters, such as the selection process of the small youth related projects funded under YouthNET, thanks to their close links with the local realities of the different areas to cover.

In the case of BYP, the partnership established between Care International, the European Youth Forum and the Balkan NGOs represents an important point in terms of exchanging different working methodologies on how to approach the problems and managing the activities. In order to involve the different partners, the representatives of the actors were included in a Steering Group. Currently, the Steering Group includes youth NGO trainers and activists from each of the target countries in the region plus the two partners of the BYP, Care International and the European Youth Forum. The Group was established in order to ensure that

27 The first phase was not funded by the European Commission, but in particular by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs and lasted from 2001 to 2002.


Ecosfera SpA 81

the project’s activities addressed the needs of Balkan young people and youth NGOs, to decide upon the topics of the different activities and, therefore, to have a decisive influence on how to carry out the project.

The high level of interaction between the BYP staff and the Steering Group leads to continuous exchange of ideas and communication between the European Youth Forum and CARE project managers thereby integrating the approaches and adjusting the working methods. In particular, the contribution of the European Youth Forum consists in making available the points of view of the numerous international and national members organisations of the Forum. CARE represents a key actor in the project thanks to its local penetration in the Balkan area through the various branches they have. CARE knowledge and logistical facilities allow the realisation of activities responding to the characteristics of the various Balkan countries and the continuous reporting to the headquarter based in the area.

- Third, thanks to the 3-year duration, both projects are based on a long-term strategy. This represents an important strength of the projects as it brought many advantages such as:

- keeping the focus on running the projects rather than on continuously looking for funding and writing new projects,

- the significant involvement and knowledge of the projects thereby continuously aiming at reprogramming and at achieving the highest quality of the activities carried out,

- the important commitment and motivation of the human resources employed,

- the significant attention towards the methodology applied and the possible readjustment,

- building a long-lasting partnerships with the actors involved.

- Fourth, both projects have a strong multiplier effect thanks to the promotion of information and the financing of micro-projects. Both BYP and YouthNET represent a platform from which funding a number of micro-projects which all tend to the achievement of the common objectives of the long-term projects. In addition, the high number of small projects funded have contributed to increase the local organisations’ skills in projects’ applications and European funding mechanism. Thus, as reported by both YouthNET and BYP promoters, many of these organisations are now participating in the YOUTH programme – third country strand.

- Finally, both projects give particular importance to the provision of information, training and contact-seminars. These aspects are crucial as they contribute to the creation of the capacity building of the NGOs and their youth structures. As mentioned, this had a positive repercussion on the YOUTH programme as well as in building the perception of a Europe bearer of values of democracy, peace and solidarity and promoter of civil society in the Balkan countries.

The most important weaknesses are related to the following aspects:

- First, the high number of actors involved might create problems of coordination. This is particularly true for YouthNET which adopted an implementation strategy based on regional organisers located in the Balkan countries, far from the headquarter based in Vienna. The work required for an effective coordination at times creates some difficulties. These problems are often solved my means of continuous communication and sharing of information


Ecosfera SpA 82

- Second, both projects’ promoters interviewed reported that in some SEE countries either the recognition of youth policies is quite low or there is no youth policy department to refer to. This leads to working modalities with the national governments which at times are difficult or that cannot have a real repercussion on the national policy of the Balkan countries. As a general consequence, this leads to low visibility, weak sustainability and lack of legitimacy of the projects at the national level.

- Third, both projects include activities which fall under the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand, such as Action 1, 2 and 5. Both promoters have confirmed the significant difficulties they face when implementing these activities. The problems are mainly related to visa and residence permits obtainment, security when travelling in the region, unsatisfactory public transport facilities, high charge of money transfer, etc. As regards BYP, most of these problems are also considered the cause of the drop-out rate of the participants. Moreover, in this project also the gender balance among the participants was indicated as a difficult element. With the exclusion of Albania, generally, there is a higher number of males than females responding to the activities launched by the BYP.

- Fourth, as the projects are long-term and the social, cultural and political conditions of the area change quite rapidly, the promoters would welcome the opportunity of having more flexible rules as regards the financial aspects so to better match the reprogramming of the activities with the budget readjustment.

- Finally, as both projects are active in the same area and, therefore, involve the same national and local actors, the lack of a well coordinated strategy between the respective long-term projects at the beginning prevented them from avoiding useless overlaps, such as seminars on similar topics or held on the same day. This problem was felt especially during the first implementation stage. Afterwards, thanks to regular meetings among the different long-term projects’ promoters this problematic aspect was overcome.

To conclude, both initiatives, with their common role of multiplier of information and training opportunities, respond very effectively to the problems of the lack of information on youth policy issues and of funding in SEE region and on the low managerial skills of the Balkan youth structures. Thanks to the strong promotion carried out and the important European visibility and networking activity of YouthNET and BYP, both initiatives have extensively spread the information and therefore multiplied the interest of the Balkan organisations towards issues such as intercultural learning and non-formal education. By doing so, they have also increased the visibility of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand.

What makes the projects more effective, if compared to short-term projects, is the combination of the above elements. Among these, the most effective features of these projects are the deep penetration in the local realities, the stable long-term partnership established and the long-term strategy defined. These allowed the achievement of results which are to be safeguarded and further strengthened in the future. The partnerships established among the three different levels – in particular European Commission level, European and local NGOs – took a lot of energies and have now achieved a good level of sustainability. However, in order not to waste this potential and to make the best use of it, the partnerships should be reinforced by the development of further joint strategies.

In addition, the promoter organisations have acquired an extensive knowledge of the Balkan area. The information gathered and the experienced gained in order to overcome the many difficulties faced during these years should be further exploited and reinvested in the future. The awareness of the problems and of the solutions could lead to even more future effective programming strategies.


Ecosfera SpA 83

Lessons for the future

As regards the future of youth related long-term projects in the Balkan area, various lessons have been learned. One of the urgent aspects to be targeted in the future is the training of the local administrations and national governments’ representatives in order to increase the sensitiveness of the public sector towards non-formal education and intercultural learning, to create the conditions for a better coordinated programming strategy and to strengthen the possibility of multiplying the results by mainstreaming them into the national policies. Only by doing so the visibility, the recognition and the legitimacy of activities carried out by YouthNET and BYP and, consequently, also by the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand can increase and achieve a more challenging impact. Moreover, also a future expansion of the YOUTH programme – third-country cooperation strand could be achieved and the whole EU could set the basis for a successful third-country cooperation strategy based on shared values and mutual understanding.

A further lesson learned for future projects is the crucial role that the regional antennas play in these projects. They are the ones who actively work with the local realities on a daily basis. Their constant look and monitoring of the development of the areas can and should influence the planning and implementation strategy. In addition, in order to improve the coordination of the regional officers it is very important either to invest significant resources on the coordination or to set a central coordinating office/headquarter in the area itself (BYP). When the regional antennas are local Balkan organisations (as the regional organisers in the case of YouthNET and the members of the Steering Group of the BYP) highly motivated to play this role, the projects can achieve the important impact of qualifying the local actors, increasing their capacity building and really contributing to the reinforcement of values of peace, democracy and solidarity.

Finally, given the success achieved, this experience is to be considered a lesson to be replicated also in other areas where similar problems have been found.

5.3.1.2. Communication and Promotion in the CIS Region

A serious critical issue connected with the communication and information regarding the YOUTH programme in the CIS region was put into evidence. All the organisations interviewed said that very little if no information can be found in Russia and Ukraine as regards generally EC programmes. EU offices in their country are not considered to be a source of information and most of the organisations met had never asked these actors to provide them with information. Most of them either get information from internet and the official web-sites such as the European Commission’s or through their partner organisation, mostly located in PC.

In consideration of their priority 1 status within the YOUTH programme and the central role they are playing in the wider third country cooperation strategy “Wider Europe”, some actions have to be undertaken in order to make up for the lack of information reported.

Currently, the lack of information and communication represents a major obstacle for a more structured and effective involvement of this region in the Programme. The same problems have been found as it regards information on these countries for the organisations located in PC. There are a few organisations usually belonging to wide European networks which are highly interested and specialised in cooperating with this


Ecosfera SpA 84

region. Many of these are usually based in Germany and the United Kingdom. They sometimes play the role of relay of information for other organisations interested in cooperating with these countries. Apart from this and their personal contacts, PC organisations have no structured and centralised means for accessing information on CIS region. This phenomenon strongly reduces the possibility of starting or strengthening the cooperation.

The NGOs met would welcome the establishment of only one central body structured for providing information and knowledge on the possibility of cooperation to be developed in these countries. Organisations who are involved both in cooperating with SEE and CIS regions took as an example the SEE Resource Centre and said that a similar body targeted for the CIS region could play an important role, as it is happening now for the Balkan region, in strengthening cooperation.

The most evident elements on which CIS organisations need support are:

- finding partners

- having contact seminars in order to meet potential contractor organisations

- information on the YOUTH programme – third country strand

- training on managing and applying European programmes

- information materials in their national languages.

5.3.1.3. Communication and Promotion in the LA Region

Similar problems have been noticed in LA countries where very few organisations seem to be aware of their participation in the Youth programme and more generally in a European Programme .

The reason why EU activities in Latin America were only vaguely perceived is that, in the majority of cases, it is the young volunteer worker or the contractor that made contact with them, without properly specifying the participation in the programme.

The visibility of the programme in third countries, together with its impact would doubtless be increased if the organisations were provided with more complete information on its objectives and operating procedures. For that matter, the organisations interviewed have shown to be extremely interested in increasing their knowledge on the “Youth” Programme’s cooperation with third countries”.

Therefore, when dealing with LA, specific attention should be paid, not on promotion and on increasing the number of projects, but rather on improving the consciousness and perception of the LA organisations on the YOUTH programme

5.3.2. National level

From the survey of National Agencies, it emerges that all of them disseminate information about third country cooperation of the YOUTH programme. The means that are most widely used are seminars/workshops and the Internet. A role is also played by publications, bulletins and newsletters, participation in public events and sending material to identified target groups.


Ecosfera SpA 85

Table 43 - Means used to disseminate information

Conferences/seminars

Participation in public

events

Sending material to

target groups

Publications Participation in media events

Bulletins and

newsletters

Internet Other

4 5 3 2 2 5 5 2

Source: questionnaire-based survey of YOUTH National Agencies carried out by Ecosfera SpA

10 NAs claimed that they had received no assistance from other bodies for the dissemination activity; instead, 6 turned to SEE Resource Centre (Spain’s NA added local government bodies) and Luxembourg’s NA to both national government bodies and youth information centres.

National Agencies are taking steps to reach specific target groups, like youth organisations, youth workers, youth leaders and other actors in the field of youth and non formal education.

It must be said that, at national level, such promotional activities of NA have given a limited visibility to the Programme. With a view to strengthening intercultural education and making the participation of new organisations easier, it might be worthwhile organising activities targeted to a wider and potentially more responsive audience.

As a matter of fact, most of the visited organisations either knew the Programme because of their long-term experience in the youth field or through partner organisations. In short, it seems that small and young organisations have little access to the Programme.

NAs claimed that no national government, with the exception of Luxembourg, help them promote the Programme.

Similar results have been reached through the web survey of organisations. Only 5% of them received information from national governments. Instead, the main sources of information were National Agencies (42%) and the European Commission (27%).


Ecosfera SpA 86

Table 44 - Institutions that carried out promotional activity in the period 2000-2002

Total %

Local government 12 7National

government 9 5

National Agency 74 42SEE Resource

Centre 4 2European

Commission 48 27

EC delegation 4 2

Other 27 15Total 178 100

Source: Web survey of organisations carried out by Ecosfera S.p.A.

5.3.3. Organisation level

In many Third Countries, some organisations were informed about the YOUTH programme from other organisations.

“In Bosnia and Herzegovina, a number of organisations produced dissemination material, held events and provided information on the Internet. As a result, they increased awareness of youth issues and encouraged people/organisations to participate in the Programme”.

This is particularly true in countries like Mexico, in which information is very limited:

“There are organisations with plenty of experience that have spontaneously taken on a leadership role, providing support to the others with regard to specific problems. Sijuve, in particular, helps other organisations handle organisational problems, the getting of entry visas for participants, etc.”.

Strangely enough, in Albania organisations are unwilling to share information about the Programme because, for their point of view having information is power. Some organisations pointed out that even Albanian authorities are reluctant to provide information.

“We have no immediate interest in disseminating the information in our possession. Moreover, it is very unlikely that we will work with other Albanian organisations”.

Interesting data on how organisations were informed about the Programme emerge from the web survey of organisations. Information material (26%) and seminars/training courses (17%) turned out to be the most important sources of promotion, whereas the Internet contributed to it by only 13%. Other means were, in order of importance, partner organisations and word of mouth (12%). These data were affected by the geographical distribution of the organisations under scrutiny as it was confirmed also through the field


Ecosfera SpA 87

missions. More specifically, in TC the promotion of the Programme is realized by the partner organisations and by word of mouth, whereas in PC seminars and information material were mainly used.

Table 45 - Promotion means in the period 2000-2002

Promotion means % Seminars, training courses 17 Participation in public events 4 Information material 26 Publications 10 Bulletin and newsletter 5 Internet 13 From a partner organisation 12 Word of mouth 12 Other 1 Total 100


The web survey of organisations makes also clear that, for a large majority of them, the promotion of Third country cooperation of the YOUTH programme should be strengthened. It is very likely that a broader involvement of national and local governments in the promotion of the Programme would be welcomed, particularly for organisations in the CIS and the SEE.

Table 46 – N° of organisations in favour of/against better communication and promotion

Yes No Total 120 18 138

% 87 13 100


5.4. Dissemination of results

In view of the analysis of the visibility of the Programme, specific questions have been asked the organizations, the National Agencies and the governments in relation to the dissemination of results. Some interesting findings have emerged which show how the dissemination of the results is realized, even if sometimes with no satisfactory results.

This is due to various reasons. First, there is neither a clear and coordinated strategy nor guidelines on whether the dissemination is to be undertaken. Second, it is to be strongly pointed out that as the Programme has limited resources, it was decided to invest more on the promotion and information. Finally, as these findings relate to the period 2000-2002, in the first half of the Programme life-time the management structure was more interested in starting the Programme effectively and making it visible through the promotion rather than through the dissemination of the results still to be identified.

Moreover, it was possible to notice that in the Programme Countries the dissemination activity was mainly carried out by the National Agencies and the EC Delegations at the national level, and by various organizations at the local level. Whereas, in Third Countries the dissemination of results is scarcely carried out by the organisations.


Ecosfera SpA 88

5.4.1. National Agencies

From the survey carried out, it results that 12 NAs out of 21 disseminate results about the cooperation with third countries, and particularly NAs of EU Member States. This is usually realized by means of conferences, participation in public events, bulletins, newsletters and the internet.

Table 47 – Means used to disseminate results

Conferences/seminar

s

Participation in

public events

Sending material to

target groups

Publications

Participation in media events

Bulletins and

newsletters

Internet Other

4 5 3 2 2 5 5 2

Source: questionnaire-based survey of YOUTH National Agencies carried out by Ecosfera SpA

Target groups are fundamentally youth centres, local NGOs, associations and prospective participants.

If these data are compared to the ones collected in relation to the promotion activities, it emerges a different strategic approach. If the promotion is directed mainly to “known” users of the Programme, the dissemination of results is rightly carried out by targeting a wider audience (participation in public events and to media programmes). This choice increases the probability of improving the Programme visibility and it should be even more strongly supported at the European level.

5.4.2. Organisations

As regards the organisations visited, an interesting number of them said they arranged activities in order to disseminate the results obtained in their projects. There seems to be two main reasons for projects’ organisations getting involved (or not) in these activities. First, it is strictly related to the feeling of ownership of the project or the programme that the organisations have. Many organisations are active in this respect when they work out the medium and long-term strategy of their activities, when they feel responsible, and when they have actively participated in the projects. This often happens when the organisation belongs to international networks and is aware of the importance and impact that such an activity can have.

Secondly, most organisations pointed out that there are too limited resources under the YOUTH projects – third country cooperation strand for financing also activities of results’ dissemination such as publication, media events, or newsletters. Only well-established organisations can afford investing resources in such activities.

It is also interesting to notice that most of the TC organisations thought that in consideration of their role and involvement, it should be up to the contractors to organise such activities.

“In Croatia, results were disseminated at the national level mostly through a number of public seminars to which the organisations have been invited. It should be mentioned YouthNET - Evaluation Conference that was held in Zagreb, and organised in cooperation between Interkulturelles Zentrum Wiena, Ministry of Education and Sport of Republic Croatia and Volunteers’ Centre Zagreb” (Croatia field mission report)


Ecosfera SpA 89

“In Albania, the organisations visited did not include any activity for disseminating the results of their projects. On one side they do not have the necessary financial resources to organise meetings or publications and retain that this is a task to be performed by the project’s contractor. On the other side, despite the fact that practically they all know each other, they prefer not to inform other Albanian bodies of their activities due to the fear of loosing their position or future opportunities” (Albania field mission report)

“In Germany, some organisations said that they organise activities for the dissemination of the results depending on the relevance and success of the activity carried out and on the available financial resources. However, many organisations said that because of the lack of a specific reimbursement line within the Youth projects it is usually quite difficult to find the necessary and adequate resources. When realised, the publications are usually used to promote the organisation, to involve and motivate participants, but also to increase the impact of the activities carried out by giving visibility to the activities at various levels – national and European” (Germany field mission report)

From the web survey it emerges very clearly that the vast majority of the organisations (96%) do organise activities in order to disseminate the results of the projects carried out, as it was found out through the interviews carried out. Among all of those who organise activities for the dissemination of the results, in large majority (94%) they are contractors and the most common activity through which they do so is conferences/seminars, publications and internet. As regards the target group of their dissemination they mainly direct it towards local NGOs and associations and potential participants.

Table 48 - N° of organisations which carried out dissemination of results in the period 2000-2002

Contractor Partner Total %Conference/seminars 57 4 61 19Participation to public events 36 3 39 12Sending material to a studied target group 21 0 21 7Publications 48 0 48 15Promotions campaigns 9 3 12 4Participation to media events 18 3 21 7Bulletin and newsletter 30 2 32 10Internet 39 3 42 13Exchange of personnel with other organisations 36 0 36 11Other 6 0 6 2Total 299 19 318 100% 94 6 100



Ecosfera SpA 90

Table 49 - N° of organisations which carried out dissemination of results by target group in the period 2000-2002

Total %City council 22 7Region 16 5Employment centres 3 1Training centres 3 1Schools 29 9Central government 6 2University/research centres 13 4Participants' families 16 5Local ngos 61 19Associations 54 17Youth centres 38 12

Potential participants 54 17Other 3 1

Total 318 100 Source: Web survey carried out by Ecosfera S.p.A.

5.5. Visibility of the Programme

The assessment of the visibility of the Programme is analysed according to different perspectives: the organisations, the National Agencies, and the national institutions and governments involved in the Programme. The visibility of the Programme seems to be low, even though some significant differences can be identified in the various countries.

5.5.1. Visibility of the Programme from the organisations’ perspective in PC and in TC

Some striking differences emerged on the visibility of the Programme in relation to the typology of the organisation and the status of the country of the organisation, whether PC or TC and among the TC depending on the region.

All the organisations belonging to international networks are aware of the Programme and of its third country cooperation strand. These are among the organisations most active in the management of projects and in involving TC organisations. Some of them actually communicate information and spread the information of the Programme – TC strand. Most of these organisations have been active since many years in the area of activity of the Programme and in particular of the voluntary service projects.

As regards smaller and single organisations, the visibility of the Programme strongly depends on the level of activism or on the partnership network they have been building over the years. Most of the organisations interviewed know about the Programme – third country strand thanks to other organisations, especially if they are in TC or because they participated in other international and/or European programmes. The network the organisations are connected with really makes the difference. Once included in these networks, the organisations usually get information about the Programme and receive also the relevant news and updates. As regards Programme Countries, the YOUTH programme – third country strand results quite visible and


Ecosfera SpA 91

known among the organisations, even though less known when compared to the YOUTH programme – programme country strand.

International organisations

Smaller organisations

Programme country Good visibility Medium visibility Third country Good visibility Low visibility

Within Third Countries, some important differences emerged according to the region.

In the case of LA various organisations, when contacted in order to arrange the interviews, were unable to immediately remember the project or the programme, as most of them connected the stay of the volunteer or of the participation in the exchange project to “some European programme”, but were unable to give exact and prompt answers.

This is due to various reasons:

• the insufficient information available for LA countries,

• the cultural and political distance perceived by LA organisations as regards EU programmes,

• the role that the organisations have of partner and not contractor-beneficiary.

Since the number of projects in LA is very significant, the lack of visibility ought to be interpreted as lack of awareness and knowledge of the Programme LA organisations are participating to. PC organisations seem to be very effective in involving LA organisations in the Programme, but not as successful in sharing with them their information on the Programme.

As regards SEE organisations, the visibility of the Programme is generally medium, thanks in particular to the promotion activity realised by the SEE Resource Centre, the YouthNET, and also thanks to the particularly significant promotion and dissemination of information realised by the Croatian government. The SEE Resource Centre was often mentioned by the organisation as an important actor within the area, both in terms of getting information about the Programme and also for accessing information on the SEE organisations if requested by a PC organisation. In consideration also of the relatively recent establishment of the institution, the feedback collected from the organisations was quite positive.

Conversely, in the CIS region all the organisations interviewed said that very little if no information can be found in Russia and Ukraine as regards generally EC programmes. EU offices in their country are not considered to be a source of information and most of the organisations met had never asked these actors to provide them with information. Most of the organisations either get information from internet and the official web-sites such as the European Commission’s or through their partner organisation mostly located in PC.

5.5.2. Visibility of the Programme from the National Agencies’ perspective

From the survey carried out, with the exception of Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Finland and the UK, all NAs claim that the visibility of the Programme – third country cooperation strand is not quite adequate in their countries. Despite this, most NAs recognize that political support is given by the national governments.


Ecosfera SpA 92

5.5.3. Visibility of the Programme at national level

The visibility of the Programme, especially in TC, is clearly related to the governments involvement and degree of activism expressed at the national level. The motivation and commitment of the national institutions’ representatives and the effectiveness of the national institution in disseminating information can play a significant role as regards the Programme visibility.

For example, the strategic importance of the Croatian government involvement and activity in the implementation of the YOUTH programme in Croatia is worth mentioning. The involvement of the government representative in YouthNET as well increases the opportunities of improving the involvement of Croatian organisations also in the Programme. On the opposite, as regards Bosnia & Herzegovina, the situation is different in consideration of the limited involvement in the Programme of the government officials.

“In Bosnia & Herzegovina, the visibility of the YOUTH programme is somehow limited. Only few project managers involved in the implementation of the activities have the perception of the financial instrument supporting their projects, and in very few cases the local community representatives knew the financial instrument” (Bosnia & Herzegovina field mission report)

“In Albania, the common element which emerged from all the interviews was that the YOUTH programme is not very visible in the country. Almost all the persons interviewed knew about it only through their contacts with other partners abroad, and only two of them participated in another YOUTH project. Asked if they are in contact with the EU delegation in Tirana or if there are other institutions which disseminate information, all of them answered that the EU delegation is mainly in contact with the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport. Then again they have rarely been informed of any information or dissemination activity” (Albania field mission report)

“In Germany, the visibility of the Programme – Third Country strand, even though more limited if compared to the projects carried exclusively with PC projects, is considered to be quite good. Many organisations, by increasing the visibility of the project through publications, help the promotion and visibility of the Programme.” (Germany field mission report)

In Russia the Programme is not particularly visible and only organisations involved in international partnerships knew about it. Moreover, even if many contacts had been taken between the EU and the Russian Government, in this country (as well as in all the CIS region) there are still many other issues considered much more important by the national authorities themselves, thus at present the development of Youth policies does not represent a priority objective.


93

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this section of the Final Report, conclusions will be drawn in order to provide a framework in which a series of recommendations can be grounded. Whereas the conclusions refer to the 2000-2002 period, these recommendations are useful for the re-orientation of the Programme. As requested in the Specifications, the evaluation provides orientations and recommendations for the new Programme to be established as of 2007, and will serve for re-orienting the Programme in the second phase – 2003-2006.


94

6.1. SWOT analysis

STRENGTHS - Good coverage of geographic reach - Organizations, young participants and other actors agree with the

programme’s aims and objectives - NAs contribution for further development of the programme’s priorities

and aims - Adequacy of the Actions 1, 2, 5 to the objectives of the Programme - Good results achieved so far, both on young people, youth workers and

youth structures - Good level of efficiency - General criteria for activities with TC are well known by the participants

- National agencies in PC countries, EC Delegations in the third countries can provide effective support and fasten the procedure

- Progressive involvement of a higher number of youth structures in the TC cooperation strand

- Reinforcement of long-lasting and solid partnership among structures

- Promotion of the exchange of youth work expertise and know-how between structures in European Union and third countries

- Many organisations, by increasing the visibility of the project through publications, help the promotion and visibility of the Programme

WEAKNESSES - Difficulty of cooperation with SEE and CIS countries - Lack of flexibility as regards the mixing of Regions - Lack of focus on thematic priorities - The criteria according to which youth exchanges must involve a

minimum of four countries appears to be excessively demanding - One application-one project hinders the possibility of constructing

stable relationship and partnership with TC organisations - Long duration of the selection process - Selection criteria need to be better adapted and assessed bearing in

mind managerial capacities and experience of some associative structures

- Obtaining visa and residence permits takes time and resources and sometimes it represents an impediment for the realisation of the projects

- Weakness of some associative structures at local level in terms of managerial capacities and experience in international exchanges

- Small grass-roots organisations are the most difficult ones to reach both in PC and in TC

- NAs activities of promotion and dissemination generally target organisations somehow “known” and already involved in the Programme


Ecosfera SpA 95

OPPORTUNITIES - Presence of a specific strand focused on TC cooperation within a single

programme - Strengthening of the existing partnerships amongst organisations - Promotion of universal peace, dialogue, tolerance and solidarity should see

all world countries as possible beneficiary - Directive to opening legal channels for the entry of TC nationals: students,

school pupils, unremunerated trainees, and volunteers could enhance cooperation

- SEE Resource Centre as instrument for further enhancing cooperation - Opening all the Actions of the Programme to the TC strand - Strong potential of further development of the Programme due to the

experience gained - High capacity of the Programme in terms of “enhancing the understanding

and ability to participate in democratic processes” - Motivation of young people involved in the projects - Stronger cooperation with other EC programmes - High number of young people who continue to work on the issues

promoted by the Programme

THREATS - Low visibility of TC strand of the Programme - If not adequately planned, opening the access to all the countries

would have serious repercussions in terms coordination, provision of adequate information in the PC countries, control on the quality of projects

- Disaffection to the Programme of TC organisations due to lack of visibility and long procedures causing lack of credibility

- Impossibility of being contractor for TC organisations - Limited perspective in terms of impact on youth policy at the national

level - Risk of limited impact on local community both in PC and TC - Political and economic instability of the areas involved. - No consistent information is provided in CIS and LA countries


96

6.2. Conclusions

This final section of this Report provides the conclusions of the interim evaluation of third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme (2000-2002). These conclusions deal with relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency and visibility of the Programme under consideration and lay the ground for the recommendations for the second phase of the Programme (2003-2006). In addition, some suggestions for the reorientation of the new Programme to be launched as of 2007 are provided.

Relevance

The general objectives of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand are as follows:

1. Facilitating the active participation, responsible citizenship and integration of young people into society, with particular attention to the inclusion of women and young people with less opportunities, and strengthening civil society and democracy in the participating countries;

2. Promoting peace, respect for human rights, tolerance and solidarity between young people of the EU/Programme Countries and those of Third Countries by engaging them in intercultural dialogue;

3. Reinforcing co-operation in the field of youth between the EU and Third Countries; encouraging regional co-operation in the youth field among the countries within SEE, CIS and Latin America, as well as cooperation among Central and Eastern European pre-accession countries, SEE and CIS.

Within this framework, conclusions about the relevance of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand concern:

1. the extent to which the objectives of the Programme are relevant to the implementation of EU co-operation with Third Countries;

2. the extent to which the objectives of the Programme respond to the needs of target groups in Third Countries;

3. the extent to which the instruments of the Programme are coherent with its objectives.

As far as point 1 is concerned, the EU is committed to implementing a wide-ranging policy of cooperation with Third Countries. The key elements of this policy are embedded, inter alia, in the “Stabilisation and Association process” with Western Balkan countries, the TACIS programme with Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the “Strategic partnership between EU and Latin America and the Caribbean”. Taken as a whole, such actions are designed to foster deeper political relations with the three regions through shared values and mutual understanding. In particular, critical objectives of the cooperation are the strengthening of democracy, the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the preservation of cultural diversity.

Among the fields in which the EU cooperation with Third Countries takes place, education is regarded as being particularly important, since new education approaches have the potential to strengthen civil society and democratic structures. Thus, young people become relevant actors who can contribute to the achievement of the above mentioned objectives.


Ecosfera SpA 97

The YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand deals with non-formal education and intercultural learning open to Third Countries of SEE, CIS and LA regions. Young people from Programme Countries and from these regions are encouraged to develop their personal skills through exchanges and voluntary work and to become active citizens in their local community. As a catalyst for change in social consciousness, the Programme aims moreover to develop youth organisations and to support the establishment of a network between those from Programme and Third Countries by means of specific measures.

All this considered, it is possible to claim that the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand is in line with the EU policy of cooperation with Third Countries.

As far as point 2 is concerned, beneficiaries of the Programme are young people between the ages of 15 and 25 as well as youth organisations and youth structures, youth leaders and youth workers. To young people from Programme Countries and Third Countries, the Programme offers support for carrying out exchanges, voluntary work and training in the youth field. By encouraging respect for cultural diversity and/or developing ties between Europe and Third Countries, the Programme contributes to spread values that are of critical importance for participants. Young people from Programme Countries and especially from Third Countries need opportunities for knowing other cultures, thereby broadening their horizons. This is true not only because new ideas can give a whole new meaning to their lives, but also and above all because they have an urge of becoming active citizens and build civil society. Young people are eager to understand better their situations and cultures as well as explore their identities. As regards the other beneficiaries of the Programme, it must be said that youth organisations, youth leaders and youth workers in Programme Countries and Third Countries certainly need instruments to develop further cooperation. By providing such beneficiaries with the support for the exchange of information and know-how as well as for the establishment of networks and partnerships, the Programme appears to be capable of bridging gaps in youth work methods. In such a context, it is possible to say that the objectives of the YOUTH programme third-country strand respond to the needs of beneficiaries.

As far as point 3 is concerned, the three Actions of the YOUTH programme that are open to Third Countries prove to be coherent with the objectives of the third-country strand of the YOUTH Programme. In particular, projects under Action 1 (Youth for Europe) bring together groups of young people from different backgrounds to discuss topics of common interest through exchanges of 6-21 days’ duration. This type of activity and its duration are in line with the objective of the YOUTH programme third-country strand to “promote peace, respect for human rights, tolerance and solidarity between young people of the EU/ Programme Countries and those of Third Countries by engaging them in intercultural dialogue”. Projects under Action 2 (European Voluntary Service) allow young people to volunteer from 6 to 12 months for a non-profit making initiative. The aims of the voluntary service are to provide participants with a non-formal education and intercultural learning experience and to contribute to the benefit of the community. The aims and the duration of the voluntary service agree with the objective of the Programme to “facilitate the active participation, responsible citizenship and integration of young people into society and to strengthen civil society”. Projects under Action 5 (Support Measures) support activities such as the training of youth workers and youth leaders, exchange of information and know-how between youth organisations and youth structures, as well as networking and partnerships. This kind of measures appears to be consistent with the objective of the Programme to “reinforce co-operation in the field of youth between the EU and Third Countries”. It is important to emphasise that the above-mentioned instruments, however coherent with the


Ecosfera SpA 98

objectives of the Programme, consist in short-term projects that hinder the implementation of medium-long term strategies.

Effectiveness

The conclusions about the effectiveness of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand are developed from two standpoints. One is concerned with the first impact of the Programme in relation to its general objectives; the other deals with the results achieved in the period 2000-2002 with regard to its specific objectives.

A. General objectives

It is to be pointed out that an interim evaluation cannot prove conclusively that the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand has produced effects with regard to the achievement of general objectives. Notwithstanding, the analysis provides indications with regard to the following evaluation questions:

1. Have active participation, responsible citizenship and integration of young people into society been supported, with particular attention to the inclusion of women and young people with less opportunities? In addition, has the Programme contributed to strengthen civil society and democracy in the participating countries?

2. Have peace, respect for human rights, tolerance and solidarity between young people of the EU/ Programme Countries and those of Third Countries been promoted?

3. Has the Programme had an impact on peaceful relations and cooperation between the EU and the Third Countries concerned, between Central and Eastern European pre-accession countries and neighbouring SEE and CIS countries and among Third Countries of the same region?

As regards the first key question, there are some indications that the Programme has increased young people’s awareness. Many volunteers claim that, due to their participation in the Programme, they appreciate better the complexity of some cultural and social situations in specific Third Countries. After the participation in exchanges, many young people from Third Countries are said to be conscious that they can have their say in the community they live in.

In relation to the involvement in the Programme of “young people with less opportunities”, conceptual and practical problems emerge. The YOUTH programme User’s Guide defines such people as being made up of two groups: one is that of young people coming “from a less-privileged cultural, geographical or socio-economic background”; the other is that of “young people with disabilities”. The definition of the first group cause confusion when applied to young people from Third Countries. Indeed, many organisations claim that, unlike what happens in Programme Countries, most young people from SEE, CIS and LA are to be regarded as lacking in cultural and socio-economic opportunities. For this reason, organisations find it hard to determine whom this target group refers to. As for the participation in the Programme of “young people with disabilities”, the situation turns out to be equally critical. Many organisations make it clear that, due to a lack of facilities and resources (human and financial), the involvement of such participants would be particularly difficult. Consequently, there are few indications that even this target group has been involved in the Programme.

The involvement of women can be already seen as an achieved result of the Programme. Indeed, data about the gender of participants in the projects show that female participants are slightly more than males.


Ecosfera SpA 99

As regards the second key question, it is possible to say that the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand provides willing young people with an opportunity to become ambassadors of hope and values. Made more aware that everybody has equal rights, participants in the projects appear to spread values of peace, tolerance and solidarity and respect for human dignity in the host community and in the community they live in. This objective is of great importance to young people that, like those in the former Yugoslavia, had been sucked into a culture of war and ethnic hatred in recent years or, like those in CIS countries, have been exposed to the values of democracy.

As regards the third key question, indications that the YOUTH programme third-country strand has strengthened cooperation in the youth field between the EU and Third Countries have been evidenced by the considerable interest in setting up projects and establishing partnerships in the period 2000-2002. The increasing cooperation with SEE greatly depends on the good promotion of the Programme made through the Balkan Youth Project, YouthNET and the SEE Resource Centre.

As far as the CIS is concerned, it must be emphasised that the Cold War prevented ordinary people from the West and the former USSR from communicating with each other. Youth exchanges and voluntary work are playing their part to bridge this gap. All this can be seen in the good quality of the projects carried out as well as in the strong development of partnerships.

As for the encouragement of regional cooperation within SEE, CIS and LA, the establishment of many relationships among organisations in the same region, besides those with Programme Countries, it all gives ground for optimism. Nevertheless, at this stage of the Programme, two obstacles are in the way. First, many organisations in Third Countries are more willing to cooperate with organisations in Programme Countries than with those in their region. This attitude arises from the fact that the former are seen as being much more experienced in youth work methods. Second, some Third Country organisations are wary about cooperating with counterparts in the same region. This depends on the fact that the countries in which these organisations are located had unfriendly relations with each other until shortly before the Programme started. It goes without saying that, in specific cases, regional cooperation takes time to be achieved.

Indications that the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand is encouraging cooperation among Central and Eastern European pre-accession countries, SEE and CIS emerge from some good relationships that have been established by organisations in the period 2000-2002. It is to be pointed out that pre-accession countries tend to cooperate with the region they have close cultural, geographical and historical ties. In some cases, organisations in pre-accession countries are acting as liaisons between the EU and their region.

B. Specific objectives

The specific objectives of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand are as follows:

1. developing young people’s understanding of cultural diversity and fundamental common values, thus enhancing mutual understanding and respect among young people from different countries and helping them to explore their identities;

2. helping young people to acquire knowledge, skills and competencies;

3. encouraging the development of youth structures and the voluntary sector as a means to strengthen civil society in Third Countries, by promoting exchanges of information, experience and good practice, as well as by building solid and long-lasting partnerships between NGOs and youth structures of Programme Countries and of Third Countries;


Ecosfera SpA 100

4. facilitating the training of youth workers and the development of youth work methods.

As regards the first specific objective, results are encouraging.

The Programme allows many young people from Programme and Third Countries to meet with a view to exchanging ideas and information about specific topics. Similarly, voluntary schemes under the Programme allow many participants to help people of other countries. In both cases, young people are exposed to different traditions and cultures. Before taking part in the Programme, some participants had vague ideas of the culture of other countries. At the conclusion of their projects, these participants give a new and deeper meaning to words such as tolerance and solidarity.

In addition, intercultural dialogue prompts young people to gain insight into their own identities. They now realise that their own set of values is inextricably interwoven with the social and cultural structures of the country they had been brought up in. All this gives them a new awareness of who they are and where their roots can be found.

From our survey, it also emerges that some situations appear to be particularly suitable for the achievement of this objective:

• small towns and rural areas as locations for making exchanges or voluntary schemes;

• strong links between host organisations and local communities. In particular, the activities of the organisations are to be known and appreciated at local level;

• accommodation of participants at local families;

• attention paid by local authorities to the activities undertaken;

• provision of media coverage of the exchange or the voluntary work.

It is to be said that these situations are not all necessary for the purpose of achieving this specific objective. Actually, the first two can be considered as being the most important. For the simple fact that projects under Action 1 and 2 are implemented in small local communities, they are more effective than those implemented in big cities.

As regards the second specific objective, the results taken into consideration are here developed with regard to projects under Action 1 and 2, whereas the results of projects under Action 5 will be dealt with alongside the specific objective concerning the training of youth workers.

Exchanges under Action 1 allow participants to discuss a broad range of issues, the most recurrent being European identity, social exclusion, art and cultures and environmental protection; in some cases, the organisations arrange workshops involving experts in specific issues. The learning process of the young people largely benefits from the participation in these initiatives.

Voluntary work causes participants not only to have a first-hand experience of how a non-governmental organisation works but also to learn, among other things, some principles of logistics and/or management. Moreover, volunteers are made aware of the difference between theory and practice of solidarity by working, for example, in orphanages, schools and rural communities.

For the participants, projects under both Actions are also a training in interpersonal skills, particularly in doing things with other people for the achievement of common goals.


Ecosfera SpA 101

As regards the third specific objective, results are satisfactory. The exchange of information, experience and good practice in the youth field prove to be beneficial to the development of youth structures and the voluntary sector with Third Countries.

The YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand is the spur for many young people in Programme Countries to embark on new initiatives of cooperation with Third Countries. Similarly, many young people from Third Countries go back home to work on the establishment of their own youth structures.

The Programme makes the awareness of voluntary sector in LA and SEE stronger inasmuch as both regions are not new to such an activity. Conversely, countries in CIS have not a well-established tradition of voluntary work for civil purposes. Indeed, in the former Soviet regime, young people are mainly encouraged to volunteer for the armed forces. As a result, the Programme gives a much-needed fillip to the development of this sector in CIS. As it happens in the case of youth structures, a large number of young people, upon completion of the projects, keeps volunteering with host organisations in initiatives of non-formal education and intercultural learning.

Solid and long-lasting partnerships between NGOs and youth structures of Programme Countries and Third Countries appear to be developing. Many organisations establish and/or strengthen their partnerships due to their participation in promotion seminars or to the support they give each other during the preparatory phase of their projects. Such partnerships are very likely to be enhanced in the second half of the programming period.

As regards the fourth specific objective, results are noteworthy. Training, study visits and seminars carried out through projects under Action 5 result to be very useful for youth workers and leaders. Networks of youth structures are established or strengthened. In particular, organisations benefit from the exchange of information and know-how. Such projects lay the groundwork for the development of new initiatives.

Projects under Action 1 seem to be moderately effective to the aim concerned. This situation can be ascribed to the fact that only host organisations implement the organising of the exchanges, whereas host and sending organisations are supposed to work in tandem. On the contrary, projects under Action 2 have achieved good results in terms of the exchange of youth work methods. The interchange of information and support between host and sending organisations are fundamental to the success of voluntary schemes.

All this considered, it is possible to argue that the effectiveness of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand has been satisfactory in the period 2000-2002. Nevertheless, however good the effectiveness is, it is important to emphasise that the budget for this strand of the YOUTH programme appears to be inadequate. Indeed, if financial resources were more available, the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand would achieve its full potentials. A comprehensive programming strategy needs, for instance, the implementation of follow-up activities and the strengthening of communication and dissemination of results, as it will be developed in the relevant sections below.

All the same, as things stand, it is not to be overlooked that the cooperation in the youth field according to a non-formal education approach is making young people and youth organisations from Third Countries more and more aware of the ideals underlying the European Union identity. In so doing, the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand represents an added value of the EU policy of cooperation with Third Countries.


Ecosfera SpA 102

Efficiency

By analysing secondary data and the information collected through the interviews, two main factors appear to contribute to the satisfactory efficiency of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand.

The first is that the Programme grants are used by the organisations for the implementation of the projects and to the benefit of young people. In fact, the funds for the projects do not cover the running costs of the youth structures. These are non-profit organisations that rely primarily on voluntary donations. Moreover, organisations staff, besides few employees, is made up of volunteers.

The second factor is that the management for the selection of applications is painstakingly carried out at central level. In so doing, only high quality projects are funded.

Sustainability

The key factors taken into account with regard to the long-term sustainability of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand are ownership by beneficiaries and capacity building.

As far as ownership by beneficiaries is concerned, primary data collected provide indications that youth organisations and young people share the Programme aims and objectives.

Likewise, young people that participate in the projects do so not only with enthusiasm but also with the firm decision to make the most of the knowledge, skills and competencies they have acquired from the Programme. It is noteworthy that many participants in exchanges and voluntary work are now further involved in activities of non-formal education and intercultural learning with Third Countries.

As far as capacity building is concerned, training activities and the exchange of know-how carried out under Action 5 are helping organisations in the three Third Country regions to manage projects effectively and to continue service delivery in the longer term.

The YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand supports, in particular, the capacity building of organisations in SEE countries through the Balkan Youth Project, YouthNET and the SEE Resource Centre. These are providers of information and assistance to organisations willing to cooperate in the youth field in and with South Eastern Europe. Even though their activity started only in 2002, questionnaires and interviews indicated that the Balkan Youth Project, YouthNET and the SEE Youth Resource Centre are contributing to the achievement of a sustainable YOUTH Programme third-country cooperation strand. However, a strategy to provide organisations in the other two regions with a similar support is lacking. The instruments devised with regard to SEE can be considered as best practices to be transferred to CIS and LA.

From the interviews it emerges that, by virtue of their role of contractors, organisations from Programme Countries devote a lot of time, efforts and attention to the project activities. In other words, the responsibility for the implementation of the projects leads these organisations to develop the ability and commitment to the success of the activities undertaken. As far as Third Country organisations are concerned, the fact that they are partners and not contractors does not prevent them from participating in the projects with a view to learning how to run projects. As a result, the participation in training activities and the exchange of know-how with Programme Country organisations, by improving their organisation management, do strengthen the capacity building of Third Country organisations.

Finally, besides being one of the Programme objectives, the establishment of solid and long-lasting partnerships is crucial to the sustainability of the Programme. To this regard, many organisations in


Ecosfera SpA 103

Programme Countries and Third Countries show their willingness to maintain the cooperation with previous or current partners also in the future.

Visibility

The analysis of communication, promotion and dissemination is intended to cast a light on the access to information, the target groups involved and the tools for communicating information. All this is essential to appreciate the potential for expansion of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand.

The communication and the promotion activities of the Programme carried out by the Commission, National Agencies and organisations vary depending on the region under scrutiny.

As regards SEE, the communication and promotion of the Programme are made by means of the Balkan Youth Project, YouthNET and the newly established SEE Resource Centre. They all contribute to strengthen the cooperation with this region in the period 2000-2002. More specifically, on one hand, organisations in the Balkans receive information about the Programme and, on the other, organisations in Programme Countries are helped to establish relations with counterparts in the region.

As regards CIS, the communication and promotion of the Programme are not fully satisfactory, considering that no tool for linking organisations in the region and in Programme Countries has been devised. On account of the crucial role that CIS countries are to play in the EU third-country cooperation strategy, this lack of information is to be coped with.

As regards LA, a network of Programme country and Latin American organisations, which is in place since there exists a long tradition of cooperation and is active in the search of information about funding opportunities, counterbalances the lack of contact points.

Finally, the dissemination of project results is not fully satisfactory. However, regardless of the considerable efforts made by the relevant Directorate General of the EU Commission, National Agencies and organisations to carry out such an activity, it is to be emphasised that current funds are not sufficient to put in place a strong and comprehensive strategy of dissemination.

On the ground of these elements, it is possible to draw the conclusion that the programme has a quite low visibility. Through an analysis by region, it emerges that the Programme is more visible in SEE than in CIS and LA. Third Country organisations that are members of international networks do know the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand. Other organisations know the Programme depending on the channels of information they have. As far as Programme Countries are concerned, the YOUTH programme third-country strand is not so visible as the general YOUTH programme is.


Ecosfera SpA 104

6.3. Recommendations

6.3.1. Relevance

Recommendation 1 - Maintain the aims and objectives of the YOUTH Programme third-country strand

The aims and the objectives of the YOUTH Programme third-country strand should be maintained because, in the period 2000-2002, they are relevant to the implementation of EU co-operation with Third countries. Moreover, the objectives of the Programme proved to meet the needs of young people in Third Countries and the instruments of the Programme were respondent to the objectives of the Programme. Finally, the non-formal education-based approach of the Programme proved to have the potential for the enhancement of mutual understanding and respect among young people from different countries, as well as the strengthening of civil society and democracy in Third Countries.

_________________________________________________________

Recommendation 2 – Give priority to neighbouring regions

It goes without saying that peaceful relations among Balkans countries is a key issue for the future of the region as well as for Europe. A culture of solidarity and tolerance takes roots provided that mentalities change. Young people, non-formal education, intercultural learning and youth structures can greatly contribute to this process.

After decades of dictatorship in the former USSR, the countries of CIS region are building their populations’ trust in democratic structures. The YOUTH Programme can give a great impulse to the development of civil society and active citizenship of young people in the region.

Therefore, since the needs of these regions are adequately met by the Programme, it is recommended that SEE and CIS regions should be given special emphasis in the next phase of the YOUTH programme third-country strand.

Given the importance of these regions within the overall EU third-country strategy, regional programmes for SEE and CIS could be adopted. These regional programmes would lead to a better coordination among the different strands of the EU third-country cooperation policy. In so doing, effective synergies and better results could be achieved. Finally, the introduction of such programmes could attract resources from other Directorates General and strengthen the visibility of the third-country strand of the YOUTH programme.

__________________________________________________

Recommendation 3 – Keep paying attention to Latin America

In the second phase of the Programme, Latin America should continue to be involved in the Programme. Such a recommendation is grounded on the good results achieved in the cooperation with this region and on the role that Latin America should play within the EU wider political strategy.

In particular, as emerged from the interviews carried out and the data analysed, a large number of projects concerning this region was of good quality. This is the result of the cultural, historical and linguistic ties between European and Latin American countries as well as the stable tradition of cooperation between European and Latin American organisations.


Ecosfera SpA 105

In addition, Latin America plays an important role in the EU wider political strategy, as demonstrated by the Strategic partnership between EU and Latin America and the Caribbean, which is aimed to foster political, economic and cultural understanding between the different regions. The various bilateral agreements between the EU and Latin American countries have been signed with the same political objective. Since the objectives of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand appear to be coherent with this political framework, it is worth keeping Latin America within the geographic reach of the Programme.

_________________________________________________________

Recommendation 4 – Adopt another name for the Programme

The YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand to be launched as of 2007 should adopt a new name. The terms “Third countries” can be associated with or sound like “third world countries”. Since this definition may cause resentment, more suitable terms to be used could be “cooperation partners”, “partner countries” or “cooperation countries”.

(At the same time,) the usage of the terms “CIS countries” could also be reconsidered since not all countries in the region concerned are members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Other terms to be used could be “NIS (Newly Independent States) region”.

6.3.2. Effectiveness and sustainability

Recommendation 1 – Introduce large scale projects

Only small scale projects can be run under the Programme. This way, organisations are prevented from setting up long term strategies and implementing large scale projects - i.e. combining projects of various Actions for 1-2 years’ duration.

The introduction of large scale projects could allow organisations to design long-term strategies, to involve a larger amount of young people and/or youth workers, to establish long-lasting partnerships, to gain synergies among the projects, and, therefore, to achieve more effective results.

Moreover, the selection process of applications could be centralised. This way, it would be possible to closely monitor the implementation of the projects throughout the second half of the Programme. Finally, some changes could be considered in preparation for the new YOUTH Programme third-country cooperation strand.

______________________________________________________

Recommendation 2 – Broaden the geographic reach by means of project pilots

The Programme could be opened to other regions, such as Africa and Asia, with a view to further encouraging the establishment and the strengthening of youth structures. On account of the current limited resources for the cooperation with Third Countries, the broadening of the geographic reach could be done by means of pilot projects involving youth structures that already exist in those two regions. Such organisations could play the role of regional multipliers of effects in the future.

_________________________________________________________


Ecosfera SpA 106

Recommendation 3 – Promote follow-up activities

Representatives of partner organisations have no opportunity to meet and discuss about their projects upon their completion. Funds for follow-up activities should be provided. Such activities would help organisations to engage in an “ex-post” evaluation process, to learn from past experiences, to increase the capacity building of the organisations themselves and, therefore, to increase the effectiveness of the finished projects. This would lead to set up new and well-grounded projects.

___________________________________________________

Recommendation 4 – Promote local and national co-funding as a priority

As indicated in the YOUTH programme User’s guide “The total project cost cannot be covered by YOUTH alone, and the contributions of organisers and/or participants can be either in cash or in kind, or a combination of both”. Consequently, the current co-funding mechanism urges the organisations to look for other contributors.

It is recommended that the selection criteria give priority to project proposals which are co-funded by local or national institutions. In fact, the results and the visibility of the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand projects increased considerably when there was public co-funding. Moreover, the commitment of such donors improved the recognition of non-formal education and intercultural learning.

___________________________________________________

Recommendation 5 - Increase the financial budget for the third-country cooperation strand

In consideration of all the above recommendations, it would be crucial to increase the budget for the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand. In so doing, some initiatives that have not been adequately supported in the period 2000-2002, for example follow-up activities undertaken by organisations, large scale projects, pilot projects, or further measures to increase the visibility of the Programme, would become feasible. Furthermore, with more financial resources, the Programme would increase its impact in that more projects could be financed and more organisations could be involved. Finally, it would allow an enlargement of the network of youth organisations.

Given the results achieved in the period 2000-2002, it is to be recommended that a budget increase of the third-country cooperation strand of the YOUTH programme should start from the second programming period.

6.3.3. Efficiency

Recommendation 1 – Adapt funding rules to the needs of young people with less opportunities and from TC

To tackle the economic difficulties of some participants in the projects, the following adjustments to funding rules are recommended:

- participants from Third Countries and young people with less opportunities from TC and PC should be fully reimbursed for their travel expenses (reimbursement currently amounts to 70% of such expenses). Total reimbursement should be applied to projects under all Actions of the YOUTH Programme third-country strand;


Ecosfera SpA 107

- young people with less opportunities involved in projects under Action 1 should get an allowance for free time activities. This financial support would allow the young people in question to socialise with other members of the exchange projects. Given the small number of young people with less opportunities participating in projects under Action 1, such a financial support would be a light burden on the total budget and would contribute to the Action’s objective of promoting intercultural understanding.

________________________________________________

Recommendation 2 – Speed up the procedure for the provision of grants

The time span between assessment of applications and actual provision of grants was too long in the period 2000-2002. Instead, grants should be made available to participants in time for the start of the projects. As a result, steps should be taken to speed up the procedure for the provision of grants.

________________________________________________

Recommendation 3 – Speed up the procedure for the issue of visas and residence permits

One of the most common problems encountered by young people was getting visa and residence permits. For many organisations, this problem takes them time and resources and sometimes it represents an actual impediment to the realisation of the projects.

The procedure for the issue of visas and residence permits to participants could be made faster.

A solution to the problem could derive from the “Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, vocational training or voluntary service”. It is to be pointed out that such a proposal concerns third-country nationals involved in long stays only.

The proposal, if accepted, could be of benefit to participants in projects under Action 2 of the Programme. Indeed, voluntary activities imply long stays. However, for participants in projects under Action 1 and 5, the adoption of a legal instrument concerning short stays is necessary.

6.3.4. Visibility

Recommendation 1 - Promote multipliers and providers of information and training, especially in the CIS region

Through an increase in the budget for the Programme, multipliers and providers of information on training, together with study visits and contact-making seminars, should be promoted in all regions. A network of multipliers and providers of information and training would make partner finding and the involvement in the Programme of a higher number of youth organisations easier.

This recommendation is particularly relevant to the CIS region in which information and communication about the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand are particularly limited. At the same time, information for Programme countries organisations about how to establish cooperation projects with counterparts in this region were difficult to get. Although some organisations, by means of their contacts, acted as liaisons between Programme countries and the CIS, this was obviously not enough to fill the information and communication gap.


Ecosfera SpA 108

In such circumstances, the establishment of a body designed to provide National Agencies, youth organisations and workers with support for promoting projects in the CIS region would deserve some consideration. It would be worthwhile promoting in the CIS long-term projects similar to those implemented in the SEE region (Balkan Youth Project and YouthNET).

____________________________________________

Recommendation 2 - Increase the visibility of SEE Resource Centre

The SEE Resource Centre is playing an important role in the promotion of the YOUTH Programme third-country strand in SEE countries. Moreover, it contributed to disseminate information about organisations located in the region.

In view of the positive results it achieved, the SEE Resource Centre would deserve further visibility. This is particularly true if we consider that, first, the region is politically and economically important for Europe, second, the region has a strong need of resources and infrastructures.]

__________________________________________________

Recommendation 3 – Increase the dissemination of results

In the period 2000-2002, the dissemination of results was not particularly supported, although this activity is fundamental to the visibility of the Programme. The strengthening of dissemination, which would improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the Programme, is obviously linked to an increase in the financial resources for the YOUTH programme third-country strand.

Should this happen, some actions to take could be:

• make dissemination of results mandatory;

• provide organisations with funds for the dissemination of results;

• organise more conferences and seminars dealing with the dissemination of results;

• design a EU web page on best practices;

• invite National Agencies to help organisations give media coverage of project results;

• develop, publish and disseminate products and processes resulting from cooperation (documents, publications, teaching modules, videos, CD-ROMs, innovative methodologies, educational strategies, etc.);

• develop publications on non-formal education and intercultural learning with Third Countries.

With a view to involving more organisations in the Programme, especially small organisations, information should multilingual and easier to get.


109

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Contact referents in PC and TC organisations ALBANIA Ariola Agolli Albanian Youth Council Kreshnik Collaku Associazione Italianisti d’Albania Bernard M. Derois Shoqata e Guidave dhe Scouteve ne

Shqiperi Blendi Dibra Intelektualet e Rinj. Shprese Floriana Hima Albanian Youth Council Daniela Leskoj Independent Forum for the Albanian

Women Xheni Sinakoli Albanian Society in Development Anila Sulstakova Independent Forum for the Albanian

Women BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA Senada Cesic Mladi Most Tomislav Dobutovic Kairos Ministry Eleonora Emkic Proni Institut Jasminka Tadic Husanovic Prijateljice Anka Izetbegovic Duga Biljana Ivanović Ministry of European integration Midhat Kapo Wings of Hope CROATIA Lidija Burić Volunteers Centre Zagreb Nada Jakir Ministry of Education Goran Hosni Centre for Creative Work Siniša Mitrović Youth Peace Group Danube Boris Najdenovski Globus Association for Intercultural

Learning Magdalene Scherer Franciscan Monastery Zoran Vukić Antuntun


Ecosfera SpA 110

DENMARK

Anne Marie Boile Nielsen Diakoni Aaret

Kim Brynaa Copenhagen City Youth School

Susan Krag Dansk American Field Service

Bryan Rodrigues Terra Brasilis

Ole Scholer Aalborg Ungdomsskole

Morten Siesgaard Next Stop

GERMANY

Mohamed Ashfari Behrooz Bosporus Gesellschaft

Simon Hubert Campus 15

Stephan Malerius Deutch Russicher

Salvatore Romagna ICYE Berlin

Hans Joachim Rosenberg Evangelische Kirchengemeinde

ITALY

Lucia D’Auria Cooperativa ideale Srl Davide Di Pietro Associazione Lunaria Anja Gunjac Arci Nuova associazione Erica Lombardi Associazione Lunaria Cuca Maset Associazione per gli scambi e le

attività interculturali Gino Motta Associazione Polriva Massimiliano Viatore Associazione per gli scambi e le

attività interculturali Silvia Volpi Veb Accademia Europea Gabriella Zoncapè Cooperativa ideale Srl

SPAIN

Helena Buceta Facorro Asociacion Espanola del Esperimento de la Convivencia

Ramon Canal Coordinacio Catalana de Colonies, Casals I Clubs d’Esplai

Josep Maria Carpi Consell Camarcall de l’Anoia Marc Castells Consell Camarcall de l’Anoia


Ecosfera SpA 111

Anna Farrè Coordinacio Catalana de Colonies, Casals I Clubs d’Esplai

Paloma Fernandez Avila Afaij, Asociacion para la formacion y actividades interculturales para la juventud

Jesus Migallon Sanz Madrid Puerta Abierta Maria Trevigno Afaij, Asociacion para la formacion y

actividades interculturales para la juventud

POLAND

Piotr Fraczak Association for Support of Community Initiatives

Waldemar Korycki Eastlinks

Agnieszka Pawlik Semper Avanti

Alicja Rożnowska Szpot Jordan Youth Centre

Michał Smoczyński Youth Support Foundation Bonus

Dariusz Wlazlic Association for Support of Community Initiatives

BRAZIL

Eduardo Assed AFS Intercultura Brasil

Lola Campos SFB Solidariedade França Brasil

Marcos V. Carrasqueira Idaco, Instituto de desenvolvimento e açao comunitaria

Jairo Coutinho Viva Rio

Càndido Grzybowski Ibase Instituto brasilenho de anàlisis sociais-econòmicos

Gisélia Poténgy Idaco, Instituto de desenvolvimento e açao comunitaria

MEXICO

Moisés Dominguez Instituto Mexicano de juventud (IMJ) Luciano Mendoza Instituto Mexicano de juventud (IMJ) Maylet Osorio Yori-Yoreme Cristina Ruiz Siijuve Servicio internacional para el

intercambio juvenil


Ecosfera SpA 112

Flores Vidal Vimex, Voluntarios Internacionales Mexico

RUSSIA

Sergei Grusko Friends House Nadezda Malysheva Help to Youth Cooperation Sergey Nikitin Friends House Alexeev Vadim Youth Group of Interchurch

Partnership Yelena Vilenskaya Soldiers Mothers of St. Petersburg

UKRAINE

Vasylyna Dybailo Gurt Gszentrum fur NGO Hanna Heichuk Ukrainan association for youth

cooperation Volodymyr Horshykmin Ymca Ukraine

Contact referents in DG RELEX Vesna Popovic (SEE COUNTRIES) Arto Valjas (NIS COUNTRIES)


Ecosfera SpA 113

LIST OF NATIONAL AGENCIES

COUNTRY NATIONAL AGENCY Reply

received België JINT vzw YES Belgique Bureau International Jeunesse NO Belgien Jugendbüro der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft YES Bulgaria Bulgaria State Agency for Youth and Sports YES Czech Republic Czech National Agency Youth "Mladez" NO Denmark CIRIUS YES Deutschland Jugend für Europa YES Estonia Euroopa Noored Eesti Büroo YES Ellas General Secretariat for Youth NO Espana Instituto de la Juventud YES France INJEP YES Ireland LEARGAS YES Island Ungt Folk I Evropu YES Italia Agenzia Nazionale Italiana Gioventu YES Latvija Agency for International Programs for Youth YES Lietuva Agency for International Youth Cooperation YES Liechtenstein Aha Tipps und Infos für Junge Leute NO Luxembourg Service National de la Jeunesse YES Hungary Mobilitas (Mobility Youth Service) NO Netherland NIZW International Centre YES Norway BUFA YES

Osterreich Nationalagentur JUGEND - Eurotech Management YES

Polska Narodowa Agencja Programu MLODZIEZ YES Portugal Instituto Portugues Juventude (IPJ) YES Romania ANSIT YES Slovenija MOVIT Na Mladina YES Slovenska Republika IUVENTA (NAFYM) NO Suomi - Finland CIMO YES Sverige Ungdomsstyrelsen YES United Kingdom Connect Youth International YES


Ecosfera SpA 114

LIST OF ACRONYMS

DG AIDCO – EuropeAid Cooperation Office – European Commission

DG EAC – Directorate General Education and Culture – European Commission

DG RELEX – Directorate General for External Relations – European Commission

CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States

EC – European Commission

EU – European Union

EVS – European Voluntary Service

LA – Latin America

NA – National Agency

NGO – Non-governmental Organisations

PC – Programme country/ies

SALTO – Support for Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities

SEE – Southern Eastern Europe

TAO – Technical Assistance Office

TC – Third country/ies


Ecosfera SpA 115

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Council Regulation No 2666/2000 EC of 5 December 2000 on assistance for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (CARDS) amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2415/2001 EC of 10 December 2001

Council Regulation No 99/2000 EC, Euratom of 29 December 1999 concerning the provision of assistance to the partner States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (TACIS)

Decision No 1031/2000/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe of 13 April 2000 establishing the 'Youth' Community action programme

ECOTEC: Evaluation of the European Voluntary Service Programme (2001)

ECOTEC: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Euromed-Youth programme (2001)

European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture, ‘The European Union programmes for 2000-2006, Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Youth, Tempus III’ (2001)

European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture, The future development of the European Union education, training and Youth programmes after 2006. A public consultation document (November 2002)

European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture, “Youth for Europe” and “European Voluntary Service” Evaluation Report (2001)

European Commission’s Communication ‘Management of Community Programmes by Networks of National Agencies’ COM(2001) 648 Final

European Commission’s Communication ‘The Western Balkans and European Integration’, COM (2003) 285 Final

European Commission’s Communication ‘Wider Europe- Neighbourhood: a New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours’ COM (2003) 104 Final

European Commission’s Communication on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance of 16 May 2000, Rev 8

European Commission’s Second Annual Report, ‘The Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe’ COM (2003) 139 Final

European Commission’s White Paper: A New Impetus for European Youth (2001)

European Commission’s Youth programme User’s Guide 2002

European Commission’s Youth programme User’s Guide 2003

European Youth Forum Position paper on Youth Sector in CIS (June 2002)

European Youth Forum report of the study visit to Ukraine (June 2001)

European Youth Forum report on Young People in South East Europe (2002)


Ecosfera SpA 116

European Youth Forum: European Youth Forum response to the European Commission’s White Paper: A New Impetus for European Youth (2002)

European Youth Forum: Participation in association. Visions for a future EU Youth programme encouraging participation and active citizenship among young people in Europe. Contribution of the European Youth Forum to the formulation of a new generation of EU programmes (April 2003)

European Youth Forum: Position paper on the development of the Council of Europe Youth programme priority of intercultural dialogue and peace, adopted by the Council of Members, 25-26 April 2003

Socrates Leonardo & Youth Technical Assistance Office: Youth programme, Selection manual, Selections 2002-R3, (June 2002)

Reports of on-site visits to projects by Technical Assistance Office

The Tavistock Institute: The potential and implementation of third country EVS (1998)

Youth Cooperation Conference 2002, Interactive youth conference for governmental representatives and NGOs in the EU, pre-accession and CIS countries Conference Report, Bornholm (Denmark)


Ecosfera SpA 117

ANNEXES


Ecosfera SpA 118

ANNEX 1 – ADDITIONAL TABLES


Ecosfera SpA 119

ANNEX 2 – QUESTIONNAIRES USED FOR THE SURVEYS

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL EDUCATION AND CULTURE

INTERIM EVALUATION OF THIRD COUNTRY COOPERATION OF THE YOUTH PROGRAMME 2000-2002

FINAL REPORT

II VOLUME

Ecosfera S.p.A

Viale Castrense, 8

Roma

Italy

August 2003

Interim Evaluation of Third Country Cooperation of the YOUTH programme 2000-2002 – Final Report

Ecosfera S.p.A. 2

INDEX

SEE COUNTRIES REPORTS ___________________________________________ 3

ALBANIA____________________________________________________________ 4

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA ________________________________________ 11

REPUBLIC OF CROATIA _____________________________________________ 16

PROGRAMME COUNTRIES REPORTS ________________________________ 20

DENMARK _________________________________________________________ 21

GERMANY _________________________________________________________ 28

ITALY______________________________________________________________ 37

POLAND ___________________________________________________________ 44

SPAIN _____________________________________________________________ 52

LA COUNTRIES REPORTS ___________________________________________ 61

BRAZIL ____________________________________________________________ 62

MEXICO ___________________________________________________________ 72

CIS COUNTRIES REPORTS __________________________________________ 81

RUSSIA ____________________________________________________________ 82

UKRAINE __________________________________________________________ 89

ANNEX 1 - LIST OF CONSULTED ORGANISATIONS and PROJECTS VISITED___________________________________________________________________ 97

ANNEX 2 – GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERVIEWS _____________________ 110


Ecosfera S.p.A.

3

SEE COUNTRIES REPORTS Albania

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Croatia


Ecosfera S.p.A.

4

ALBANIA

INTRODUCTION

According to the general criteria set out in the YOUTH programme’s Users Guide1, Albania is included in the Priority 1 Table of “Third Countries” section and can participate only in Actions 1, 2 and 5.

Interviews in Albania were more concerned with the activities carried out by the organisations visited than with their projects. This was due to the fact that, in some cases, the details of the projects were not fresh in the memory of the interviewees; in other cases, the interviewees were not part of the organisation’s staff when the project was implemented.

An interview involved four representatives of two institutions participating in the same project (more specifically, Miss Hima and Agolli from the Albanian Youth Council and Miss Sulstakova and Leskoj from the Independent Forum for the Albanian Women). As a result, we carried out 6 interviews with 8 representatives of different Albanian organisations (see table below for details).

N Name of the interviewee

Name of the organisation

Position in the

organisation Project Action Location

Date of the interview

1 Kreshnik Collaku

Associazione Italianisti d’Albania

President Associazione Re-Idomeneo

1.2 Tirana 31/03/2003

Floriana Hima

Albanian Youth Council

International Coordinator

Tirana 31/03/2003

Ariola Agolli

Albanian Youth Council

Social-Economic

Development Programs Officer

Tirana 31/03/2003

Anila Sulstakova

Independent Forum for the

Albanian Women

Project Administrator

Tirana 31/03/2003

2

Daniela Independent Project Officer

Youth Work in the Balkans

5.1.2

Tirana 01/04/2003

1 Version valid as of 1 January 2003 – European Commission


Ecosfera S.p.A.

5

Leskoj Forum for the Albanian Women

3 Xheni

Sinakoli

Albanian Society in

Development Project Officer

Portuguese Network of

Young People for Equity

5.1.2 Tirana 01/04/2003

4 Blendi Dibra Intelektualet e Rinj. Shprese

President Adriapeople 5.1.2 Shkoder 01/04/2003

5 Bernard M.

Derois

Shoqata e Guidave dhe Scouteve ne

Shqiperi

Activities Responsible

Building the Organisation, Building the

Citizen

2.2 Tirana 02/04/2003

The interviews took place in Tirana and Shkoder between March the 31st and April the 2nd 2003 and were made in Italian and in English. It is worth pointing out that, when asked what language they wished to use for the interview, most interviewees chose Italian.

Only in two cases it was not possible to meet the representatives in their offices. This was the case of the interview with Miss Leskoj and Miss Sinakoli. In the first case it was due to the fact that the Independent Forum for the Albanian Women was moving to a new office; in the second case, as now Miss Sinakoli works in a different organisation (sometimes still co-operates with the ASD) preferred to meet us in another place. Another interesting point to be highlighted is that one interviewee (Miss Hima) was also the beneficiary of the project, which made the answers particularly exhaustive.

On the whole, there were no problems in carrying out the interviews, since all actors were willing to answer questions. Problems occurred only when addresses, telephone numbers and contact persons of organisations to be interviewed differed from the list provided by the Commission. To obtain updated contact details, we referred to the project contractors.

ORGANISATIONS

The organisations visited are NGOs and non-profit organisations set up in mid-Nineties. They provide young Albanians with legal support, organise cultural activities and promote values such as civil society, peace and security. Many of them have experience on cooperation with other European countries (mainly Italy); some participated in projects funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, only one was involved in projects co-funded by the YOUTH programme.

It can be interesting to underline that the 8 interviewees are young, roughly in their thirties. This implies that Albanian organisations involved in civil society are open to and managed by young people. Moreover, this means that young generations in Albania are interested in programmes of co-operation with EU countries.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

6

The table below shows for each organisation the number and the typology of projects carried out during 2000-2002 in the YOUTH programme – third-country cooperation strand to give an exhaustive idea of the experience of the organisations visited.

NAME OF THE ORGANISATION ROLE PROJECT NUMBER ACTION YEAR CONTRACT

OR

PAR 92295 5.1.2 2001 IT

PAR 89169 5.1.2 2000 IT ALBANIAN YOUTH COUNCIL

PAR 105782 5.1.2 2002 ES

PAR 105977 1.2 2002 IT ASSOCIAZIONE ITALIANISTI

D'ALBANIA PAR 93759 1.2 2001 IT

INDEPENDENT FORUM FOR THE ALBANIAN WOMAN PAR 89169 5.1.2 2000 IT

PAR 107117 5.1.2 2002 BE ALBANIAN SOCIETY IN

DEVELOPMENT PAR 107154 5.1.2 2002 PT

PAR 93703 5.1.2 2001 CE

PAR 106984 5.1.2 2002 PT

PAR 105952 5.1.2 2002 IT

PAR 107042 5.1.2 2002 PL

PAR 107071 5.1.2 2002 IT

INTELEKTUALET E RINJ SHPRESE

PAR 107208 5.1.2 2002 PL

SHOQATA E GUIDAVE DHE SCOUTEVE NE SHQIPERI HOST 107170 2.2 2002 IT

An element to be considered is the strong competition among such organisations to the point that many interviewees tended to underestimate the work carried out by the others.

Finally, Albanian NGOs and non-profit institutions prefer to establish relationships with foreign partners rather than with Albanian ones for fear of losing opportunities.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECTS

It was not simple to carry out an exhaustive overview of the third-country strand of the YOUTH Programme in Albania as among the projects involving Albanian organisations visited, one is still in progress, another will start in September 2003 and a third one has never been launched.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

7

In particular, the projects completed were those carried out by Associazione Italianisti d’Albania, Albanian Youth Council with the Independent Forum for the Albanian Woman, the one in progress is that involving the Albanian Society in Development while the one involving the “Shoqata e Guidave dhe Scouteve ne Shqiperi” under action 2.2 is expected to start in September 2003.

With regard to the project not launched, it involved “Intelektualet e Rinj. Shprese” of Shkutari. This organisation presented a very particular situation: it is a partner in 5 projects co-funded by the third-country strand of the YOUTH Programme but in more than three cases it met with difficulties. In the case of a project to be realised with an Italian partner (ref. 105952) the President of the organisation knew nothing about it and never got in touch with either the contracting organisation or the other partners involved. In another case (ref. 107042) he was informed by the Polish applicant that the project was not financed. Finally, in a third case (ref. 93703) the organisation could not participate in the meeting held in the UK due to financial problems.

With reference to the projects already concluded or in progress, the general overview was positive. All interviewees showed enthusiasm for both the projects and the Programme. The main activities undertaken in these projects consisted in meetings with young people from different countries and visits to local institutions. The aim was to offer participants the opportunity to explore common themes and learn elements of other cultures in view of new partnerships for future projects.

MANAGEMENT

In many cases local Albanian organisations were asked to contribute to the definition of the project-idea and its consequent development. This was perceived as an element of great importance and Albanian actors were enthusiastic over being involved in this phase. With regard to project management, the situation is very different: Albanian organisations, in fact, are completely excluded from project management, as they cannot submit direct applications and, consequently, receive direct financing.

RESULTS/IMPACT

Results and impacts of the projects implemented appear to be in line with expectations. As regards the participants, it is to be emphasised that Albanian young people welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that their country is not only a country marked out by civil war and corruption but a place where national NGOs are working for the development of the Albanian society. Similarly, intercultural exchanges were seen as highly formative. In relation to local organisations, the Programme helped them get in touch with other EU organisations and learn from them but did not develop relations among Albanian organisations2. This is due to the fact that generally Albanian organisations already know one another and are not always in good

2 The only exception is given by the relation between Albanian Youth Council and the Independent Forum for the Albanian Women, which have co-operated together since several years.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

8

relations. Besides, they prefer to develop synergies with EU organisations without sharing their experience with local organisations due to the fear of missing opportunities to the advantage of other Albanian organisations.

As regards the local level, the impact was limited to the actors involved in the projects and to these local organisations they worked with. It is of some importance to emphasise that in Albania local administrations are considered unreliable by young people.

PARTNERSHIP

All Albanian organisations we visited had relationships with foreign bodies, particularly with Italian associations. With the exception of the project under Action 2.2 (involving only two organisations), participant bodies in the projects were 3-5 and made up of EU member States (30%), Balkan countries (65%), and East Europe countries (5%). In one case (Albanian Society in Development) participants knew one another since they had already participated in a former YOUTH project carried out in Slovenia. In another case the Albanian Youth Council involved directly its partner (Independent Forum for the Albanian Women).

Concerning projects implemented or under implementation, partnership worked quite well to the point that participants hoped they might be set up again in the future.

With respect to the project to be implemented in Shkoder (ref. 107042), the relevant interviewee stated that he was contacted for the drawing of the project proposal but after its submission he was informed that the project was not financed3.

LOCAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Only one project was implemented in Albania at the time of the interview. The involvement of the local community (in the person of three mayors and two headmasters) was instrumental to the success of the project. The Albanian partner played a critical role in the involvement of these local actors.

DISSEMINATION, VISIBILITY AND REPLICABILITY

All interviewees share the opinion that the YOUTH programme has no visibility in the country. Nearly all of them heard of the Programme through their links with foreign institutions and only two interviewees had participated in a previous YOUTH project in Slovenia (Action 5.1.2). All interviewees were unaware of any dissemination activities undertaken by the EU Delegation in Tirana and by the Albanian Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport.

3 The contracting partner, Polish organisation Semper Avanti, stated that they preferred to replace Intelektualet e Rinj. Shprese with a new Albanian partner due to “managerial problems”, and this was the way the project was actually carried out.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

9

Most associations receive information about the Programme either from foreign partners or through the Internet. It is important to stress that electricity shortage, few local providers and high telephone costs make access to the web difficult.

Finally, interviewees said that their organisations carried out no dissemination activities of the results deriving from the projects. This is due partly to a shortage of financial resources, partly to the fear that, by informing other Albanian organisations, they might miss future opportunities.

SUSTAINABILITY AND MAINSTREAMING

According to the interviewees, there is no link between national policies and the YOUTH third-country cooperation programme. Most of the associations visited receive financial resources from international donors (UNDP, USAID, EU, UNICEF, etc.) or within cooperation programmes implemented by EU member States (Italy, Netherlands, Germany and Denmark).

As far as sustainability is concerned, great enthusiasm and interest in future projects under the YOUTH programme were noticed. Nevertheless, due to the fact that Albanian organisations are not entitled to make direct applications to the Commission/National Agency, they found themselves in a constant search of foreign partners.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

All interviewees (including those who are going to implement their project and the representative of Intelektualet e Rinj. Shprese of Shkutari) showed great interest in the YOUTH programme. Those who realised the projects were enthusiastic about the experience made, considered as a step toward the participation in the EU.

Anyway, the final conclusions on the implementation of the third-country strand of the YOUTH programme in Albania are generally positive but present also some negative elements.

First of all, not all the projects respected the deadlines fixed in the project proposal, thus it was not possible to analyse all the results and the same evaluative activity in Albania was mostly concentrated on the organisations’ activities but limited to the specific YOUTH projects.

Furthermore, Albanian organisations seem to be unwilling to cooperate with organisations based in the SEE region. On the contrary, they want to improve relations with EU organisations for 1) learning new skills and 2) making clear that Albania is a peaceful and stable country now.

Finally, two problems that might hinder the future implementation of projects in Albania or with Albanian organisations deserve to be taken into account.

The first one concerns the procedures for obtaining visa. Although the YOUTH programme is “directed to those young people who have had few, if any chances to benefit from national or international mobility activities, and lesser opportunities, in general”4, young Albanians are very

4 YOUTH programme, Cooperation with South East Europe, EAC/BR D(2002) note SEE, European Commission – DG Education and Culture, 2002.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

10

often refused visa to enter a country, with obvious implications as regards the possibility of carrying out projects. This situation has psychological effects on young people, who may believe they are rejected by the international community, and on organisations, which are not allowed to implement projects (this is particularly true when a project has been already funded).

The second problem concerns the lack of information about the YOUTH programme: the national institution in charge (i.e. the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport) is not active in this regard and disseminates information only to friendly associations. As a result, a point of reference at a national level from which organisations can receive information and support for the implementation of projects is absolutely necessary.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

11

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

INTRODUCTION

Interviews in Bosnia and Herzegovina were carried out in four days. On April 15 we visited HD Prijateljice in Tuzla and had a meeting at an orphanage and at the Centre of Female Entrepreneurship. The day after we went to Sarajevo, where we visited Kairos Ministry, Duga Organisation and Wings of Hope. We also had the chance to meet Ms. Biljana Ivanović of the Directorate of European Integration. On April 17 we met Senada Češić of Mladi Most in Mostar. We went back to Bosnia and Herzegovina on April 22 to visit the Brčko District where we met Eleonora Emkić of Proni Institut for Social Education.

Apart from institutions located in rural villages with no clear signs of recognition (HDP) or whose roads were in bad conditions (MMM), it was easy to reach the organisations.

English was the language spoken in the interviews, while the local language was used in support of some specific issues.

The promotion of universal peace, dialogue, tolerance and solidarity amongst young people (one of the main objectives of third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme) was successfully achieved through the projects in question. In particular, those under Action 1.2 (WOH) succeeded in strengthening the relationships between young people coming from different backgrounds because participants were all involved in the achievement of the same goal (restoring the gardens of two schools for blind people which had been damaged during the war). There were then projects which gave participants the opportunity to better understand their respective cultures. They were part of Action 2.2 (European Voluntary Service). The projects provided participants with a non-formal intercultural learning experience. European volunteers found themselves involved in a social environment radically different from that in their countries, as it is a post-war situation (HDP, DUG, KMS).

ORGANISATIONS

Organisations visited were all non-governmental bodies.

NGOs’ holistic approach to development, aiming at improving the situation of the beneficiaries without making profits, favours better relations with local partners, particularly in a context like that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is characterised by ineffectual social and health services, collapsed during the war and still under re-construction. On the other hand, compared to public and private sectors, NGOs are less bureaucratic and more flexible. Such a reality provides beneficiaries with a considerable autonomy; further, it helps organisations find fast and professional solutions to practical problems. All this emerges clearly from this case study, especially from those projects developing a new mode of working on children and on adolescent mental health protection (DUG, WOH).

Most of the organisations were set up few years ago or shortly after the war (around 1994-95). The first activity they dealt with was the distribution of food, clothes, footwear and hygienic


Ecosfera S.p.A.

12

items. After the war, these organisations started to assist children, the youth with special needs and their families.

It is estimated that 15% of the entire population suffered from a serious trauma because of the war5, so some of these associations (DUG, WOH, HDP) started to provide children and young people with those mental health services that in pre-war years were offered by public psychiatric hospitals and other public bodies. Other organisations (MMM, KMS, PSE) focused the activities on rebuilding the multiethnic and multicultural environment destroyed by the collapse of Yugoslavia.

With no experience in European funding, all the organisations heard of the YOUTH programme from a partner organisation.

Case studies and questionnaires confirm that the reality of organisations is characterised by high mobility and turnover. The interviews arranged concerned projects carried out in the period from 2000 to 2002. In some cases, the person first responsible for the implementation of the project or who filled in the application form did not work at all for the organisation at the time of the interview (PSE, MMM). Thus, another person participated in the meeting without having detailed knowledge of the project financed through the YOUTH programme.

The following is a table which summarizes the involvement of the organisations visited within the YOUTH programme during 2000-2002.

NAME OF ORGANISATION ROLE PROJECT NUMBER ACTION YEAR

DUGA (RAINBOW) HOST 107098 2.2 2002 HOST 93875 2.2 2001 HOST 95336 2.2 2001 MLADI MOST, MOSTAR SEND 95363 2.2 2001 HOST 89047 2.2 2000 PRIJATELJICE HOST 103746 2.2 2002 HOST 88848 2.2 2000 HOST 92493 2.2 2001 PAR 107138 5.12 2002 PAR 105993 5.12 2002 PAR 88558 5.12 2000

PRONI INSTITUT ZA SOCIJALNU EDUKACIJU

HOST 88882 2.2 2000 PAR 93662 1.2 2001 PAR 88603 1.2 2000 PAR 92204 1.2 2001 WINGS OF HOPE SARAJEVO

PAR 105834 1.2 2002 KAIROS MINISTRY HOST 95439 2.2 2001

5 Psychosocial Support to Children and Adolescents H.O. “Duga” – Second progress report, July – December 2002


Ecosfera S.p.A.

13

PROJECTS

The six projects analysed were approved under Actions 1.2 and 2.2 and involved around 113 participants. There were around 65 female participants and around 48 male participants. Nearly 60% of them were people with less opportunities (this number includes people coming from a less privileged cultural, geographical or socio-economic background or with disabilities).

In EVS projects, the volunteer helps local operators in daily activities as part of a support structure (PSE, KMS, HDP, DUG), or takes part in tasks concerning areas such as conflict resolution and cultural co-operation (MMM). Youth Exchanges activities involve more people working together for the same goal (WOH).

It was repeatedly stressed that projects should not be limited to exchanging ideas and experiences but should be followed up by actual actions/activities. The main factors of success are said to be a careful definition of the projects’ objectives, a careful selection of participants, a strong involvement of partner organisations and young people at all stages of project development (HDP).

MANAGEMENT

The management aspects were not very demanding, since organisations received funds from the contractor body. The current system is too centralised, difficult to understand and not sufficiently adapted to the contexts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This centralisation is also responsible for serious problems in term of visibility and credibility of the Programme (HDP, DUG, PSE).

RESULTS/IMPACT

Nineteen organisations were involved in the various activities. All interviewees said they are satisfied with the cooperation. They will keep working together, if possible. However, participation in the Programme within a partnership involving EU organisations has a key impact on the development of operators’ skills, both linguistic and technical.


Local community involvement is different from area to area. Generally speaking, its impact on the project is remarkable; the involvement of local actors in the Programme was frequently mentioned by interviewees working for organisations located in towns with a significant number of inhabitants.


It has to be underlined that project managers involved in the implementation of the activities have no perception of the financial instrument supporting their projects. This means that the


Ecosfera S.p.A.

14

visibility of the YOUTH programme is somehow limited, whereas in very few cases we found out that even the local community in itself was not properly aware of the financial instrument.

A number of organisations disseminated information on the Internet and held public events. As a result, they were effective in raising awareness on youth issues and in encouraging people/organisations to apply for the Programme.

The use of the SEE Resource Centre was limited, also because the institution was established only recently. It is too early to give an exhaustive picture of the situation.


Under the provisions of the Dayton Peace Accords (1995), Bosnia and Herzegovina is now divided into two entities (the large Bosnian and Croat Federation and the Serbian Republika Srpska) with powers over areas such as finance, taxation, business development and general legislation. Entities and cantons have their own budgets for spending on infrastructure, health care, and education. The implementation of the Dayton Accords has focused the efforts of policymakers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in the international community, on regional stabilization, thus giving a minor attention to youth policies.

A comprehensive national youth policy that could provide a framework for all relevant interventions in the youth field would be helpful.


One of the main problems to be emphasised is that volunteers cannot speak the local language. This problem came about within organisations dealing with children and the youth with special needs as well as with children with mental retardation (WOH, DUG). The knowledge of the local language is essential in such cases since shadowing activities require a deep involvement of the volunteer into the life of adolescents which can be obtained only with proper communication. On the other hand, greater emphasis should be given on measures that improve dissemination of results so as to stimulate demand.

The feedback of the Bosnian governmental representative toward YOUTH and YouthNET is very positive.

Biljana Ivanović said however that there are difficulties in her country linking youth activities to the government since a youth policy ministry or department does not exist. She would welcome additional technical assistance.

On the basis of interviews and documentation, we can conclude that “third-country cooperation” of the YOUTH programme has been effective. NGOs international and local operators, volunteers and all workers stressed the need to strengthen the bottom-up approach.

With the benefit of hindsight, there would have been further advantages if the third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme activity had:

- increased the dissemination of results;


Ecosfera S.p.A.

15

- included a better definition of good practice in youth strategies for multiethnic integration;

- generated more interaction between the individual members of the partnerships providing host organisations with a mole relevant role;

- developed more comprehensive information activities (SEE Resource Centre works well, but its activities should be given more publicity though the E-Newsletter, the contact-making and training seminars).


Ecosfera S.p.A.

16

REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

INTRODUCTION

Visits in Croatia took four days. On April 14, we visited Globus and Volunteer Center in Zagreb; after three days in Bosnia, we met INVIA Aschaffenburg – Hvar Monastery in Split. On April 22, we had the opportunity to talk to Goran Hosni, responsible for the Center for Alternative Work and to Ms Nada Jakir, head of the Department for Bilateral and Multilateral Co-operation of the Croatian Ministry of Education and Sports in Zagreb; on April 23 we met with the executive director of Youth Peace Group Danube in Vukovar and, on April 24 Zoran, with Vukič of Antun Tun in Samobor.

Their activities consisted in supporting multilingual diversity, promoting cooperation among young people from a variety of countries (this is a specific criteria for “third-country cooperation”) and providing them with a non-formal intercultural learning experience (EVS projects).

Most projects under Action 1.2 took place in camps where people with special needs were often present (CCW), thereby strengthening the “integration spirit” of the Programme. In most cases, teenagers were offered the participation in these camps as a reward for the enthusiasm showed (CCW, YPD).

On the whole, it was not difficult to contact such organisations, although addresses and telephone numbers were sometimes wrong (YPD). This situation can be explained by the fact that offices are let at high rentals by local administrations, which forces organisations to change locations. It is to be noticed that the office and the home of the organisation’s manager are sometimes in the same place (ATT, GIL).

English was the language used for the interviews. In some circumstances, we used the local language to make some ideas clearer, especially when we approached local volunteers or operators.

ORGANISATIONS

The organisations visited are Non-Governmental Organisations or associations promoting international co-operation in education, sport and culture among young people.

Many of the youth organisations we visited had relationships with other youth organisations working in the same field, thereby benefiting from sharing information, ideas, and best practices (VCZ, YPD). On the contrary, a few organisations did not view collaboration as an important part of their strategies.

While most organisations gained experience from third-country cooperation and regarded the YOUTH programme as an opportunity to develop and strengthen their activities, some others considered the Programme as a mere source of funds allowing a volunteer to keep working with


Ecosfera S.p.A.

17

them (IVA, ATT). The following is a table which summarizes the involvement of the organisations visited within the YOUTH programme during 2000-2002.

NAME OF ORGANISATION ROLE PROJECT NUMBER ACTION YEAR

ANTUNTUN HOST 95374 2.2 2001 PAR 93678 1.2 2001 PAR 92211 1.2 2001 CENTRE FOR CREATIVE

WORK PAR 93688 1.2 2001

FRANCISCAN MONASTERY HVAR HOST 95584 2.2 2001

GLOBUS ASSOCIATION FOR INTERCULTURAL

LEARNING HOST 107000 2.2 2002

PAR 93703 5.12 2001 HOST 106960 2.2 2002 PAR 106975 5.12 2002

VOLUNTEERS' CENTRE ZAGREB

PAR 107071 5.12 2002 HOST 93705 2.2 2001 PAR 94433 1.2 2001 PAR 93685 1.2 2001

HOST 92283 2.2 2001

YOUTH PEACE GROUP DANUBE

PAR 92214 1.2 2001

PROJECTS

The primary goals of the international exchanges were to provide the participants with a programme leading to participation in the chosen activity (IVA). Exchanges were also supposed to provide young people with the opportunity of meeting participants from other countries with different backgrounds and religions and sharing common interests and goals (CCW, ATT).

Generally speaking, the critical aim of international exchanges is personal development of young people, which is at the core of all activities undertaken by youth organisations. However, the impact of such exchanges is something that can hardly be achieved by other means.

MANAGEMENT

As the applicant is supposed to be one of the partners based in a Programme Country, Third Country organizations did not play an active role.

Interviewees point out that good leadership and project management lead to the success of the project.

RESULTS/IMPACT

Twenty-nine organisations were involved in the activities. Most of the interviewees said that they are satisfied with the cooperation. Problems arouse because of visas for other


Ecosfera S.p.A.

18

organisations’ participants. It was stressed that participation in the Programme within a partnership involving EU organisations has a key impact on the development of operators’ skills, both linguistic and technical.


While local community (donors and sponsors) is widely involved in Zagreb Municipality (ATT, CCW, VCZ), other regions seem to be totally unaware of the youth themes/organisations that operate within their territory (YPD).

It is evident that project activities involve large cities and their surroundings, while rural, insular, cross-border regions appear to participate less. This feature was described as an effect of the war.

It is true, however, that organisations with a good reputation in the community appeared to be doing well in recruiting both educators and participants. In general, these organisations have highly motivated staff and active programs.

The participation in a project of important stakeholders is a key to success. Stakeholders can include organisation members, public officials, school servants, parents and volunteers. Many organisations reported problems resulting from the absence of parents, especially when young people with special needs were involved in the activities (CCW).


Results were disseminated through public seminars. To this regard, it is to be mentioned the YouthNET - Evaluation Conference, held in Zagreb and organised in cooperation with Interkulturelles Zentrum Wien, the Ministry of Education and Sport of Republic Croatia and Volunteers’ Center Zagreb. The Conference was attended by 52 representatives of Ministries or Institutes for youth from the SEE, National Agencies, the youth from EU countries, NGOs, schools, international organisations and institutions such as the European Commission, CARE International, Stability Pact for SEE - Task Force Education and Youth, SEE YOUTH Resource Centre.


There is a solid link with national youth policies, especially due to the efforts made by the Ministry of Education and School, that includes the YOUTH programme support activities in the national budget. Most responsible officers of the organisations claimed that if they had not received resources from YOUTH, they would have requested national funds.


If one of the projects’ aims was to strengthen in young people the awareness that they are an important part of Europe, it was certainly achieved. However, for many reasons, organisations


Ecosfera S.p.A.

19

seemed to believe they are marginalised in Europe. This assumption has its roots in the political and economical realities of contemporary Europe. Croatia is eager to join the EU but, as it is not included in the group of pre-accession countries, it feels it is not treated as an equal partner. This situation is mirrored in the Youth for Europe programme, under which Croatia is a “non-member country”.

While the young people involved in this programme have little chance to change these political and social situations, they might experience the European dimension through an interaction with young people of different cultures. In this context, EU programmes such as INTERREG (in which Croatia is involved through CARDS funds) should be suggested.

Organisations were very positive about the Programme. Many interviewees stressed that the philosophy of “partnership” should be based on collaboration instead of competition.

One of the main problems met was the language barrier. The level of knowledge of English, which was adopted as the language of the Programme, varied significantly among the participants. The language barrier can be overcome, but it causes delay (YPD). Another problem was said to be the lack of preparatory planning sessions (CCW).

Nada Jakir of the Ministry of Education and Sports of Croatia said that it was a pity not to accept so many applications, regardless of their good quality, as stressed in the Funding Conference. She urged to consider new sources of support. Governments in South East Europe should be more prepared for a future self-implementation process. Therefore, they should get used to assuming further responsibilities.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

20

PROGRAMME COUNTRIES REPORTS Denmark

Germany

Italy

Poland


Ecosfera S.p.A.

21

DENMARK

INTRODUCTION

Interviews in Denmark involved six organisations. Details are shown in the table below.

Name of the interviewee Name of the organisation Action Location Date of the interview

Susan Krag Dansk American field service 2 Copenhagen 22/04/2003

Kim Brynaa Copenhagen City Youth School 1 Copenhagen 22/04/2003

Morten Siesgaard Next Stop 2 Copenhagen 23/04/2003

Bryan Rodrigues Terra Brasilis 2 Copenhagen 23/04/2003

Anne Marie Boile Nielsen Diakoni Aaret 2 Copenhagen 23/04/2003

Ole scholer Aalborg Ungdomsskole 2 Aalborg 24/04/2003

Interviews and statistical data6 show that most of the Danish organisations submitted only one project with Third Countries in the years 2000-2002. The following is a table with all the projects that the organisations visited have participated in during the first half of the Programme.

NAME OF ORGANISATION ROLE PROJECT

NUMBER ACTION YEAR REGION

CON 105918 1.2 2002 CIS AALBORG UNGDOMSSKOLE

CON 93656 1.2 2001 CIS COPENHAGEN CITY

YOUTH SCHOOL CON 104638 1.2 2002 CIS

CON 88704 2.2 2000 LA DANSK - AMERICAN FIELD SERVICE

CON 88705 2.2 2000 LA CON 95301 2.2 2001 CIS

HOST 95301 2.2 2001 CIS DIAKONI – AARET CON 107055 2.2 2002 CIS

NEXT STOP CON 105932 2.2 2002 SEE

TERRA BRASILIS - THE BRASILIAN CLUB CON 107058 2.2 2002 LA

Note: In bold the projects on which the interview was focused

6 The statistical data provided by the TAO refer to the number of submitted applications and not to the total number of projects approved.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

22

OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANISATIONS VISITED

The organisations visited can be divided as follows:

⇒ Organisations with a strong tradition in the voluntary service (i.e. AFS and Diakoni Aaret). From its establishment in 1914, AFS has been active in intercultural exchanges, whereas Diakoni Aaret is an international organisation helping marginalised people.

⇒ Youth municipal schools. (i.e. the city youth school of Copenhagen and “Aalborg Ungdomsskole”). The city youth school of Copenhagen offers both formal and non-formal education to young people. More than 500 students are involved full time in the courses. Aalborg Ungdomsskole, set up in 1942, offers leisure education to young people. It has more than 2000 young members and 4000 youngsters in teaching and cultural activities.

⇒ Small organisations, such as “Next Stop” and “Terra Brasilis”. Next Stop has its origins in a movement that opposed nuclear tests in the USA in mid-Eighties. Terra Brasilis is an association founded in 1999 which promotes the Brazilian culture.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECTS EXAMINED

Of the six organisations we visited four submitted projects under Action 2. In the Next Stop project a young girl volunteered for six month in a Serbian NGO. From the very start, she was involved in the application process and in the preparatory phase. As a matter of fact, she took part in the inception meeting and was in contact with the host organisation in the months preceding her arrival. When working for the host organisation, she worked on various projects, helped the coordinators, prepared training seminars and carried out administrative tasks.

In the Diakoni Aaret project, three Ukrainian young boys volunteered for YMCA soldiers in Copenhagen. They were involved in the daily running of the centre and of leisure activities.

The Terra Brasilis project was still under way at the time of the interview. The volunteer is a Brazilian young girl who suffers from psychological problems. She was sent by the Associao Folia de Rua , a samba school in Pessoa working with disadvantaged young people.

Nine volunteers (five from Denmark and four from Greece) working for Peruvian organisations participated in the AFS project. They were involved in the daily life of poor people and in the activities of the associations. The project, entitled “Street Children in Peru”, was aimed at supporting children with physical and mental problems and providing mothers with information about how to nourish their children.

The projects of the Youth schools of Copenhagen and Aalborg were both under Action 1. The first project was a large scale youth exchange following a preparatory phase under Action 5. The activities involved more than fifty young people and youth leaders (45 young people and 11 youth workers) working for organisations based in Esbjerg and Copenhagen (Denmark), Dublin (Ireland), Nesvizh (Belarus) and Pavlovskij Posad (Russia). The objective of the exchange was to establish an East-West cooperation by promoting mutual understanding and by increasing the use of information and communication technologies.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

23

The Aalborg project was an international summer camp taking place in Lokken (DK) in the first week of July 2002 with 60 participants from Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Latvia, Romania, Ukraine, Poland and Russia. Its theme dealt with the environmental pollution. Activities undertaken included workshops, games, discussions on living conditions in respective countries.

MANAGEMENT

The interviewees regard the application procedures as straightforward and the YOUTH programme as a flexible instrument. However, some of them pointed out that the procedure is rather long: the time lapse between the application submission and the signing of contracts causes delays and problems.

RESULTS/IMPACT

- on the participants

As far as Action 2 is concerned, the impact is seen as extremely good in terms of mutual understanding and intercultural dialogue. Participation in the projects is seen as a valuable tool for improving the professional skills of volunteers.

Exchanges under Action 1 contribute to increase intercultural understanding and self-confidence, as well as strengthen the idea of “Europe”. It is to be added that such exchanges have a multiplier effect on participation in the projects.

It is simply impossible to describe my experience and all the things I learnt from this EVS-project, as well as the impact it will have on my future. ……………………………………. my work has consisted of a million small tasks, sitting in on meetings, helping out in stressful periods, planning projects, making coffee, hours in the cars and busses travelling to trainings around the area, discussions of the overall purpose of NGOs in general, telephone calls etc. And even the tasks that can sound boring on paper can actually be a very good source of knowledge and information. …………………

An important factor through the voluntary stay has been the language. I was the only foreigner, and even though most of the people spoke English, it often added to my feeling of frustration that I couldn’t just understand what was going on at every meeting, which made it necessary to have an interpreter with me. I put a lot of effort in learning Serbian, but it is a very difficult language to learn, and even now I don’t understand everything that is going on around me. ……

My point of telling you all this is to illustrate that I learned so many things, and that my stay completely changed my perspective on the professional part of my future. I learnt a lot about which rhythms and arrangements functions for me; under what conditions I work more efficient; how a professional relationship functions etc etc. But it is also to show, that conditions and changes outside the host organisation can have great influence on the success of an EVS-project. In my case it meant that my stay was influenced by the insecurity that all the MOST-people felt about their professional future7.

7 Abstract of a volunteer report


Ecosfera S.p.A.

24

- on the organisations

The advantages of the exchanges are new contacts for youth workers and a higher standard of youth work. To achieve maximum results, exchanges are to be carefully planned. The participation of experienced organisations has encouraged new applications.


Dissemination of results and visibility are made only through projects websites, which have a limited effect. Nearly all the projects could be replicated.


In Denmark, there is no ministry for youth affairs. Young people education, employment, housing etc are aspects dealt with by the ministries in charge of the corresponding general area of activity. Responsibility for the work of the Danish Youth Council and sport organisations fall on the Ministry of Education, specifically on its Department of out-of-school education and training for adults and young people. This Department is also responsible for co-operation in the youth sector with the Council of Europe, the European Union, the United Nations and the Nordic countries, for the drafting and implementation of legislation on adult education and the organisation of their leisure activities. Finally, it has been entrusted with the task of funding and regulating the activities of youth and sport organisations and providing support to national associations active in this area.

Although Denmark has not defined a national youth policy, a number of laws relating specifically to young people do exist, particularly in the area of education. One of them concerns the "folkeoplysning", which deals with general adult education and youth and sports associations. The term "folkesoplysning" refers to all forms of non-school educational activities, courses for adults, youth associations, youth clubs, sports associations, information and solidarity campaigns organised by groups of young people and adults, movements advocating alternative life-styles, residential adult education courses and open university-type institutions. It is a term that in English would cover the entire range of socio-cultural and leisure-time activities associated with the out-of-school and adult education areas.8

In this context, the EC Youth Policy contributes to further stimulate the development of national and local initiatives for young people. In particular the third-country cooperation has offered a new opportunity to open existing contacts up to countries different from the traditional ones. The EC financial contribution is considered necessary for third-country cooperation because, without it, the “transnational” element would be lost.

8 The Council of Europe's Youth Directorate reported the above information in 1999 on the National Youth Policy of Denmark.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

25

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Aims and objectives of YOUTH – third-country cooperation

The general aims of the Programme as well as its objectives seem to be adequately designed and addressed in the opinion of the interviewees.

Active citizenship, participation of young people and young women, the improvement of mutual comprehension and the exchange of experiences are elements the interviewees put their emphasis on.

EU programmes are expected to stimulate cooperation and strengthen peace dialogue. In order to meet these expectations, planning and preparatory visits should be encouraged. More attention should be also devoted to best projects and best practices (for example through a dedicated page on the EC web-site).

The participation of EU officers in the exchange should be useful. Moreover, EU officers should start a dialogue with the local authorities and organisations in Third Countries to outline the focus and rationale for cooperation.

Instruments

A new methodological approach (different application deadlines instead of the current three) and multi-project application would reduce bureaucracy.

It is worth mentioning that an organisation working on a project with a Mediterranean partner judged the role played by the National Coordinators positively. Consequently, the transfer of the model adopted in the Euro-Med programme to the cooperation with third-country is seen as a factor leading to greater participation.

Although the application procedures are seen as easy and the YOUTH programme as flexible, it is generally acknowledged that National agencies should be clearer on the selection criteria.

As regards the grants, the share for administrative expenses should be increased.

Geographic reach

The cooperation with the CIS is generally considered difficult and existing procedures for money transfer are too difficult. The EC should continue to support and stimulate cooperation with those countries, however difficult it may be. It would be worthwhile extending the Programme to other countries.

Partnership with SEE organisation is also difficult The overall situation for NGOs in those countries is very unstable and this means that they never know which projects will continue to receive funding.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

26

…..working in the NGO world is risky business – and often very ill paid. This of course influenced the daily life in the office, since very few of the employees were there everyday in normal working hours. Many of them worked in the evenings, and spent the weekends conducting seminars etc. Especially in the beginning it was difficult for me to get into this rhythm, and to accept that things functioned so differently than in a Danish office

The financial situation for XXXX has changed in such a way that in the next period of time they will have fewer and different projects, and as far as I know, nobody apart from the administrative staff will come to the office on a daily basis. In the period when I was there, we made more ‘on-the-floor’ work, but now, their projects will be more streamlined on i.e. capacity building of the educational sector of Serbia, and therefore it will – in my opinion – not be recommendable for them to receive volunteers again in the near future. I discussed this with them regularly as they were very well aware of the difficulties. Initially it had been an aim of my stay in ….. to make the ground for receiving more volunteers from abroad.

My stay in…. has definitely made people more informed about what it takes from them to host a volunteer, and we all agree that before it would be a good idea to apply for another project ,the organisation will have to have more stable routines in the office, and maybe also more volunteer-friendly projects. And since this, due to the donor-situation, is not likely to happen in the near future, the organisation is not going to apply again for a similar project at the moment. 9

Criteria

Emphasis should be put on the profile of the volunteer in an EVS project (qualifications, motivation, knowledge of languages). A greater involvement in the planning and preparation of the project is necessary. As matter of fact, an efficient interaction between the host-organisation and the volunteer as well as the success of the project depend on the volunteer’s abilities and knowledge of the field of action.

In my opinion, my active role in the preparation process was the single most important factor for success of my stay in Serbia. And it is also the reason why I can honestly say that - in spite of the problems, challenges and misunderstandings I faced during my stay in Serbia – the project met my expectations 100%.

Unfortunately, it is my impression that the ‘profile’ of the volunteer is one of the things that are currently less prioritized in the application for an EVS-project and that it would be possible to be sent out as a volunteer without taking part in the planning and preparation of the project. I think that it would be good to consider expanding the demands to the volunteer in the application.10

9 Abstract of a Danish volunteer report. 10 Ibid.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

27

The rules concerning the participation of Third Countries should be more flexible. The interviewee would be in favour of involving Third Countries from different regions as well as reducing participation from four to three countries.

Participation of organisations located in candidate countries as well as in third countries should be encouraged.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

28

GERMANY

INTRODUCTION

The interviews have been carried out during the last week of April, and significant enthusiasm was registered among the organisations representatives met. It was easy to get in touch with the organisations as well as with the persons responsible for the projects on which the interviews focused. The overview of the organisations pictures a stable and long-term involvement of German youth structures in the YOUTH programme. Before arranging the interviews, it has been always requested if it was possible to meet a volunteer, after his return home or while experiencing his service. Also the volunteers have been very willing to meet the interviewer and happy to talk about their experience. An overall assessment of the projects analysed shows how the Programme’s objectives have been achieved. OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANISATIONS VISITED The organisations visited are of different typologies, going from internationally extended networks to smaller and local ones. Some of them are highly experienced in organising activities within the YOUTH programme or activities with either SEE or CIS countries. The table below shows for each organisation the number and the typology of projects carried out during 2000-2002 in the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand.

NAME OF ORGANISATION ROLE PROJECT NUMBER ACTION YEAR REGION

CON 93666 1.2 2001 SEE

CON 88612 1.2 2000 SEE

CON 88614 1.2 2000 SEE

PAR 95638 1.2 2001 SEE

CON 105767 1.2 2002 SEE

PAR 105903 1.2 2002 SEE

PAR 106964 5.1.2 2002 SEE

BOSPORUS-GESELLSCHAFT E.V. GERMANY

CON 107142 5.1.2 2002 SEE

CON 93662 1.2 2001 SEE

CON 88603 1.2 2000 SEE CAMPUS 15 - JUGEND WAGT DEN FRIEDEN E.V.

CON 92204 1.2 2001 SEE

CON 88666 5.1.2 2000 CIS

SEND 88707 2.2 2000 CIS DEUTSCH - RUSSISCHER AUSTAUSCH E.V.

CON 103786 2.2 2002 CIS

EVANGELISCHE KIRCHENGEMEINDE KÖLN-

CON 93688 1.2 2001 SEE


Ecosfera S.p.A.

29

WORRINGEN

HEINRICH - BÖLL - STIFTUNG E.V.

CON 93840 2.2 2001 LA

CON 88761 2.2 2000 CIS

CON 89147 2.2 2000 CIS

CON 89160 2.2 2000 LA

CON 95289 1.2 2001 LA

CON 95328 2.2 2001 CIS

CON 105600 5.1.2 2002 CIS

CON 105878 2.2 2002 CIS

CON 106960 2.2 2002 SEE

CON 107096 5.1.2 2002 LA

PAR 93746 5.1.2 2001 CIS

PAR 88575 1.2 2000 CIS

CON 88583 5.1.2 2000 LA

CON 95290 5.1.2 2001 CIS

INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL YOUTH

EXCHANGE INTERNATIONAL OFFICE

CON 106975 5.1.2 2002 SEE

Note: In bold the projects on which the interview was focused

CAMPUS 15 is a non-profit making non-governmental organisation which promotes peaceful and lasting conflict resolution. The organisation gives young people belonging to different ethnic, religious and national backgrounds and grown up in conflict areas, a chance to meet young people from Germany and other European countries.

This charitable organisation was founded in March 1997 and in March 1998 got the first contribution from the European Union. Now it is a youth organisation recognised under the German law (under Article 75 of the German child and Youth support law (KJHG)). The promoters of the organisations got to know about the YOUTH programme through word of mouth.

The members of CAMPUS15 are all volunteers – there are no regular employees. For the duration of the summer camps freelance workers are employed to cooperate with the volunteers. CAMPUS15 began its work with 14 to 16 year-old young people from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The summer camps took place in youth recreation facilities in the Rhineland – 1998 in the Youth Academy in Walberberg, and in 1999 in the Malteserhof near Konigswinter. German and Dutch teenagers also participated.

Bosporus-Gesellschaft (BG) is a non-governmental, non-profit organisation which aims to promote the dialogue among young people of diverse cultural backgrounds by exchange programmes. Originally founded in 1991 by students from Germany and Turkey who wanted to share their positive experience of getting to know another culture through direct dialogue, BG set out to foster youth exchange between Germany and Turkey. In 1998, the regional focus was


Ecosfera S.p.A.

30

subsequently enlarged to cover a wide range of Southeast European countries. Currently, BG cooperates with partner organisations in Bulgaria, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Greece, Romania, Slovenia, Hungary and Turkey. In particular 5 organisations, the ones in Greece, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria and Germany act under the same name: Bosporus. The network is committed to promote mutual understanding, to break down stereotypes and develop a common European idea – both in Southeast European countries and in the present European Union – as an important step for the socio-political stabilization in this region.

BG got to learn about the YOUTH programme through a seminar run by the National Agency in 1996 and since 1998 BG has been submitting proposals. Their area of activity goes from Action 1 and 2 to Action 5.

The Deutsh-Russischer Austausch (DRA) is a non-profit organisation funded 10 years ago. Currently, its main task is to acquaint Germany and West Europe with modern Russia’s multi-faced reality and to inform the public about democratic movements and civic activism in the country. By organising conferences and seminars, arranging project partnerships and exchange programmes for journalists, specialists in social work and volunteers, the DRA works for tolerance and mutual understanding between East and West.

The DRA voluntary programmes seek to promote rapprochement between East and West. They operate on both the local and international level:

• Arranging volunteer placements for West Europeans in Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine • Placements in Germany for volunteers from Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine • Integration through self-help and volunteer work in Berlin

The Heinrich Boll Foundation (HBF) is affiliated with the Green Party and is a legally independent political foundation working in the spirit of intellectual openness. It was founded in 1997 by uniting the three foundations Buntstift (Gottingen), Frauen-Anstiftung (Hamburg), and Heinrich-Boll-Stiftung (Cologne).

The foundation’s primary objective is to support political education both within Germany and abroad, thus promoting democratic involvement, socio-political activism, and cross-cultural understanding. Its activities are guided by the fundamental political values of ecology, democracy, solidarity, and non-violence.

The Heinrich Boll Foundation has about 160 full-time employees as well as approximately 300 supporting members who provide both financial and non-material assistance.

ICYE is a non-profit NGO, which includes 35 National Committees in Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific and Europe and four regional bodies and has Berlin as headquarter. ICYE is an international non-governmental organisation, founded in 1949 as a reconciliation programme between the USA and Germany. ICYE’s aim is to promote international long and short-term youth exchanges combined with voluntary service activities. ICYE enhances youth mobility and intercultural learning through exchange programmes, study visits, training and issue seminars. Each year, over 700 ICYE long-term volunteers, aged between 18 and 25, live abroad for six or twelve months and work in different types of voluntary service organisations working/dealing with disadvantaged children, youth, elderly, disabled, rural development, health education, human rights, ecological projects, arts and culture, women’s groups, fair-trade and solidarity


Ecosfera S.p.A.

31

projects. Since 1996, ICYE has been directly involved, both at the international and national level, in launching and implementing the European Voluntary Service (EVS) to promote youth mobility and international voluntary service. Currently, ICYE is leader in international youth exchange programmes with more than 50 years of experience, organises long and short-term exchange programmes for 3000 participants annually, promotes young people’s active and global citizenship.

Mr Rosemberg coordinated the activity at the planning stage of the project but currently does not work any more in the Evangelische Kirchengemeinde. In addition to this, it is important to notice that the project had to be cancelled because of the unstable political situation of the host country – Macedonia. It had first been postponed for a few months, but as the Macedonian political situation did not get stable enough to host the young people’s visit, the project had to be cancelled.

Roma Union Grenzland (RUG) is a non-governmental, non-profit organisation which aims to promote the dialogue between young Germans and gypsies. They cooperate with different gypsy organisations at regional level as well as with the gypsy community of the city of Aachen.

Both RUG and the Evangelische Kirchengemeinde had not applied for any other project apart from the one described. Due to the limited experience of the organisations only some issues could be covered during the interview. increasing OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECTS VISITED The projects visited achieved positive results. The activities carried out in the projects realised were quite varied, going from yearly summer exchanges to volunteer projects involved in the host organisation’s daily activity. The aims of the projects are to promote universal peace, dialogue, tolerance and give the volunteer a better understanding of the respective situations and cultures, to express solidarity, to support the networking amongst various organisations. Of particular interest is one project during which the issue of the exchange was the sharing of ideas on which role culture can and should play in the development of a peaceful Europe. The common topic which young people talked about was fairy tales, both in terms of analysing the ones belonging to their cultures and of writing new ones. The activities realised varied from the organisation of training seminars, workshops, and exchange of volunteers at international level. MANAGEMENT The management of the projects did not meet with particular problems. The main issues brought up have been: - obtaining visa and residence permits – many organisations complained of the serious

problems met in obtaining the necessary documents for the volunteers and young people participating in the exchange programmes. However, they did find support both from the EC and the EC Delegations through support letters which helped speeding up the process.

- financial problems – on this issue the organisations expressed different opinions. Some of them said they have noticed a substantial improvement in the timing of the payments,


Ecosfera S.p.A.

32

whereas others had very serious problems and had to anticipate the necessary resources for the start and the management of the projects, personally.

- communication of the approval of the projects – organisations said that the communication on the approval of the projects is usually too late in consideration of the expected kick-off of the projects’ activities. Thus, in many cases, the projects had to be postponed on account of problems in terms of young people availability, flights’ reservations, visa obtainment.

RESULTS/IMPACT

The performance of the projects in terms of results and impact is good. In order to provide a complete overview, a detailed description will be made of the most significant projects.

Deutsch Russischer – As to the participants, it is to be noticed that various young people involved in the project stated that the six-month experience was extremely important for their understanding of Russian culture, society and language. Other significant impacts were: the gain of a Russian perspective on the European society, stronger personal self-identify, fight against the prejudices that the volunteers had against the host countries. As regards the impact on the host organisations, the results were good and it was mainly related to the creation of contacts and the strengthening of relationships among organisations of Programme countries and Russia, with EU institutions, and better knowledge and understanding of EU countries. As regards the local level, thanks to the day-to-day contact of the volunteers with the local community a significant impact has been achieved. However, it is usually limited to the people the volunteers get in touch with and it is mainly related to the knowledge of the European perspective in relation to freedom of press, respect of civil rights and voluntary work. In Russia, due to the use of the word “voluntary work” during the Soviet regime, it is perceived negatively and not as a real personal wish and choice.

Bosphorus Gesellschaft – As to the participants, it is to be noticed that various young people involved in the project stated that the visit was extremely useful for their understanding of European culture and society. Many of the participants kept in touch with each other and some of them with BG in Germany and the respective countries. It was especially interesting to develop the exchange project involving Greek young people coming from Cyprus and Turkey. Even though at the beginning some tension had been noticed, the presence of young people coming from other countries helped to ease the situation and loose the tension created in some circumstances. Some of the young people involved in projects now cooperate with BG or cooperate in activities related to civil rights and intercultural exchange

ICYE - In terms of results and impact, the project has had a good performance as to the participants, in particular. The impact on the participants was mainly related to the development of their social network, improvement of the understanding of other cultures, help in exploring their identities and motivation in improving their knowledge of the host country. It is evident that there is no impact on the knowledge of the European Programmes’ functioning and financing. As regards the organisations, it was clear that the participation in the YOUTH programme allowed the establishment or the strengthening of the partnerships and relationships among organisations of Programme countries and Third Countries. However, some important results were reached in relation to the increase of communications among potential partners, in


Ecosfera S.p.A.

33

particular of the same region, and also of better dissemination of the values of peace, dialogue, tolerance, solidarity and democracy and therefore also of the voluntary service and civil society. Finally, as regards the local level, the project allowed to achieve a higher level of awareness on European/intercultural issues, stronger recognition of the non-formal education sector and has contributed to the development of voluntary service and civil society. No impact was reported in relation to the development of the YOUTH programme and youth policy in general.

Campus 15 - The project has achieved a good performance. As to the participants, it is to be noticed that various young people involved in the project stated that the summer camp was extremely useful for their understanding of other cultures and society and of other young people’s experience of the war. Therefore, the aim of promotion of peace, dialogue, tolerance among young people was reached. Although some moments of tension between the various ethnic groups of young people were reported, the overall result is positive. Many young people kept in touch with one another and some of them with CAMPUS15 in Germany.

Heinrich Boll Foundation – As to the participants, in particular, it is to be noticed that the girl volunteer is currently carrying out some activity in Brazil in the field of arts and photography. HBF, however, did not have further information on the activities of the volunteer. As regards the organisation level, HBF said that in consideration of the administration burden and the little money that YOUTH projects can give, they are not very interested in applying to the Programme again. The interviewees seemed annoyed by the bureaucratic procedure they had to follow in order to manage the project.

PARTNERSHIP

The partnerships worked well with the exception of some specific cases. Most of the partnerships established have been successful and new projects are going to be presented with the same partners. Other new partnerships have been and will be established thanks to the new contacts made with the support of the projects’ participants. When problems occurred, it was mainly due to the lack of management skills on the part of some partners which did not turn out to be adequately experienced and reliable.

As concerns the creation of the projects’ partnerships, two different procedures were adopted. In some cases the organisations were part of an international network and therefore most of the partners belonged to the same “mother” organisation. In other cases, the partners were found on an ad-hoc project basis. When this was the case, the contacts were set up thanks to the participation in a previous seminar and to contacts of other partner organisations. Many organisations find more effective to work with “brother” organisations as the communication and managing of the projects is based on well known mutual expectations and established management arrangements.


The local community has been involved in the projects’ activities in different ways and with a different degree of success. The most common elements mentioned by the organisations in order to have a successful impact on the local level is the timing and the modalities in which the


Ecosfera S.p.A.

34

local stakeholders have been involved. When their participation was reported since the beginning, the impact on the local community usually was much more effective. In order to provide a full description of the impact, the most representative experiences are analysed.

ICYE - The local community was involved during the exchange activity mainly through local NGOs and associations and these local actors were contacted mainly thanks to the project and the YOUTH programme. Some of them knew about this Programme, whereas others had never heard of it. From the contractor’s point of view, in order to achieve the highest results, the involvement of the local community is crucial. Its involvement is obviously different according to the Action the project belongs to and the issues and topics covered.

DRA - In consideration of the kind of activities carried out during a voluntary service, the local community was only partially involved. Therefore, the most common strategy adopted by DRA was the involvement of the local press, such as newspapers, radio and TV channels which have been contacted by the brother organisations in the different countries. The volunteer confirmed, moreover, that her presence in the local community helped the local people to develop a better and new understanding of the German people, and abandoned previous prejudicial attitudes.

CAMPUS 15 - The local community participated in the activities of the summer camps. Many local actors were involved such as the city council, schools, participants’ families – parents and brothers and sisters, representatives of the National Agencies, and, when possible, representatives of the Consulate. Great attention is given to the local community and the modality in which to involve it varies, going from press coverage through TV programmes, participation in the activities to the farewell party held one of the last days of the camp. It was mainly thanks to the contacts of the representatives of CAMPUS15 that it was possible to involve strategic actors who play an important role locally. In the view of the interviewee, in order to achieve a great impact, the involvement of the local community has to be developed during the implementation of the whole project.

Bosphorus Gesellschaft - The local community was involved during the exchange activity mainly through press coverage. Various articles were published on the local media in the Arendsee area thanks to the involvement and activism of BG.


In Germany, some organisations said that they organise activities for the dissemination of the results depending on the success of the activity carried out and on the financial resources available. However, many organisations said that, because of the lack of a specific reimbursement line within the YOUTH projects, it is usually quite difficult to find the necessary and adequate resources. When realised, the publications are usually used to promote the organisation, to involve and motivate potential participants, but also to increase the impact of the activities carried out by giving them visibility at various levels – national and European.

The visibility of the YOUTH programme third-country strand, even though more limited if compared to the one of the PC projects, is considered to be quite good. Many organisations, by increasing the visibility of the project through publications, help the promotion and visibility of the Programme.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

35

SUSTAINABILITY AND MAINSTREAMING Many organisations look for further funding in order to finance their activities through national programmes and institutions. Thanks to this managerial approach, many of them also participate in the national programmes, thus creating synergies and interesting and effective results. All projects have registered a good performance in terms of sustainability. Various examples are reported: - Various young volunteers who participated in the voluntary service experience are now

working within associations aimed at the promotion of civil rights, freedom of press, exchange activities of various kind – from manufacturing to social work – with Russia and Ukraine (DRA)

- The summer camps of Campus 15 have obtained a good performance in terms of sustainability. Many young people kept in touch with one another and created long lasting friendships which were then reconfirmed during the reunion project held the following year in BH (Campus 15)

- Some young participants are now cooperating with ICYE partner organisations and/or are involved in activities with CIS countries (ICYE)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Main conclusions and recommendations can be identified from the elements covered during the interviews: - Need for better communication on the YOUTH programme in CIS countries. A similar

institution such as the SEE Resource Centre specific for the CIS countries would be strongly welcome.

- Closer information and promotion activities for SEE and CIS organisations. - More significant financial investment of the European Commission on the third countries

strand of the YOUTH programme. - Youth people with less opportunities – it is difficult to define who is the person with less

opportunities, and it is especially so in the case of people coming from third countries. - Positive view of the introduction of long-term projects lasting 1-2 years including various

modules and combination of different actions. - Importance of the local community involvement in order to achieve effective results and

impact of the projects. - Importance of the press for the local community involvement, from newspaper to TV and

radio. - Importance of the follow-up meetings after the end of the voluntary work for all the young

people who participated. - Need for more effective communication on the YOUTH programme in SEE countries. - The local community is easier to involve if the organisation’s representatives have played a

significant role in the local community before and during the YOUTH projects’ activities. - Funding of the follow-up evaluation meeting among the partner organisations to assess the

project and plan the future steps.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

36

- BG has expressed the need to have meetings and forum with other organisations in order to share findings and working methods.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

37

ITALY

INTRODUCTION

Interviews and statistical data11 show that the projects with Third Countries12 of Italian organisations increased in the years 2000-2002. More specifically, projects with SEE rose from 1 in 2000 to 17 in 2002, those with LA from 4 to 14, whereas the increase in the cooperation with CIS countries is less significant (from 3 to 6).

Year SEE CIS LA Total 2000 1 3 4 5 2001 12 6 26 44 2002 17 6 14 37

Table 1: TAO statistics

Six Italian organisations were identified. The selection criteria adopted were: geographical coverage of the Regions, presence of the Actions, variety of the projects’ topics, experience with the YOUTH programme. It is to be added that such organisations were chosen from a sample indicated by the EC.

Projects were four under Action 1 and two under Action 2. Three projects concerned the SEE countries, two the CIS and one the LA Region. The project of AFSAI involved different countries of CIS, LA, Europe and the Mediterranean.

The following is a table showing names of the interviewees and organisations contacted.

Name of the interviewee Name of the organisation Action Location Date of the

interview Davide Di Pietro and

Erika Lombardi

Associazione Lunaria 1 Rome 01/04/2003

Silvia Volpi Veb Accademia Europea 1 Florence 04/04/2003 Gabriella

Zoncapè and Lucia

D’Auria

Cooperativa ideale Srl 2 Incisa Val

d’Arno (Florence)

04/04/2003

Anja Gunjac Arci Nuova associazione 1 Rome 10/04/2003 Massimiliano Viatore and Cuca Maset

Associazione per gli scambi e le attività interculturali 1 Rome 10/04/2003

Gino Motta Associazione Polriva 2 Suzzara (Mantova) 10/04/2003

11 The statistical data provided by the TAO refer to the number of submitted applications and not to the total number of projects approved. 12 Submitted projects were 8 in 2000, 44 in 2001 and 37 in 2002.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

38

ORGANISATIONS

All organisations are long-established non-profit associations with many branches nationwide and with a vast experience in international cooperation. Some of them participated already in the YOUTH programme and in other EC programmes. For instance, the AFSAI Association is involved not only in a considerable number of EVS projects but also in a network that coordinate organisations dealing with EVS projects. As regards the ARCI Cultura e Sviluppo, this organisation has a long lasting experience in the Balkan Region.

The table below shows for each organisation the number and the typology of projects carried out during 2000-2002 in the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand.

NAME OF ORGANISATION ROLE PROJECT NUMBER ACTION YEAR REGION

ARCI CULTURA E SVILUPPO CON 104809 5.1.2 2002 SEE

CON 107034 1.2 2002 CIS ASSOCIATION POLRIVA

CON 107066 2.2 2002 CIS

CON 92885 2.2 2001 LA

CON 92887 2.2 2001 LA CON 92888 2.2 2001 LA CON 92318 2.2 2001 LA CON 92319 2.2 2001 LA CON 95448 1.2 2001 LA

ASSOCIAZIONE GIOVANI PER UN MONDO UNITO - CASTELLI

ROMANI

CON 107021 1.2 2002 LA

CON 95458 1.2 2001 SEE

CON 95461 1.2 2001 LA CON 95485 2.2 2001 LA CON 95455 2.2 2001 SEE

ASSOCIAZIONE LUNARIA

CON 104341 1.2 2002 SEE CON 93871 2.2 2001 LA CON 93862 2.2 2001 LA CON 93746 5.1.2 2001 CIS CON 93755 1.2 2001 CIS CON 93863 2.2 2001 LA CON 93867 2.2 2001 LA CON 93870 2.2 2001 LA CON 93876 2.2 2001 LA CON 93879 2.2 2001 LA CON 88568 1.2 2000 LA CON 88569 5.1.2 2000 CIS CON 88575 1.2 2000 CIS SEND 88761 2.2 2000 CIS CON 89025 2.2 2000 LA

ASSOCIAZIONE PER LA FORMAZIONE, GLI SCAMBI E LE

ATTIVITÀ INTERCULTURALI

SEND 89147 2.2 2000 CIS


Ecosfera S.p.A.

39

SEND 89160 2.2 2000 LA CON 93883 2.2 2001 LA PAR 95290 5.1.2 2001 CIS CON 95538 5.1.2 2001 SEE CON 95543 5.1.2 2001 CIS PAR 105753 1.2 2002 LA CON 105931 2.2 2002 CIS CON 105933 2.2 2002 LA CON 105936 2.2 2002 LA CON 105940 2.2 2002 LA CON 105946 2.2 2002 LA CON 105941 2.2 2002 LA SEND 106960 2.2 2002 SEE PAR 107096 5.1.2 2002 LA PAR 107212 1.2 2002 LA PAR 106970 5.1.2 2002 LA CON 105965 2.2 2002 LA

CON 107050 2.2 2002 LA

COOPERATIVA IDEALE S.R.L. HOST 92319 2.2 2001 LA

CON 107025 5.1.2 2002 SEE

CON 107131 1.2 2002 SEE VEB - ACCADEMIA EUROPEA

PAR 104199 1.2 2002 CIS

These organisations actively encourage the participation of young people in their activities, which cover non formal education, sport, international programmes, meetings and training on issues such as civil society, peace, intercultural dialogue, etc.

A close look at statistical data shows that:

- AFSAI submitted 32 projects in the period 2000-2002. Most of them were with LA (20), followed by projects with CIS (9) and SEE (2);

- the Association LUNARIA submitted 5 projects (3 with SEE and 2 with LA); - the Association VEB ACCADEMIA EUROPEA submitted 3 (of whom 2 with SEE and 1

with CIS) - the Association POLRIVA submitted 2 projects with CIS countries; - the Associations COOPERATIVA IDEALE and ARCI submitted for the first time a project

with Third Countries (respectively with LA and SEE countries).

PROJECTS

It is to be underlined that four projects out of six were concluded when we started a series of interviews: the projects still under way were the one of Veb Accademia and the one of Arci Cultura e Sviluppo. The former is an exchange between young operators aged between 19 and 24 years from Romania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Belgium, Italy and Macedonia (six participants per country for a total of 30 participants). The objective of the exchange is the organisation of entertaining activities in open spaces and in schools and local youth associations. The latter deals with the establishment of an online network amongst Serbian, Bosnian, Spanish and


Ecosfera S.p.A.

40

Italian associations. The project will end with three meetings in Belgrad, Mostar and Rome in Summer 2003.

AFSAI carried out an innovative project allowing young women from different social and cultural backgrounds (they were from America Latina, Lebanon, Jordan, Belarus, Finland and Italy) to meet in order to discuss the “woman condition” in the respective countries.

The Cooperativa ideale association hosted a 21 year-old Brazilian boy for one year (from March 2001 to March 2002). The organizer showed great enthusiasm for the initiative which contributed to provide the volunteer with a new idea of Europe overcoming the prejudice of European people being with colonial ambitions on the “third world countries”.

The project of the Lunaria association allowed a group of 20 persons (17 young people and 3 youth leaders) from Yugoslavia, Albania, Spain and Italy to meet in Rome and participate in activities such as seminars, workshops, visits to other associations. The main aim of the project was to diffuse the social sector culture in the Balkan area. In particular, the participation of a Serbian and an Albanian organisation aimed at building mutual trust and encourage partnership between people divided by hatred at home.

The project of Polriva was an EVS with countries of the CIS region. The volunteer was from Moldova and the project lasted 12 months. The objectives were to promote peace, dialogue, tolerance as well as provide the volunteer, the local community and the organisation with a better understanding of the respective situations and cultures. The volunteer is a young girl involved in the management of recreational and humanitarian activities ranging from children care to training on European programmes. She went through a selection run by the partner organisation in Moldova.

All the activities undertaken are in the field of non-formal education, which is seen as an essential tool for strengthening civil society, self development and social inclusion. Moreover, the participants in the projects, aged between 19 and 25, all worked in the social sector.

It is difficult to estimate how many disadvantaged young people took part in the projects because the organizers give different interpretations to the meaning of the word “disadvantaged”. Nevertheless many of the young participants have been indicated as working with disadvantaged groups.

MANAGEMENT

Although the application procedures are “easy”, delays on payments and notifications of contracts are regarded by the interviewees as the main drawback of the Programme. Moreover, a “lack of coordination amongst the various NAs involved in the Programme” and the need for a reinforced role of the NA in training and information actions are emphasised. Delays and difficulties in obtaining visa are finally said to be serious obstacles to the mobility of volunteers.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

41

RESULTS/IMPACT

- on the participants

Common opinion of the interviewees is that youth exchanges under Action 1 had a positive impact on the participants: getting to know people from other cultures promotes tolerance. As a result, many participants are anxious to have another multicultural experience. The project of Veb Accademia is expected to be replicated in Bosnia with local partners. The interviewee said: “I have known the Italian participants since they were fourteen years old. They meet regularly to discuss and conceive new initiatives. I have supported them until now and I will help them create a new association”.

As far as Action 2 is concerned, the effects on the single volunteer are more difficult to measure because a limited follow-up is carried out once the volunteer is back home. It is also evident how important it is to create the conditions to allow the volunteer to be more frequently exposed to the local social life in the host community and have a more effective experience.

For the volunteer of Cooperativa ideale, the most significant impact was a better appraisal of the European dimension and the abandoning of prejudices against Europeans. The volunteer of Associazione Polriva has stayed in Italy only for the last three months, therefore, the final impact remains to be investigated.

Two interviewees expressed the same opinion on the concept of voluntary work in Italy: there is a decline in young participation in civil society and the voluntary commitment is seen as a major way to strengthen youth participation in civil society. Many Italian volunteers who are going to third countries misunderstand the concept of doing voluntary activities, so they are not prepared to face difficulties and deal with poor and difficult social contexts.

- on the organisations

The impacts are manifold and positive. With respect to youth organisations, the projects have strengthened partnership and improved good practices. Many partnerships were based on pre-existing collaborations and networks. The tendency is for new projects to be carried out with known partners. This depends on the fact that project management is easier when partners have previously worked together. To this regard, one of the interviewees pointed to some problems with an Albanian partner resulting from “cultural misunderstanding”.

However, the study shows that the participation in the Programme of new and experienced organisations encouraged the creation of networks for transnational exchanges.


Meetings with local authorities, local associations and institutional representatives are always suggested in the projects. Nevertheless, local institutions were never involved in project funding. Sometimes, municipalities offer collaboration by providing venue for meetings and undertaking activities. In the case of Veb accademia, the involvement of the entire community in the project derived from the very nature of the activities (entertaining activities involving the local citizens). It has been pointed out that in order to be really effective the local community should be involved in the project’s activities and not just as a target group for the dissemination.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

42


The youth organisations visited play an efficient role in promoting young people participation. They make use of newsletters and website to disseminate information about the activities undertaken. However, it is generally argued by the interviewees that cooperation with third countries has limited visibility.

Young people are quite often unaware of the opportunities the EU provide them with as well as of the organisations dealing with issues they are interested in. Moreover they need encouragement and support to become members of organisations.

To work these problems out, the associations need further resources for organising information campaigns targeting young people.


It is generally acknowledged that the EC Youth Policy contributes to stimulate the development of national and local initiatives for young people and is an “acid test” of strategies to be implemented. The third-country cooperation has offered a new opportunity to open Europe up to other countries. The EC financial contribution is considered necessary for third-country cooperation because the projects would not be financed and the “transnational” element would be lost without it.


Aims and objectives of the YOUTH programme are in line with those expected. Further support is needed for preparatory visits in Third Countries and for training actions aimed at increasing the capacity building of the organisations in Third Countries.

The YOUTH programme and, in particular, third-country cooperation need more visibility at national level.

The organisations need further resources for organising information campaigns targeting young people in order to encourage their active participation in civil society. Young people are quite often unaware of the opportunities the EU provide them as well as of the organisations dealing with issues they are interested in.

Instruments

Strengthening of communication amongst the NAs for the approval of applications.

The long duration of the procedure, ranging from the application submission to the signing of contracts, causes delay and problems. Quite often a young volunteer decide not to participate if the procedure is too long.

Contribute to the multiplier effect of the Programme by promoting training actions for youth workers and by reinforcing the accompanying measures .


Ecosfera S.p.A.

43

The interviewees agree on the necessity of setting up a technical structure in Eastern Europe countries entitled to provide information and coordinate activities. The role and functions of the SEE Resource Centre are not widely known.

The EC funding for Third Countries should be increased and in particular travel costs of Third Country participants should be fully reimbursed. Quite often the organisations reimburse travel costs of participants from third countries totally. It has been noted that a small organisation both in PC and TC programmes could not bear the costs and consequently would be discouraged from participating in the Programme.

Geographic reach

Extending the Programme to other countries was generally considered worthwhile.

Criteria

Greater flexibility as to formal requirements and criteria for setting up partnerships.

The interviewees are favourable to projects with participants coming from different regions of third countries (i.e. LA and SEE together).

Moreover it would be interesting to have the opportunity to apply for a “country project” so that within one project application the organisation can build various projects linked by complementary activities and continuous exchanges.

More flexibility is also necessary as to the criteria to be adopted in hosting volunteers (Action 2) in order to allow them to carry out various types of activity. For example, a project with South East European countries is difficult to implement because of the strictness of the criteria established. Organisations in those countries need volunteers who can be solely responsible for running daily activities or taking care of people with disabilities, which not allowed by the said criteria. Consequently, it happens that they do not know how to “employ” a volunteer because of the constraints imposed by the YOUTH programme13.

More flexibility is welcomed concerning age limits: young people in Italy are autonomous and mature at a later age. Consequently, it is difficult to find qualified and responsible volunteers for participating in projects where the social context is particularly poor.

Others

The title of the Programme could be changed. The expression “third countries” can be confused with “third world countries”, thereby bringing about negative reactions.

13 The job substitution as well as certain administrative tasks are not allowed. Moreover, a volunteer cannot be solely responsible of the day-to day care of individuals.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

44

POLAND

INTRODUCTION

Poland, one of the 12 pre-accession countries to the EU, has been a Programme Country since the year 2000, when the new YOUTH programme was launched. It is worth underlining that, as the evaluation activity covers projects financed in the 2000/2002 period, we could get information on the first group of projects submitted by Polish organisations acting as contractors.

In the 2000/2002 period, Polish organisations submitted 10 projects, specifically 1 in 2001 and 9 in 2002. This limited number of projects could be explained by the fact that, before 2000, Polish organisations were not allowed to submit projects as contractors. Consequently, Polish organisations needed a preparatory phase to get a knowledge of the Programme, understand the application procedures, define the partnerships and develop the projects. moreover, the Polish National Agency needed a preparatory phase to promote the Programme among Polish organisations. The representative of Semper Avanti (the only Polish organisation which made an application in 2001) highlighted that information on the inclusion of Poland into the group of Programme countries was disseminated only at the end of 2000, thereby explaining the reason why in 2000 no project was presented.

Following the indications and priorities provided by the Commission for the evaluation activity in Poland, we selected 5 organisations on the base of the following criteria: projects under all the Actions, geographical coverage and the organisations’ experience. Besides, since one of the organisations visited carried out 4 projects, we could gather information on a higher number of projects14, and thus we could get an exhaustive picture of Third Countries Cooperation of the YOUTH programme in Poland.

14 7 projects out 10 funded to Polish organisations in the 2000/2002 period, plus information on 1 project

implemented by a Polish partner organisation.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

45


NAME OF ORGANISATION ROLE PROJECT NUMBER ACTION YEAR CONTRAC

TOR

YOUTH SUPPORT FUNDATION "BONUS" CON 102717 1.2 2002 PL

PAR 95290 5.1.2 2001 CE

PAR 105600 5.1.2 2002 CE

EASTLINKS-REGIONAL PLATFORM OF VOLUNTARY SERVICE ORGANISATIONS IN

CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

PAR 106975 5.1.2 2002 CE

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPPORT OF COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

"ASSOCIATIONS" CON 107043 5.1.2 2002 PL

CENTRUM MLODZIEZY CON 105689 5.1.2 2002 PL

CON 101549 1.2 2002 PL

CON 105698 5.1.2 2002 PL

CON 105761 2.2 2002 PL

PAR 106984 5.1.2 2002 PT

SEMPER AVANTI

CON 107042 5.1.2 2002 PL

5 interviews were carried out at the offices of the organisations between 3 and 7 May 2003 in Warsaw (3), Krakow (1) and Wrocław (1).

The interview with Semper Avanti was focused on the organisation’s activities as a whole. Because it submitted 4 of the 10 projects funded, it is the most representative Polish organisation in the framework of the Third Countries Cooperation of the YOUTH programme for the 2000/2002 period.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

46

The table below shows details of the activity we undertook in Poland.

N Interviewee Organisation Position in

the organisation

Project Action Location Date of the interview

1 Michał Smoczyński

Youth Support Foundation

Bonus President

Sustainable development

of Central and Eastern

European countries

1.2 Warsaw 03/05/2003

2 Waldemar Korycki EASTLINKS

Chairman and Coordinator of the activities

Training seminar on

youth mobility activities

5.1.2 Warsaw 05/05/2003

Piotr Fraczak Member of the Association 3 Dariusz

Wlazlic

Association for support of community initiatives

Regional coordinator

Training course on European

citizenship

5.1.2 Warsaw 05/05/2003

4 Alicja

Rożnowska Szpot

Jordan Youth Centre

Responsible of the project

Autumn workshop - Racism and

xenophobia – Plague of the XXI Century

5.1.2 Krakow 06/05/2003

5 Agnieszka Pawlik

Semper Avanti

President and project

responsible

1. Medieval events 2. III

international St. John’s

parade 3. "volunteer management"

- training course for

youth workers and NGO’s

4. tree -toward real European environment

1.2 2.2

5.1.2 Wrocław 07/05/2003

ORGANISATIONS

The organisations visited are Polish NGOs and non-profit organisations which help young people develop their skills and be integrated into local society; they also promote international co-operation and understanding among young people from different countries and offer training and legal assistance. Many training activities are devoted to youth and social workers.

During the interviews we faced two different generations of actors. The first one consisted of experienced and mature people. One of the interviewee (Mr Waldemar Korycki, from Eastlinks) has been involved in the voluntary service since 1973, while the Jordan Youth Centre of Krakow was established more than 50 years ago. The other consisted of younger people (aged


Ecosfera S.p.A.

47

27-28) who, after making some experience on EU programmes (Tempus, Leonardo and Socrates in particular) in other organisations, created their own association (Semper Avanti and Youth Support Foundation Bonus). Thanks to their knowledge and familiarity with international projects, to their links with both local administrations and foreign organisations, they started to submit projects under the YOUTH programme.

PROJECTS

The activities undertaken consisted in training seminars on environmental matters, promotion of European citizenship, workshops on racism and xenophobia, training activities designed for youth workers and NGOs, study visits abroad and exchange of volunteers at an international level. This list shows how projects’ contents were diversified.

It is important to underline that these projects were the first ones submitted by Polish organisations as contractors in the YOUTH programme. They represent a true innovative step forward for local actors in managing activities at international level. For many Polish organisations the participation in the YOUTH programme was also the first experience on a European international programme.

At the time of the interviews all projects were completed and the interviewees were enthusiastic about the results obtained. Most of them said that they would submit new projects to the 1 June 2003 application deadline.

MANAGEMENT

In their quality of contractors, Polish organisations were supposed to manage projects from start to finish. All interviewees faced different difficulties, ranging from the understanding of the application procedures to keeping financial accounts.

Some interviewees viewed the application procedures with Third Countries organisations much more complicated than those with Programme countries. At any rate, these difficulties could be explained by the fact that it was the first time that Polish organisations submitted applications as contractors for this programme.

As regards financial matters, all interviewees claimed that organisations faced two types of problems.

The first one concerns travel expenses of participants from Third Countries (in particular Ukraine, Russia and Belarus). Some organisations that hosted partners from Eastern Europe were asked to pay air tickets on behalf of participants who could not afford to buy them on their own. This way, the projects’ success was under threat because, on the one hand, participants from Eastern Countries risked missing seminars or workshops, on the other, the same Polish organisations faced serious financial problems.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

48

The second problem concerned the collection of invoices from Eastern Europe countries15, especially for transport, board and lodging. Moreover, some interviewees said that this administrative work was extremely time consuming.

RESULTS/IMPACT

In terms of results and impact, the projects showed a very good performance. As regards the participants, the young people involved in the projects were enthusiastic about the possibility to meet people from other countries and share experiences on matters such as racism, xenophobia and environmental protection. In one case, the project was designed by a group of young people interested in improving their knowledge of a topic (environment protection) together with people from both the EU and the CIS countries. As to local organisations, the results were very good since projects enabled Polish organisations to strengthen contacts with both EU and the CIS organisations. This derives from the fact that Polish people feel they are a “link” between Eastern and Western Europe. On a local level, the participation of local and national representatives to the projects’ achievement was evident and represents a central point for the success of the Programme in the country. In one case, the Polish Prime Minister participated as a “lecturer” in a workshop organised by a Polish organisation under Action 5.1.2.

PARTNERSHIP

Polish organisations are in contact with partners from every EU member States. As regards Central and Eastern countries, obviously, they include a considerable number of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine’s organisations, while in the Balkan area there are many links with Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina’s organisations.

Old organisations had long-established partnerships. New organisations had relationships established thanks to the participation in some previous seminars organised under Action 5 of the YOUTH programme. In one case the partnership was established by means of a notice put on the website of a Dutch organisation. This notice received a large number of answers from the whole world - Africa and Asia included - and a selection procedure was needed.

The partnerships worked well save for some cases. When serious problems occurred, partner organisations were replaced16. Most of the partnerships have been successful and new projects are going to be submitted with the same partners. Other new partnerships will be established through new contacts made by the projects’ participants.

15 From Albania, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia over all. 16 This was the case of one organisation from Albania and one from Ukraine.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

49


All the visited organisations regularly co-operate with local authorities, which often own the premises in which the organisations carry out their activities.

Local community involvement in the implementation of the YOUTH projects was fundamental to the projects’ success. To this regard, representatives of the municipalities of Warsaw, Krakow and Wrocław played an important role by offering spaces and participating in the seminars. In particular, the Jordan Youth Centre of Krakow invited as “lecturers” for a workshop on racism and xenophobia the Polish Prime Minister, Mr Mazowiecki, a representative from the Municipality of Krakow and one from the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, some journalists from national newspapers (Gazeta Wyborcza), professors from the Jagiellonian University of Krakow and the Director of the Polish National Agency, Mrs Renata Sabolewska.


The Polish National Agency constantly promotes the Programme, inviting representatives from Polish organisations to discuss about their experiences. Sometimes NA representatives are also involved in seminars and workshops. As far as other tools for disseminating project results are concerned, the organisations’ websites are the most used ones. Some information are available also on local and national newspapers. The Association for Support of Community Initiatives inform about its activities on its own magazine, while the Jordan Youth Centre produced a VCD.


It is too early to say whether the national policy of Poland has been influenced by the third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme. Undoubtedly, local, regional and national institutions know the Programme, promote it and, in some cases, participate in the activities of the organisations. Furthermore, the National Committee which selects the projects received by the National Agency is formed by the Polish Vice-Ministry of Education (Head of the Committee), members of the National Agency and representatives of some Polish organisations, thereby indicating the involvement of different actors (including national officials) in the Programme.

As regards the projects’ sustainability, many organisations emphasised that, upon the completion of the projects, many young people showed willingness to work within the organisations’ structure in order to further develop YOUTH and other international projects.


Third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme in Poland is very positive. After a preparatory stage, local organisations are now aware of the possibilities offered by the Programme and the number of projects involving Polish organisations as contractors is estimated to have risen from 2002.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

50

The Programme is visible both at national and local level, given that the National Agency promotes it and supports new organisations.

All interviewees were enthusiastic about the possibilities offered by the YOUTH programme as a whole and are working hard to submit new projects.

The inclusion of Poland in the group of Programme countries within the YOUTH programme has been felt as a great and significant step toward the integration of the country into the European Union. To this regard, local NGOs are playing a very important role. There is moreover a strong EU willingness to cooperate with Eastern European countries in support of their democratic development. In fact, Poland is seen as a “bridge” between EU member States and Eastern Europe. On specific issues, such as the fight against racism and xenophobia, social inclusion and environmental pollution, Polish organisations are particularly active in involving EEC partners.

We would like to express some recommendations regarding some aspects that might hinder the future design of projects in Poland.

First of all, the interviewees underlined that the application procedures with Third Countries organisations are more difficult in comparison to the normal YOUTH programme procedures. These difficulties are probably due to the short experience of Polish organisations in the third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme. As a consequence, we assume that after an initial “practice”, these difficulties should easily disappear.

A second aspect concerns the financial problems met by the CIS and SEE organisations when travelling to Poland17. These organisations generally cannot afford to buy train or plane tickets and generally ask the contracting organisation to anticipate such expenses. Ticket prices are similar in Eastern and Western countries, while salaries vary significantly. In conclusion, the same percentage (70%) of co-funding for travel expenses seems insufficient for the CIS and SEE participants, while it is adequate for the EU ones. We suggest to raise the percentage of co-funding for travel expenses with respect to organisations in the CIS and SEE countries.

Another problem concerns the difficulties in contacting organisations in the CIS countries, in particular in Ukraine and Belarus: many organisations are not reachable, there are continuous address and telephone number changes or many closings after few months from their establishment. It could be helpful to create a database of all organisation in the CIS, managed by a central structure and keep the organisations’ contact details updated.

Finally, all interviewees underlined that organisations waited for a long time to receive answers about the results of their applications and, more importantly, to receive grants (6 months on average). This situation leads organisations to re-schedule all their future activities, which imply to postpone the activities included in a project. We recommend shorter periods for the allocation of grants or, as an alternative, a fixed lapse of time from the approval of the project to the allocation of the grant.

17 The problem does not concern only Poland, but all travels from Eastern and South-Eastern European Countries.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

51


Ecosfera S.p.A.

52

SPAIN

INTRODUCTION

Interviews in Spain took place in three days (from 23 to 25 June 2003) and involved five organisations, one located in Igualada, one in Barcelona and three in Madrid. All the persons we got in touch with were enthusiastically available for an interview. Three of them had been personally in charge of the preparation and the running of the projects; of the remaining two, one was the organisation’s leader who spoke on behalf of the project’s promoter no longer working for the organisation (Madrid Puerta Abierta), the other had been designated to speak on behalf of the project’s promoter who was out of town the day of the interview (Coordinacio Catalana). The table below shows details of the interviewing activity.

Interviewee Organisatio

n Position in the organisation

Project Action Location Date of the interview

Marc Castells and Josep

Maria Carpi

CONSELL CAMARCA

L DE L’ANOIA

Manager of Work and Promotion

Unit; Manager of Youth and

Cooperation Unit

“International Project of

Cooperation” 2.2 Igualada 23/06/2003

Ramon Canal and Anna

Farré

COORDINACIO

CATALANA DE

COLONIES, CASALS I

CLUBS D’ESPLAI

International Delegate; General

Secretary

Intercultural exchange

dealing with peace and tolerance

1.2 Barcelona 23/06/2003

Paloma Fernandez Avila and

Maria Trevigno

AFAIJ, ASOCIACION PARA LA FORMACIO

N Y ACTIVIDA

DES INTER-CULTURAL

ES PARA LA

JUVENTUD

Coordinator of volunteers; Assistant

“Ayuda y solidaridad con la ninas de la

calle”

2.2 Madrid 24/06/2003

Jesus MADRID Managing “El trabajo 5.1.2 Madrid 24/06/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

53

Migallon Sanz

PUERTA ABIERTA

Director intercultural con jovenes:

una propuesta metodologica”

Helena Buceta Facorro

ASOCIACION

ESPANOLA DEL

ESPERIMENTO DE LA CONVIVEN

CIA (EXPERIME

NT)

Managing Director until

2001

“Jovenes para la Paz” and

“Jovenes para la Salud”

1.2 Madrid 25/06/2003

OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANISATIONS

The organisations visited are all NGOs, apart from one which is a local authority. The range of their activities includes promotion of associative work and social education, promotion of mutual understanding and respect between people of different regions and countries, intercultural education and social assistance to immigrants.

• The Consell Camarcal de L’Anoia in Igualada (a town of 30,000 inhabitants, 80 kilometres from Barcelona) is a local government encompassing 33 administrative districts. The organisation has some experience of European programmes.

• The Coordinacio Catalana de Colonies, Casals I Clubs d’Esplai is a Catholic organisation of youth groups. It is a member of FIMCAP (International Federation of Catholic Youth Movements of Parishes) and embraces all Catalonia and Andorra parishes. The organisation usually works with European programmes to carry out international exchanges.

• The Asociacion Espanola del Esperimento De La Convivencia (Experiment in International Living, hereafter Experiment) is a member of an international federation with 25 offices all over the world, which runs cultural programmes for individuals and groups, both youth and adults. The organisation was established in 1932 and has plenty of experience in programmes involving young people.

• The Asociacion Para La Formacion Y Actividades Inter-Culturales Para La Juventud (AFAIJ), established in 1999, offers young people opportunities of non-formal education through the voluntary sector and international exchanges. It has many EU funded projects to its credit.

• Madrid Puerta Abierta is a small organisation founded in 1994 and dealing with social assistance to immigrants. It is new to European programmes.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

54

For each organisation visited, the table below shows reference numbers and typology of the projects carried out in the years 2000-2002 within third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme.


Role Project Number

Action Year Region

CONSELL CAMARCAL DE L’ANOIA

CON 93725 2.2 2001 CIS

COORDINACIO CATALANA DE

COLONIES, CASALS I CLUBS D’ESPLAI

CON 105779 1.2 2002 LA

PAR 88568 1.2 2000 LA

SEND 89025 2.2 2000 LA

PAR 95543 5.1.2 2001 CIS

PAR 107096 5.1.2 2002 LA

CON 107147 2.2 2002 LA

AFAIJ, ASOCIACION PARA LA FORMACION

Y ACTIVIDADES INTER-CULTURALES PARA LA JUVENTUD

CON 107158 2.2 2002 LA

MADRID PUERTA ABIERTA

CON 105782 5.1.2 2002 SEE

PAR 88874 1.2 2000 LA

SEND 88870 2.2 2000 LA

PAR 94785 1.2 2001 LA

CON 95469 1.2 2001 LA

ASOCIACION ESPANOLA DEL

ESPERIMENTO DE LA CONVIVENCIA (EXPERIMENT)

CON 107213 1.2 2002 LA

Note. The projects in bold types were the focuses of the interviews

The above table shows that only some of the organisations had plenty of experience with TC cooperation projects. This situation provided a good picture of the different levels of understanding.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

55


Needless to say, most Spanish organizations preferred to make projects in the youth field with Latin American countries. Even so, we decided to sort out organisations that had cooperated with partners in South Eastern Europe and CIS with a view to diversifying into the results of the evaluation. Projects were nearly all completed.

• The Consell Camarcal de L’Anoia ran a project under Action 2 entitled “International Project of Cooperation”. It aimed at helping those children in Belarus that had been affected by the disaster of the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl (Ukraine). Such a project was designed as a complement to another initiative that the government of Catalonia had been undertaking for the last few summers: the provision of medical care for groups of Belarusian children which took place in Catalonia. The project consisted in hosting for one year (from October 2001 to October 2002) a Belarusian national who, acting as a liaison with the sending organisation (“Independent Children’s Aid” in Minsk), would provide the host organisation with language and administrative support in delivering medicines to Belarus. Finally, the volunteer would monitor Belarus children’s groups receiving medical treatments in Catalonia in the summer of 2002.

• The project run by Coordinacio Catalana was a multilateral exchange with two European countries, Belgium and Spain, and two Latin American countries, Chile and Paraguay. The idea of the project was launched in the General Assembly of FIMCAP (International Federation of Catholic Youth Movements of Parishes) held in Ghana in 2001. The organisation was chosen as the one responsible for the carrying out of the exchange. The project took place from 9 to 23 July 2002. There were 28 participants (7 participants for each of the four countries).

• Experiment ran two initiatives with Latin American countries entitled “Youth for Peace” and “Youth for Health” respectively. Within them, the organisation managed five projects, three under “Youth for Peace” and two under “Youth for Health”. Youth for Peace dealt with tolerance, mutual understanding and equal opportunities between women and men and consisted in exchanges of young people from Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, Germany, Guatemala, Salvador and Mexico. It was implemented in Madrid. Seminars to discuss issues concerning developed and developing countries were held. Youth for Health dealt with the problem of drug consumption and involved participants from Guatemala, Mexico, Portugal and Spain. This time, the exchange took place in Mexico.

• AFAIJ participated in a project under Action 2 consisting in a six-month long multilateral EVS, organised by the Italian organisation AFSAI, and involving Costa Rica, Mexico, Honduras, Italy and Spain. The role played by the Spanish association was to select and prepare a volunteer for each of the above mentioned Latin American countries. The project took place from January 2000 to July 2001. In addition, AFAIJ organised a bilateral EVS with a partner organisation in Mexico. Of the two Spanish volunteers sent to Mexico, one is working with children in the streets, the other in a school. The two volunteers will come back to Spain at the end of July 2003.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

56

• Madrid Puerta Abierta ran a project under Action 5 involving young people from Albania, Morocco, Peru and Spain. The project took place from 1 to 6 October 2002 and aimed to exchange, among youth leaders, work methods in the field of immigration.

MANAGEMENT

Projects went smoothly. However, it is worth paying some attention to the following issues:

• Granting visa and residence permits – this difficulty was especially met with regard to the volunteer from Belarus. The person in question was granted by her country of origin a tourist visa expiring after three months, a time span clearly incompatible with a one-year long project. To make things more complex, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs failed to grant a residence permit. This decision was clearly at odds with a document issued by the Spanish Ministry of Labour entitling the volunteer to work in the country for all the duration of the project. The visa was finally granted but only after considerable efforts on the part of the host organisation.

• Approval of projects - the time required for getting an answer about the approval of the funding was a source of concern for all organisations, as it was the payment in advance of travel expenses, board and lodging for volunteers before receiving funds.

• Language communication - knowledge of Spanish language was a major problem in exchanges involving European young people, especially from Northern Europe. The need for translations from Spanish into English often slowed down the pace of activities, such as seminars and workgroups. To this regard, more experienced organisations viewed language skills as key factors in the selection of participants, in the same way as motivation and the lack of opportunities to go abroad were.

• Getting support – the European Info Point of the Catalan government was of great help to local organisations by providing information about the funding opportunities of the YOUTH programme and the application procedures. Conversely, for organisations in Madrid, getting information from the National Agency is said to have been particularly difficult. As an interviewee put it “The Spanish National Agency didn’t provide us with any substantial help. In the end, we just didn’t pick up the phone and tried to find solutions on our own”.

RESULTS/IMPACT

The results turned out to be encouraging and consistent with the general aims of the Programme.

As far as participants are concerned, the projects achieved goals such as learning new skills and improving job prospects, strengthening the understanding of other cultures and contributing to abandoning stereotypes and prejudices.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

57

As far as organisations are concerned, the projects stimulated the strengthening of partnerships among organisations of PC and TC as well as the involvement of a higher number of people in the voluntary sector and civil society.

With regard to the impact on local and national level, the projects increased awareness of intercultural issues, contributed to the development of voluntary sector and civil society and to the development of youth policy.

For the Consell Camarcal de L’Anoia, it was particularly important that a volunteer from CIS was made aware of how a European administration works. Most importantly, the project had practical consequences on the lives of many children in Belarus and it was thanks to the YOUTH programme that the delivery of medicines through the International Red Cross was made easier. The main impact on the partner organisation in Minsk was that, for the first time, it had at its disposal a national who looked after the group of children receiving medical care in a foreign country.

According to Experiment, participants in the multicultural exchanges claimed that the experience was one of the most significant and important in their lives. They realised that, although coming from different cultures, young people have the same problems regardless of the country they live in, both in Europe and in foreign countries. For the interviewee, it is this kind of remark that urges NGOs to keep running projects in the youth field.

For AFAIJ, the effects of the project on participants are of great significance from an emotional point of view. Although the EVS in Mexico is still underway, the organisation is receiving highly positive comments from the two volunteers. As for the two participants in the multilateral exchange in Honduras and Costa Rica, they were so enthusiastic that, upon the completion of the project, they took part in a new project run by Microcreditos.

The impact of the project run by Madrid Puerta Abierta was diminished by two factors: the absence of participants from Kosovo, who had been refused the visa from their government, and the inactivity of Greek participants. Regardless of the above mentioned problems, the project’ promoters developed new ideas for future projects.

PARTNERSHIP

Partnerships were a success, also because - it is to be pointed out - they were made easy by the multitude of contacts that organisations already had in Latin America.

Coordinacio Catalana was highly satisfied with the cooperation undertaken and was eager to move to the second step of the YOUTH project in Belgium with the same partners but on another topic. In particular, a closer collaboration is underway with the partner organisation in Paraguay, which asked Coordinacio Catalana for assistance in dealing with some administrative tasks. Experiment and AFAIJ highlighted that partnerships with Latin American organisations were excellent, as expected. They were determined to continue the cooperation in this region.

The situation proved to be not so good with regard to relationships with organisations in CIS and SEE. Specific examples can provide a clearer picture of such differences.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

58

On the contrary, Madrid Puerta Abierta was understandably disappointed by the absence of the participants from Kosovo (who failed to be granted visas from their government) and by the modest interest the Greek participants showed in the activities undertaken. Even so, the project’s promoter was said to be seeking new partnerships with other SEE organisations. In fact, the interviewee argued that cooperation with young people from SEE, a region ravaged by civil wars until recently, is essential to re-launch a culture of peace and tolerance.

The interviewees of the Consell Camarcal de L’Anoia claimed that their organisation is unwilling to cooperate in the future with the partner organisation in Belarus (Independent Children’s Aid, based in Minsk). This decision has nothing to do with the partner in question, which behaved seriously and professionally. Instead, the real issue was the Belarus government. Its reluctance to grant a satisfactory visa for the volunteer was hard to cope with. The experience was so exhausting that the Consell Camarcal prefers to change partners in future projects. In particular, the interviewees expressed their desire for a collaboration with Balkan countries which seem to be more open to cooperation.


The involvement of the local community was varied according to the kind of project. Local actors in question were city councils, universities, families, media and associations which had been contacted specially for the purposes of the projects. Thus, they were made aware of the YOUTH programme.

With regard to the Consell Camarcal de L’Anoia, the local community was particularly responsive to projects of cooperation aiming to help children from a different country. Instead, due to its nature, the project of Coordinacio Catalana resulted in a limited involvement of the local community, apart from a meeting of the participants with the mayor of the town of Amposta, south of Catalonia. Experiment invited university lecturers to provide the participants in its projects with professional analyses of the cultural and economic differences between developed and developing countries. AFAIJ put emphasis on the friendly and supportive attitude of host families and ordinary Mexican people who did all they could to make volunteers feel at ease. Due to the absence of some participants, Madrid Puerta Abierta invited some Spanish associations working in the youth field.


As far as dissemination of results is concerned, the Consell Camarcal de L’Anoia involved the institutional level only. Beyond delivering press notes to local newspapers, the organisation informed about the project other local districts and the government of Catalonia. The interviewees stressed that the municipality refrained from giving wider publicity to the project because the local community might interpret it as a mere politically motivated initiative. Dissemination of results for Coordinacio Catalana and Experiment regarded local papers. On its part AFAIJ stressed that, as a dissemination activity is expensive and there is no specific EC funding for it, the organisation prefers to make reference to its website only.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

59

Third-country cooperation of the YOUTH programme appears to have a good degree of visibility in Spain. In consideration of the that NGOs involved in the youth field have a long-standing tradition of voluntary service and youth exchanges in Latin America, it goes without saying that the opportunities provided by the Programme have been not only seized but also enthusiastically supported by organisations.


It is worth emphasising that many Spanish young people are anxious to be volunteers in Latin America, a region with which they have a much closer cultural and historical affinity than with CIS and SEE. In this context, it was easy for the YOUTH programme to create a virtuous circle. As a matter of fact, a few Spanish participants started an association of their own or went back to Latin America to take part in other projects, such as the ones run by Microcreditos. Moreover, in consideration of the close cultural, political and economic ties between Spain and Latin American countries, it is not surprising that, according to the interviewees, Spanish organisations had cooperated with their counterparts in the region even before the YOUTH programme was launched. As a result, the YOUTH programme can be considered not only as a success in the country under consideration but also as a further and essential step to the mainstream of youth exchange projects between Spain and Latin America.


From the interviews in Spain, it is possible to draw the following conclusions.

The granting of visas to volunteers from CIS and, in some cases, from SEE is a problem that can diminish the success of the YOUTH programme in these regions. As a matter of fact, organisations in PC are generally unwilling to receive young people from CIS because of the time and efforts needed to cope with this problem. It is so advisable for the Commission to inform governments about the YOUTH programme and urge them to adjust national rules about visa.

Even though projects with Latin America are Priority 2, organisations in Spain underline that cooperation with this region was very successful and deserves to be supported. The organisations visited encourage the Commission not to dismiss cultural ties linking specific PC with Third Countries in LA.

For all interviewees, young people with less opportunities are regarded to be those living in such poverty that they have no possibility to meet people from other countries. In this context, organisations have no problems to let them take part in projects. It is worth emphasising that the involvement of young people with disabilities in the YOUTH projects, especially EVS, is limited because of a lack of structures to host them. Without such structures, a volunteer with disabilities would become the aim of the project instead of being an element to the success of a project.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

60

In relation to the provision of funding for EVS, the European Commission might take into account the exact location where the volunteers will be placed. More specifically, grants should be geared to the costs of living in big cities.

A final observation regards the lack of funds for the dissemination of results. The Commission should consider the opportunity to provide a quota devoted to cover this kind of activities which are essential to the visibility of the YOUTH programme.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

61

LA COUNTRIES REPORTS Brazil

Mexico


Ecosfera S.p.A.

62

BRAZIL

INTRODUCTION

The visits to Brazil for the evaluation of the YOUTH programme were made in four days, and regarded five organisations.

N° Organisatio

n visited City Address

Experience in YOUTH

programme 2000-2002

Contact Project Actio

n

1 AFS Intercultura Brasil

Rio de Janeiro

Travessa do Ouvidor, 50

only the project evaluated

Eduardo Assed

Intercultural learning 2.2

2

SFB Solidariedade França Brasil

Rio de Janeiro

Campo Sao Cristòval, 348


Lola Campos

Franco - Brazilian Cooperation

2.2

3

Ibase

Instituto brasilenho de anàlisis sociais-econòmicos

Rio de Janeiro

Av. Rio Branco, 124


Càndido Grzybowski

Iniciativa solidaria Universidad autònoma de Madrid

2.2

4

Idaco

Instituto de desenvolvimento e açao comunitaria

Rio de Janeiro

Visconde de Enhauma, 134


Marcos V. Carrasqueira and Gisélia Poténgy

Volunteer work as part of a Franco-Brazilian exchange involving family farming

2.2

5 Viva Rio Rio de Janeiro

Ladeira da Glòria, 98


Jairo Coutinho

Sports: a tool for preserving the environment, or a factor for its destruction? Perspectives of young people from Latin America and Europe

1.2

No problems whatsoever were noticed during the interviews; on the contrary, the willingness of the organisations visited to cooperate and the validity of the work to be done were evident. The organisations, which are greatly interested in collaborating with the EU, took advantage of the


Ecosfera S.p.A.

63

opportunity to obtain information, because of the difficulty they find when it comes to receiving news of opportunities, working approaches or procedures.

All the organisations visited were characterised by a high degree of internal flexibility, which resulted in a high turnover and/or frequent changes in the roles within the organisations and this represented an obstacle when it came to planning the interview meetings.

The major difficulties were met with during the phase in which the interviews were organised. The following problems arose:

difficulties in contacting the organisations in order to arrange a date for the interview: telephone numbers and addresses that were not accurate, had been changed or were non-existent; persons to contact who were no longer part of the organisation or who were not the ones who had actually managed the programme;

difficulties in communicating the purpose of the interview, because, at first, the organisations claimed that they had no working relationships with the EU and did not understand what we were talking about. Only after many efforts in making them understand the terms of the problem, finally they remembered about the young volunteer from Europe who had worked with them or about an international exchange that had taken place as part of the project.

ORGANISATIONS

The organisations visited, all of which are NGOs, are engaged in various sectors of the fight against social exclusion and poverty:

four of them work “in the field” (SFB, Viva Rio, Idaco and AFS Intercultura Brasil, which directly operate programmes of training, rural development, re-education of young people and children taken off the streets etc.);

one of them, Ibase, works indirectly as its main objectives are research and establishment of a public discussion on the topics of social exclusion, social policies, the distribution of income etc.

Their activities are of significant importance for their local communities, as they play a very useful role in emergency situations and have a noteworthy impact, especially in the light of the scarce economic and human resources at their disposal.

The work they do with young people and with children is considered to be especially crucial, as it represents the best possible investment for the near future. From this perspective, the YOUTH programme is seen as a way of giving disadvantaged young people in Brazil a different outlook on the world and on their own possible horizons, in particular by bringing them into contact with the Programme’s young volunteers and by allowing them to share in mutual experiences.

All the organisations visited, even the smallest ones, are part of wide-ranging, active international associations and networks.

They participate in various types of international programmes, receiving funding from Unicef, from the IDB etc., but they have little knowledge of the EU programmes, which are viewed as something interesting but remote. It is through their European partners that they have learned of


Ecosfera S.p.A.

64

the existence of the YOUTH programme, while it is often the young people wishing to be sent to Brazil who contact the contractor and rarely the Brazilian organisation that evaluates and selects the candidates.

The organisations express enthusiasm regarding the activities performed to date, as well as about the persons who have been sent to them, though they express the need to receive more information on the Programme.

Almost all the organisations are acquainted with each other and know what activities the others are engaged in; it should also be noted that major organisations active in the third sector are also active in Brazil: Ibase and Idaco, for example, are well known to everyone in the field.

Nevertheless, there was no evidence, during the interviews, of the existence of networks of mutual collaboration between the organisations for the solution of common problems or the undertaking of joint activities.


Organisation Role Project number Action Year

AFS INTERCULTURA BRASIL HOST 88872 2.2 2000 IBASE INSTITUTO BRASILEÑO DE ANÁLISIS SOCIALES Y ECONÓMICOS

HOST 107155 2.2 2002

IDACO INSTITUTO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO E AÇÃO COMUNITÁRIA

HOST 92288 2.2 2001

SOLIDARIEDADE FRANCA BRASIL HOST 95297 2.2 2001

VIVA RIO PAR 88541 1.2 2000

PROJECTS

Participants

The impact of the involvement of the young people was very extensive: in all the organisations the work was performed together with other young people, and, in the majority of the cases, the intended beneficiaries were disadvantaged young people.

Within this context, the classification of disadvantaged young person takes on a particular significance: none of the participating young people coming from the Programme countries can be considered disadvantaged. On the other hand, the beneficiaries of the activities of the organisations are frequently disadvantaged: in Brazil, where social and economic differences are extreme, it is not always possible for disadvantaged young people to obtain access to this opportunity.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

65

The young volunteers sent by the Programme18 took an active part in the interviews. In many cases it was possible to observe great enthusiasm on the part of both the young person and the host organisation and the perfect integration of the young people within the host organisation, as well as with regard to the work they performed and the town in which they were located. To a great extent, this was due to the efforts of the host organisations, which treated them like a “family”, establishing for the young people roles of importance and responsibility: in a number of cases it was specifically stated during the interview that their intention was not to take advantage of the arrival of the young people merely as “skilled personnel at a low cost”, but to consider their presence as an important opportunity for intercultural comparisons and enrichment, as well as a way of viewing the activities of the organisations and their problems from a different perspective.

Activities

The projects managed by the organisations visited are all aimed at fighting social exclusion and poverty, in particular through work with young people and children.

The young people were specifically involved in the following projects:

a. Three young women sent to the AFS Intercultura Brasil were placed in volunteer work programmes run as part of the activities of two partner associations of the AFS with the specific initiatives involving the re-education of “street children and young people”. The activities of both associations consist of providing the young people with lodgings, taking them away from street life and providing them with psychological support plus, even more importantly, modules of professional training to ensure the young people re-integration into society;

b. A young woman was involved in all the institutional activities of the SFB - Solidariedade França Brasil, an organisation which carries out activities of training and tutoring of the nursery schools women teachers organised on an independent basis by the population of outlying, disadvantaged areas of Rio de Janeiro. The nursery schools were introduced into a social and economic context characterised by extreme social disadvantage, exclusion and deterioration, in areas where there were no structures of any type for the care of youngsters. The activities performed with the teachers pursued two main objectives: assisting them in undertaking the administrative actions necessary to obtain municipal recognition and provide them with basic concepts of child education, general educational theory, hygiene and nutrition;

c. A young woman sent to Ibase was involved in the institutional activities of the NGO, which consist of influencing and determining public policies of social inclusion: improving income levels, fighting against poverty, sustainable development etc. In particular, the young woman is working on projects involving nutritional policies (support for government programmes meant to fight hunger and malnutrition in Brazil), rural development and social exclusion;

18 Some of them still work in the organisation visited. This was the case with Ibase and SFB.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

66

d. A young man sent to the Idaco organisation was placed in a work programme in a rural community in the State of Rio de Janeiro, which is one of the activities Idaco carries out in support of rural populations;

e. The young Brazilians sent to Tucumàn, Argentina, with the Viva Rio organisation, as part of the project that involved 48 young people from Latin America and Europe, participated in sports activities, as well as discussions and exchanges related to the same topic. The primary objectives of the project were the promotion of peace, dialogue, tolerance and solidarity among young people, as well as the training of young workers.

MANAGEMENT

All the Brazilian organisations interviewed stated that it was always the contractor which established the contact and proposed the participation in the YOUTH programme, thus the process moved in a single direction: from Europe to Latin America.

The Brazilian organisations expressed the wish to manage the programme in a more independent and active manner as they feel that they are a “passive” part of a process over which they have absolutely no control. Furthermore, the organisations would like to receive more information on the Programme, in addition to playing a more incisive role. They see themselves as the endpoint of a process they know little about and they complain of possessing scarce information.

The Idaco organisation stated its wish to have people sent through the Programme each year, in order to give a greater degree of continuity to certain projects. At the same time, Idaco holds that an effort should be made to increase the number of young people sent from Brazil to the Programme countries, stating that they are fewer than that for the young people arriving in Brazil from the Programme countries.

In terms of the management of the projects, the collaboration with the international partners was described as important and effective at every point in the project, though, in the view of a number of organisations, it proved particularly useful during the planning phase (AFS Intercultura Brasil, Viva Rio), while others said it gave the greatest contribution during the actual performance of the initiatives (Ibase and SFB).

Administrative obstacles and problems with visas and residence permits and problems of coordination with local institutions and protagonists were found by the organisations when it came to organising and managing the projects.

RESULTS/IMPACT

Impact

The impact of the Programme is considered to be significant from a number of different perspectives:

the Programme allows the young Europeans and the young Brazilians, as well as the community of the host country, in the broadest sense of the term, to get to know each other,


Ecosfera S.p.A.

67

to compare and exchange their experiences and to bridge the cultural gap. Offering Brazilian young people the opportunity to share experiences and volunteer working activities with young people from Europe, or, vice versa, sending Brazilian young people to Europe, is considered to be an extremely important instrument when it comes to modify their ways of thinking, viewpoints and abandon old prejudices. This process has a far-reaching effect on the mentalities and outlooks – with reference to both life and work – of the participants: an effect that extends well beyond the duration of the activities performed under the Programme;

the Programme proves particularly effective as a stimulus and a catalyst, not only in the lives of the participants and their perceptions of the opportunities available, but also in those of people acquainted with the participants. The experience is a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity, especially for young Brazilians who are sent to Europe, introducing them to previously unknown horizons – of life, culture and possibilities – that will “change their lives”. When they return to Brazil, they will be able to transmit to others of their peer group this new perception of the world, made up of new ideas, new possibilities and an increased awareness of the meaning of participation and active citizenship. A major change takes place in the case of young Europeans in Brazil as well – here too the participant will change his or her outlook on the world and priorities, bridging the culture gap while abandoning commonly held but erroneous perceptions and prejudices – a change whose influence will extend to the participant’s home community;

the Programme has a positive effect on the organisations and the participants in terms of their working methods and the approach taken to managing the activities, making it possible to compare methods and adopt a new outlook on problems, together with new/different modes in facing them;

in addition to the positive impact on the participants and the organisations, the Programme has a significant effect on the beneficiaries of the projects in which the young people are placed. The contribution of the new working methods or different experiences transmitted by the young volunteers allows individuals who live in a different world, quite often in conditions of serious disadvantage and cultural isolation without any possibility of knowing new and different people, to come into contact with “new models” of life, further expanding the effectiveness of the Programme in terms of bringing together different cultures and favouring processes of solidarity and cooperation between European countries and third-party countries;

finally, emphasis should be given to the importance of the Programme when it comes to forging and reinforcing the identities and personalities of the participants, of stimulating their “growth” as citizens and individuals, all the while favouring a greater awareness among the young people as regards their roles and responsibilities within society. This process of conferring responsibility is an extremely important element in terms of the future impact of the Programme, as it results in an almost irreversible change in attitude on the part of the participants.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

68

PARTNERSHIP

As mentioned earlier, the partnership relations of the organisations are highly developed and extensive. A number of different organisations have decades-long traditions of cooperation with European organisations or networks. In all the different instances, the working relationships with the international partners were defined as excellent, and the organisations expressed their intention to continue working together in the future.

Two types of partnership were identified: membership in international networks and collaboration with individual NGOs operating inside the Programme countries.


The involvement of the local community was identified as an important factor to the success of the projects and to the achievement of the Programme objectives, as it is through the participation of local protagonists that the process of bridging gaps, promoting solidarity and mutual understanding, sharing mutual experiences and building visibility and image for Europe is created. This process also serves to reinforce the ties between organisations and civil society and therefore, in an indirect manner, the ties between the civil society of the host country and Europe as well.

All the projects managed by the organisations involving young people contemplate ongoing work with the local community, plus the active involvement of local institutions. In many cases municipal councils, regional governments, central governments, local NGOs, volunteer associations, university and research centres, training centres, the families of the participants and labour unions have all been involved.

In all but one case (SFB), the involvement of the local protagonists was the result of existing relationships/contacts. In the case of SFB, on the other hand, it was the local protagonists who got in touch with them.


The visibility of the Programme was extremely low. The organisations have difficulty in remembering that the cooperation with the partner that enabled them to receive a volunteer, or to send young people abroad for a meeting, took place under the auspices of the YOUTH programme of the EU. This probably occurs for a number of different reasons:

the projects and the financing are managed by the contractor, and the Brazilian organisations are not familiar with the bureaucratic aspects of the Programme;

the information reaching the organisation relative to the Programme (generally in the form of documentation sent by the contractor and/or by acquaintances of the participant) is scarce and often appears to be something “remote” and hard to interpret;

the organisations have a rather vague vision of the opportunities originating from the European Union;


Ecosfera S.p.A.

69

quite often, the only trace of participation in the Programme is a document placed on file or retained by the young volunteer announcing the arrival of the young person as part of the Programme, together with the duration of the stay and the amount of the subsidy.

The visibility of the Programme in Third-Party countries, together with its impact (in terms of image as well) would doubtless be increased if the organisations were provided with more complete information on its objectives and operating procedures. For that matter, the organisations have shown they are extremely interested in increasing their knowledge. Only the organisation AFS Intercultura Brasil was found to possess a fairly thorough knowledge regarding the YOUTH programme and the programmes of the EU, in general19.

The dissemination of the results of the Programme proved to be decidedly uneven, a result that is held to be a direct consequence of the low visibility and lack of information on the Programme. It is very difficult to manage the communication and dissemination of a programme with which one has little familiarity and which is “represented” almost exclusively by the participants.

In a number of organisations no dissemination activities were carried out (SFB, Ibase, Viva Rio). AFS Intercultura Brasil and Idaco, on the other hand, organised a number of different activities to spread word of the results of the projects carried out under the YOUTH programme as cooperation initiatives with Third-Party countries: an informative video, participation in television and radio programmes, news in the local press and newsletters on Internet for the members of the network of national and international partners.

The main targets of the dissemination initiatives are local institutions (municipal and regional governments), in addition to NGOs, volunteer associations, university and research centres, the local population and other volunteers who are part of the organisation’s network, in order to share with them the experience of working alongside the young European volunteers.


As already specified in the description of its impact, the Programme has deep-rooted effects that extend over a considerable period of time, well beyond the duration of the individual project, as it leads to a radical change in the outlooks of the participants – and indirectly of the beneficiaries – of the projects.

In fact, the cultural contact, the experience of a structurally different lifestyle in the host country plus, vice versa, the example of the life, ideas and “cultural model” of the participant (in both directions: Brazil-Europe and Europe-Brazil) guarantee an almost total bridging of the culture gap and a change in outlook. The end result is a change in mentality that lasts over time, proving nearly permanent and leading to an overall growth and assumption of responsibility on the part of the individual.

19 Probably because AFS has been part of an international network with sizeable European participation for more than 50 years.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

70

In the final analysis: neither the participant nor, to a certain extent, the beneficiaries of the Programme in which the participant has been placed will be the same who follow the Programme, which, in this sense, proves to have an extraordinarily effective multiplying effect.

No ties between the YOUTH programme and local youth policies were noticed.

In terms of financing, the Programme is regarded as a major opportunity in a context in which resources are extremely scarce. Certain organisations cover some of the costs of the participants and/or meet some of their needs (language lessons, lodgings)20.

As to the capacity of the Programme to find additional funding, no direct cause-effect relationship has been noticed: in four cases out of five the organisations do not hold that the financing of the YOUTH programme has aided them in attracting other sources of financing. The Idaco organisation, on the other hand, holds that the YOUTH financing has served as an indirect aid in obtaining additional funding, on both the local and European levels.


The main conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from the interviews are:

the Programme represents an exceptional vehicle for increasing mutual knowledge and bridging the culture gap between the countries of Europe and Brazil. In all the organisations visited, and among all the participants encountered, there was an unanimous positive attitude of great enthusiasm regarding the activities under way and the present and future impact of this process of getting closer and increasing mutual understanding;

in order to improve the effectiveness of the Programme, it would be better to plan initiatives able to give it greater visibility through focused information and communication efforts directed at the Brazilian organisations and, at the same time, to allow them to play a more central role in the projects’ implementation;

it has often been stated that it took plenty of time, due to a number of difficulties met by the participants (learning the language of the host country, logistical/organisational problems). Some organisations have suggested that steps be taken to devote a brief period before the participants’ departure in order to hold a basic module of instruction in the language of the host country, together with meetings for general organisational matters and the presentation of the specific project on which the participant will be working;

the involvement of the local community is a key element in achieving the Programme objectives, as it is of strategic importance that the results of the activities performed under the Programme be disseminated in as focussed and broad a way as possible. Considering the current lack of uniformity observed in this area (a number of organisations are extremely active, while others have not made plans for any dissemination activities), it is recommended that an effort should be made to increase the awareness of the organisations and the participants regarding the importance of disseminating the results;

20 The AFS Intercultura Brasil, for example, explicitly stated that the participants pay a portion of the expenses with their personal resources, while the AFS contributes by providing them with 40 hours of Portuguese lessons when they arrive and a network of families where they can find lodging.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

71

the visas and/or residence permits of the young people represent an obstacle that creates difficulties which, in some cases, can delay the departure of the participant and lead to insecurity and delays on the part of the host organisation as regards the start-up of projects;

it would be useful to promote the sending of more young people by the Brazilian organisations, considering that the flow in this direction is significantly lower than the one from Europe to Brazil;

the Programme participants often hold roles of responsibility, or become key points of reference within the projects in which they are placed. This is an extremely positive factor, but it could lead to a “vacuum” in the projects and the communities once the period of the participant’s stay in the host country comes to an end, in some cases weakening the potential impact of the project. To overcome this drawback, it would be better to favour the continuity of participation in the Programme, giving priority – or simply a possibility – to organisations that have already participated, so that they can receive a new volunteer and fill the gap.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

72

MEXICO INTRODUCTION

The visits to Mexico were made on three days, May 7th, 8th and 9th of 2003, and regarded five organisations. The table below lists the projects visited:

N° Organisation

visited City Address

Experience in YOUTH

programme 2000-2002

Contact Project Actio

n

1 Instituto Mexicano de juventud (IMJ)

Mexico City

Serapio Rendòn, 76


Luciano Mendoza and Moisés Dominguez

The experience of Europe and Latin America in the participation of youth organisations in the formulation of public policies

5.1.2

2

Vimex

Voluntarios internacionales Mexico

Mexico City

Plaza de la Repùblica, 51

2 projects in 2001 (including the project evaluated)

Flores Vidal

Multilateral Europe – Latin America

“Puccini House”

2.2

3

Siijuve

Servicio internacional para el intercambio juvenil

Puebla 4 Sur, 2912-2

14 projects: 5 in 2000, 3 in 2001, 6 in 2002 (including the project evaluated)

Cristina RuizIxtliyollotl Educational Centre – Puebla

2.2

4

Siijuve

Servicio internacional para el intercambio juvenil

Puebla 4 Sur, 2912-2

14 projects: 5 in 2000, 3 in 2001, 6 in 2002 (including the project evaluated)

Cristina RuizAid and solidarity for street children

2.2

5 Yori-Yoreme Puebla

Plazuela del Carmen, 1427

Plazas de Amalucan


Maylet Osorio

- 2.2


Ecosfera S.p.A.

73

On the whole, relationships were easily established with the organisations, the majority of which were well acquainted with the project and had a fair amount of knowledge of the YOUTH programme. The table below shows for each organisation the number and the typology of projects carried out during 2000-2002 in the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand.

Organisation Role Project number Action Year

INSTITUTO MEXICANO DE LA JUVENTUD PAR 88853 5.1.2 2000

SEND 93871 2.2 2001 HOST 93876 2.2 2001 PAR 88568 1.2 2000 PAR 88575 1.2 2000 PAR 88583 5.1.2 2000

HOST 89025 2.2 2000 PAR 95289 1.2 2001 PAR 105753 1.2 2002

HOST 105933 2.2 2002 HOST 89160 2.2 2000 HOST 104320 2.2 2002 PAR 107096 5.1.2 2002

HOST 107147 2.2 2002

SERVICIO INTERNACIONAL PARA EL INTERCAMBIO JUVENIL (SIIJUVE, A.C.)

SEND 107052 2.2 2002 HOST 95310 2.2 2001 VOLUNTARIOS INTERNACIONALES

MEXICO HOST 95485 2.2 2001 YORI – YOREME HOST 105811 2.2 2002

The interviews were held within the scheduled time periods and no problems arose, as the interviewees and their staff members proved to be extremely cooperative.

The organisations visited are, to a large extent, “mature”, having accumulated decades of experience with cooperation involving European countries (only the recently founded Yori-Yoreme organisation has little experience in this area), though for many of them this is their first contact with the YOUTH programme. All the organisations, even if they are aware of the Programme, have a fairly vague idea of what it actually consists (especially in terms of its objectives, actions and procedures), as it is the case for other EU activities.

A number of difficulties arose when it came to organising the interviews, on account of the turnover and the internal mobility in certain organisations, which represented an obstacle in terms of getting immediately in touch with the individual responsible for the project, or because of addresses or telephone numbers which had changed. In the specific case of the Istituto Mexicano de Juventud, as the two people who had managed the project in 2000 no longer worked at the IMJ (and the new director knew nothing about either the project or the YOUTH programme), we had to trace them to their new jobs or to their homes. As a result, a two-phase


Ecosfera S.p.A.

74

interview was carried out for the IMJ: with the former managers and, with the new management of the IMJ, on a number of topics related to the phase that followed the end of the project.

ORGANISATIONS

All the organisations visited are NGO’s, with the exception of the IMJ, which is a public authority. The areas of operation differ:

the Vimex, Siijuve and Yori-Yoreme organisations promote international exchange projects for young people and then place these young people in volunteer activities, as well as in different sectors of the fight against social exclusion, poverty and disadvantage, with a particular focus on working with children and young people;

the Instituto Mexicano de Juventud organises study meetings and discussions, plus courses and seminars with international participants; in addition, as a public authority, it influences and oversees the formulation of public policies in favour of young people.

The activities of the organisations visited, whether they work in the field with young people or are engaged in the planning of youth policies, make a noteworthy contribution to offering the young people in question an alternative meant to lead to a different way of living, in many cases distancing them from the grip of criminal activity and social exclusion.

The work performed with young people and children is considered to be of strategic importance, because it is in this sector of the population that the damage caused by a shortage of resources and by social exclusion has the most dramatic effects. The Programme is viewed, therefore, as a way of transmitting to Mexican young people with fewer opportunities, as well as to the young people coming from the different countries participating in the Programme, a different view of the world.

Almost all of the organisations visited are part of widespread, active international organisations involved in volunteer work and exchanges among young people. In the majority of cases they participate in different types of international programmes, though they do so through their European partners and their network of international contacts, and, as a rule, they have been contacted by the contractor to take part in the YOUTH programme21. In any event, the Programme is viewed favourably, with the organisations seeing it as an interesting opportunity, though, in the majority of cases, they actually know little about it.

In some cases the young people wishing to be invited to Mexico have come into contact with the contractor. It is rarely the Mexican organisation that evaluates or selects the candidates22.

The Mexican organisations have shown a great deal of vigour, together with an ability to solve problems independently. This has been possible for two reasons:

the organisations know each other, and they have created an informal network of support and collaboration,

21 With the exception of the Siijuve organisation, which is well acquainted with the Programme, having participated in past years. 22 With the exception of Siijuve, which takes a more active approach in this respect


Ecosfera S.p.A.

75

there are organisations with a great deal of experience that have spontaneously assumed a leadership role, providing support to the others with regard to specific problems.

PROJECTS

The projects managed by the organisations visited, and in which Programme participants have been placed, are all geared towards fighting social exclusion and poverty, in particular through work with young people and children, with the exception of the project managed by IMJ, which approaches the problem from the other direction, upstream of the emergency situations, by formulating public policies designed to promote social inclusion and favour young people while contributing to the reduction of situations of extreme poverty, shortages of opportunity and disadvantaged existences on the edge of society.

The young people were specifically involved in the following projects:

the two young women sent to the Vimex organisation have been placed in a volunteer work programme, the “Puccini House”, a cultural and social centre originally built as a residential building by the local population, in collaboration with Vimex, following the 1985 earthquake. The building houses the Cultural Centre, where the people of the neighbourhood gather together, and offers a cultural alternative to the street, especially for young people: a library, a music room, foreign-language and computer courses and even a theatre. Vimex has been managing the project since 1985, sending volunteers who organise cultural initiatives, teach lessons in their native languages or in basic computer skills and assist young people and children with their homework in the afternoon. It has been reported to us that the initiatives are attended by approximately 100 young people from the neighbourhood on a stable basis, in addition to other, occasional visitors;

the young woman who was sent to the Siijuve organisation has been involved in a project entitled “Ixtliyollotl Educational Centre” in Puebla, where she takes part in the activities of an educational centre. The purpose of the centre is to provide support to native and rural communities, including training modules (programmes of community development, rural development, hygiene/health etc.), plus recreation and leisure-time activities within a framework of non-formal education;

the young woman sent to the Siijuve organisation has been involved in a project entitled “Ayuda y solidariedad con las ninhas de la calle” in disadvantaged outlying areas of Mexico City. As part of the project, she was engaged in the activities of finding a shelter for young girls and women who have lived for years in the street, victims of situations of violence, social exclusion, sexual exploitation, drugs etc. The objective is to provide these women-girls with a home, a family and a community, in addition to offering them psychological, emotional and educational support so that they can recover from the traumas they have suffered and be reintegrated into society;

the young man sent to Yori - Yoreme has been involved in the organisation of projects that are currently in the start-up phase (environmental protection, working conditions and methods, hygiene/health, elimination of inequality among the various Mexican ethnic communities), in the creation of a network of contacts for the organisation (on the local level and in Europe) and in the procurement of local, national and international financing;


Ecosfera S.p.A.

76

the twenty international participants in the week-long international study meeting held at the IMJ in Mexico City (in October of 2000) discussed the different ways in which organisations devoted to young people can participate in the formulation of a public policy for the same young people. Various methods, experiences and case histories were examined and compared, a series of approaches to the formulation and implementation of policies were analysed, and the impact of the resulting policies on the different countries of origin was evaluated. In addition to the twenty young people connected with the YOUTH programme, approximately 300 other individuals (roughly half of them young people) representing Mexican NGO’s and bodies of the Mexican Federal Government were invited from IMJ.

MANAGEMENT

In the case of all the organisations visited, participation in the Programme was initiated by the contractor. As a rule, the contractor is a partner organisation that is already known, thanks to earlier collaborative efforts on other activities or because it is part of an international network. In all cases, the process always moves in one direction: from Europe towards Mexico.

In a number of cases, there was indirect evidence of a wish to manage the programme on a more independent, active basis. Cristina Ruiz said that the general feeling in Mexico is that of being “the non-priority of the non-priorities”, meaning that Latin America is marginalised even among the third-world countries.

Nevertheless, the wish for greater independence remains a vague yearning, considering the scarce perception/knowledge of the opportunities and modes for obtaining it. In certain cases the organisations feel that they are a “passive” part of a process they are unable to understand and control, while, in other instances, they are more “aggressive” and, most importantly, more aware of their own potential and capabilities (as in the case of Siijuve and, to a certain extent, IMJ as well).

In terms of the management of the projects, the collaboration with European partners has been judged to be thoroughly positive. For a number of associations it was particularly fruitful in the initial stages, at the point where the projects were being drawn up and planned, while others found it to be of greatest use during the actual implementation of the initiatives.

On the whole, the organisations showed they were independent and capable of overcoming with ease the obstacles met along the way, as most of them judged the development of activities to be a process without problems of any importance. Some organisations did meet difficulties with the visa for the volunteer.

RESULTS/IMPACT

The impact of the Programme is considered to be significant from a number of different perspectives:

the underlying initiatives of mutual knowledge, comparison, exchange and cultural understanding that were made possible. Working with a European young person or sending a Mexican young person to Europe is viewed as an important tool for changing ways of


Ecosfera S.p.A.

77

thinking, outlooks regarding one’s own opportunities, prejudices and commonly held misperceptions;

the Programme provides the young people with an opportunity to travel. This is particularly true for young people with fewer opportunities, who otherwise would be unable to finance either the journey or their stay abroad23. This element is held to be of great importance, because it considerably expands the opportunities available to young people who, otherwise, would not be able to benefit from similar experiences (Mexicans in particular, but Europeans as well) and who often prove to be among the most highly motivated;

the experience of the IMJ has also brought to our attention the importance of the Programme when it comes to enriching the give and take between theoretical approaches and practical experience within the context of the debate on public policies regarding young people. Participation in the YOUTH programme has made it possible to expand participation to include not only youth organisations in Latin American countries with scarce resources, but also the organisations of European countries, and look at questions from radically different points of view. the representatives of Sweden and Portugal, for example, though both countries are part of the European Union, brought diametrically opposing experiences to the discussion, supplying food for thought, ideas and solutions that proved extremely interesting not only to the youth organisations, but also, indirectly, to the young people who are the intended beneficiaries of the activities of these organisations. In fact, the give and take between the different countries has brought ideas and solutions for handling problems that are shared by young people throughout the world (support for education and for housing, business opportunities, employment, social participation etc.), in many cases through procedures that are “low cost” and/or based on forms of community collaboration and solidarity that can also be applied in Latin American countries with few resources available for youth policies;

of fundamental importance is the effect on the beneficiaries of the projects in which the young people are placed, with reference to the personal enrichment received from the new methods of operation or from the new and different experiences transmitted by the young volunteers, as well as from the possibility of coming into contact with “new models”, in the form of people who live in a different world and have new outlooks to express. In the specific case of Vimex’s Puccini House, the young volunteers from abroad become the driving force of the Centre’s activities, sparking curiosity and fondness on the part of the local community, which accepts them without reserve, seeing them as “motherless” young people they practically adopt. In exchange, the young people teach them their languages, provide lessons in basic computer skills, organise cultural initiatives etc.

23 As a rule, the projects managed by the Siijuve and Vimex organisations call for the costs of travel and room and board to be met by the young people, while the organisations offer the network of contacts, the coordination and organisation activities and a network of lodgings and/or places to sleep, such as shelters, hostels and campsites, as in the case of the Vimex work camps.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

78

PARTNERHIP

The partnership ties of the organisations are extremely well developed and extensive, having been established not only with foreign countries but also with each other. A number of the organisations (Vimex and Siijuve) have built up decades-long traditions of cooperation with European organisations or networks. In all the different cases, the collaboration with the European partners was described as excellent, and the organisations expressed their intention to continue the joint efforts in the future.


The local communities have been closely involved in the projects24, and this proved to be an extremely important factor to the success of the Programme.

In fact, this wide-ranging involvement made it possible to initiate a discussion on the problems of young people, and to find solutions (through initiatives undertaken to solve the problems in question, thanks in part to the contribution of the communities, or by increasing the awareness of local institutions regarding the difficulties and needs of young people). In addition, this process contributes to reinforce the ties between the youth organisations as well as the relations of cooperation and friendship between the civil societies of Mexico and Europe.

In a number of cases there was involvement on the part of the central government, local NGO’s, associations, youth centres, schools, local Mexican government bodies and the local population.

In all these instances, the involvement of the local protagonists occurs because relationships/contacts have already been established.


If greater attention were paid to communicating and providing information directly to the Mexican organisations, there would definitely be a greater return for the Programme in terms of both effectiveness and image. All the organisations have expressed the wish to receive greater information on the third-country strand of the YOUTH programme.

In fact, the visibility of the Programme is scarce: the organisations are aware that they are participating in the YOUTH programme, but they have only a rough perception of what the Programme actually consists, or of what its objectives and potential strengths are.

According to the interviewees, the low visibility is due to the insufficient information received by the Mexican organisations on the Programme, as well as to the fact that the projects and the financing are managed directly by the contractor.

All the organisations have taken steps to disseminate information on the initiatives undertaken and the results obtained, even in the case of activities which have not yet been concluded. The procedures and the extent of the dissemination, however, are extremely varied: a number of

24 Examples are the “Puccini House” operated by Vimex, as well as the international encounter of the IMJ, in which a number of different Mexican local government bodies and youth organisations took part.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

79

organisations have adopted “formal” communications strategies aimed at a broader public and based on the publication of monographs, together with articles carried in informative publications and/or on Internet newsletters (Siijuve, IMJ and, in part, Yori-Yoreme); others have adopted more “informal” methods whose reach, beyond the strictly neighbourhood level, is doubtful, with an example being the notice board (Vimex).

In any event, mention should be made of the spirit of initiative shown by the organisations, which have independently identified the most suitable channels for communicating and disseminating the positive aspects of the YOUTH programme and its impact.


The only relations to have emerged between the YOUTH programme and local youth policies were those that arose in the course of the encounter organised by IMJ, during which the discussion focussed on European, Latin American and local public policies aimed at young people.

For the organisations, therefore, the Programme – and quite often the volunteer experience itself – represents a significant element of enrichment and growth.

In the case of the Yori-Yoreme organisation, for example, the arrival of the participant ushered in a whole series of new ideas. The young man, being well informed in terms of establishing networks of contacts and fund procuring, worked in this area to a significant extent, allowing the organisation to enlarge its scope as regards both networking and financing (local).

It should be noted that none of the projects were entirely covered by funds from the YOUTH programme:

IMJ also received some national funding for the international encounter on public policies regarding youths;

in the case of the Siijuve and Vimex organisations, there was additional funding from the organisations themselves (which contributed to meeting the costs of transport within the country, in addition to providing a network of low-cost lodgings or hospitality in families);

in the case of Yori-Yoreme, the participant paid for a portion of the cost of the stay (the organisation is still very small and does not possess extensive support networks of significant financial resources).

The amount to which the funds were supplemented, therefore, can be deemed significant and, in all likelihood, this is due to two factors:

the high cost of living in Mexico, which is similar to that found in many European countries, with the result that the financing of the Programme is insufficient;

a certain “maturity” and solidity on the part of the organisations interviewed, which are capable of organising assistance, though at minimal levels, together with networks of logistical support for the participants.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

80


The primary conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from the interviews are:

steps must be taken to give the Programme greater visibility in the form of focussed information and communications procedures aimed directly at the Mexican organisations. This would also allow the organisations to establish an automatic, fluid flow of feed-back through which they could communicate difficulties, suggestions and experiences in a more direct manner, with the result that they would feel they were playing a more “active” role in the process;

though visas and/or residence permits for the young people can, in some cases, represent a problem, considering that the classification of volunteer worker does not exist in Mexico, reports have been received, on a number of occasions, regarding how effective the organisations are in solving such problems on their own;

delays and uncertainty regarding the timing and frequency with which the funds are sent to the young people have, in certain cases, created problems, due to the difficulties experienced by volunteers in paying for the high cost of living by advancing the money out of their own pockets, as well as the difficulties experienced by some organisations, which cannot always provide the volunteers with support;

the effectiveness of the Programme would be increased if a way were found to optimise the actual time of participation: quite often the young people “lose” a large portion of their time during the early months in learning the local language and solving practical and logistical problems;

it would be most beneficial if the Mexican organisations could ensure the continuity of the programme, with a view to increasing the impact of the projects, together with that of the YOUTH programme as a whole. This is also important in the light of the fact that many organisations, and especially those in the public sector, are subject to very frequent turn-over; therefore, it would be useful to “tie” the projects together by creating specific “modules” (in this way favouring the participation of young people or the organisation of events over a series of years with the same organisation);

with a view to increasing the efficiency of the Programme, it has been reported that, as a rule, long periods of time are needed to respond to the applications of the aspiring volunteers. Quite often this causes highly motivated people to get discouraged or to give up making the trip, while, in other cases, they go somewhere else under other programmes or find a job which they cannot refuse, etc.;

finally, mention should be made of the Programme’s capacity to extend its effects over lengthy periods of time, considering that the young people in it are provided with an experience that modifies their attitudes and their outlook in a deep and permanent way. This leads to two fundamental results: the young people maintain ties with the organisations by collaborating in their activities from a distance while encouraging other young people to take part in similar activities or, in any event, by transforming their experience into a heightened awareness of their own roles in society. In other cases, the young people repeat the experience, growing to consider it a fundamental part of their own lives.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

81

CIS COUNTRIES REPORTS Russia

Ukraine


Ecosfera S.p.A.

82

RUSSIA

INTRODUCTION

According to the general criteria set out in the YOUTH programme’s Users Guide25, Russia is included in the Priority 1 Table of “Third Countries” as a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

The interviews have been carried out between 19 and 22 of June 2003 and a significant interest was noticed among the representatives of the organisations met. It was not easy to get in touch with the organisations as well as with the persons responsible for the projects on which the interviews were focused as many organisations had changed their addresses and contact numbers and the same project officer in some cases was no more working in the same organisation. For this reason the field visit was more concerned with the organisations’ activities than with their YOUTH projects.

The following is a table indicating the names of the persons and organisations contacted.


Name of the organisation Position within the

organisation

Place where the organisation is

located


1 Nadezda

Malysheva Help to Youth Cooperation Project officer S. Petersburg 19/06/2003

2 Yelena

Vilenskaya Soldiers' Mothers of Saint

Petersburg Head of Research and Project officer

S. Petersburg 19/06/2003

3 Alexeev Vadim Youth Group of the

Interchurch Partnership Project officer S. Petersburg 19/06/2003

4 Sergei Grusko Friends House Project responsible Moscow 22/06/2003



Ecosfera S.p.A.

83

The table below shows for each organisation the number and typology of the projects carried out during 2000-2002 in the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand to give an exhaustive idea of the experience of the organisations visited.

NAME OF ORGANISATION ROLE PROJECT NUMBER

ACTION YEAR CONTRACTOR

HELP TO YOUTH COOPERATION PAR 105676 1.2 2002 NL

HOST 93856 2.2 2001 BE SOLDIERS' MOTHERS OF SAINT PETERSBURG HOST 105824 2.2 2002 BE

PAR 94139 5.1.2 2001 CE YOUTH GROUP OF THE INTERCHURCH PARTNERSHIP

" APOSTOLIC CITY - NEVSKAYA PERSPECTIVA" PAR 105595 5.1.2 2002 CE

FRIENDS HOUSE HOST 88892 2.2 2000 UK

The interviews in Russia take place in S. Petersburg and in Moscow. All the interviews were carried out in English.

ORGANISATIONS

The organisations visited are NGOs and non-profit organisations set up during the Nineties. These organisations work mainly with disabled and orphans as well as with young people socially excluded. Besides, they provide young people with legal support, promote values of peace and solidarity and organise cultural activities. It was evident the involvement of the organisations visited in some specific issues and themes, and in particular to the voluntary activity, even if it is not yet recognized by national authorities. Due to this condition, some NG voluntary organisations are not in good relations with local authorities on account of their activities aiming at supporting human and civil rights and their links with similar organisations abroad which “make political pressure” on national governments on these matters. This is the case of the Soldiers’ Mothers of S. Petersburg, an NGO located in S. Petersburg which defends the rights of conscripts, recruits and their relatives, offers legal and psychological support to young Russians soldiers and promotes a civil society based on respect for human rights through a culture of peace and non-violence.

Youth Group of the Interchurch Partnership, legally registered in 1998, is engaged in the realization of missionary and religious enlightenment programs in cooperation with the Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran Churches in St. Petersburg. More specifically, it carries out programmes for the rehabilitation of former members of new religious movements, makes studies and analyses concerning religious, church-related and political processes taking place within society and promotes issues like peace and tolerance by organising debates and seminars.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

84

Friends House Moscow is an initiative of “Friends (Quakers) worldwide” which seeks to encourage spiritual growth and the development of a civil society based on mutual trust and community cooperation. It is particularly active in carrying out rehabilitation programmes for Chechen child refugees in Moscow, support and assistance to objectors to the military service, organisation of programmes in prisons and support of disabled people.

Help to Youth Cooperation is an affiliated member of IFS (International Federation of Settlements), a Canadian organisation which promotes co-operation among community organisations in different countries. Help to Youth Cooperation supports young Russian families situated outside the cities, particularly in small villages, with information, advice and psychological support. Their activities are mainly addressed to married couples of less than 30 years and with children or to couples without children until three years from their marriage.

All Russian organisations visited have many relationships with western organisations which support them in their activities or are part of international networks. It was evident that many organisations and foundations from the USA are very active and close to CIS organisations: they provide to send volunteers for long periods and also host Russian people to train them both linguistically and technically.

As regards the relations with EU member states, Russia is traditionally linked with Germany (both economically and politically), but has good relations also with other northern EU countries (Netherlands, Denmark and UK above all).

As concerns the YOUTH programme, some organisations already knew it as they had been involved in previous projects (Soldiers’ Mothers of S. Petersburg was involved in several projects while Youth Group of the Interchurch Partnership was at its second project). On the contrary, Help to Youth Cooperation and Friends House were at their first experience.


The projects visited have obtained positive results except one that had been postponed while another organisation which acted as an intermediary and could not provide any information concerning the YOUTH programme.

Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg hosted a Belgian Volunteer who had the possibility to learn about problems normally faced by the organisation as well as the working methods adopted to solve them. In addition to its daily activities, the volunteer wrote a report in English about the organisation’s history, aims and activities.

Youth Group of the Interchurch Partnership was involved in a two-day seminar organised by Pax Christi International Youth Forum and held in Belgium with the aim of sharing participants’ experiences and know-how on peace building and cross-border youth cooperation. The project involved several Pax Christi EU branches plus two Russian affiliated organisations. The Youth Group of the Interchurch Partnership representative underlined also that Russian people feel themselves separated from Europe and YOUTH programme is an important instrument for their integration.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

85

Not all the projects were realised as expected, as in the case of Friends House which was involved in an Action 2 project as hosting organisation. The project consisted in placing a group of five volunteers from a sending organisation (Voluntary Service Overseas – VSO) into five different Russian organisations, among which Friends House. Anyway, according to the information gathered through the interview with the organisation’s representative, Friends House acted only as an intermediate to involve the VSO volunteer within another Russian organisation, which probably did not know it had been involved in a European co-funded project.

As concerns Help to Youth cooperation, the interviewee said that their Dutch partner “Stichting Welzijn Amersfoort” postponed the project until September 2003 and will involve 4 young Russian people plus 1 leader.

MANAGEMENT

Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg and Youth Group of the Interchurch Partnership were very active in managing the Youth project’s activities realised within their countries. Help to Youth cooperation participated in the project definition phase.

At the same time, not all the interviewees had a good knowledge of the YOUTH programme because of the lack of information received from the project’s contractor.

The management of the projects did not have to face significant problems. The main issues brought up have been:

Obtaining visa and residence permits: this is a common problem for almost all the organisations visited, but it was indicated as particularly difficult with some embassies and consulates.

Restrictive laws: Russian organisation Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg reported that the very restrictive Russian laws on immigration created problems in hosting volunteers. To overcome this problem they had to invite a volunteer for a period of three months and then renew its permit several times. This cost from 40 to 60 Euros each time.

Communication of the approval of the project: The organisations’ activities are generally defined according to their involvement in projects or, in the case of Action 2 projects, on the foreign volunteers’ presence. Delays on the approval of the project caused, as a consequence, the postponement of the overall organisation’s activities, which had to be re-programmed.

Financial problems: The Russian organisation Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg reported that the pocket money which goes to the volunteer is too high while the board and lodging budget is low.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

86

RESULTS/IMPACT

Results and impacts of the projects carried out by Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg and Youth Group of the Interchurch Partnership appear to be in line with expectations.

As regards the volunteers, it is to be emphasised that the representative of Soldiers’ Mothers of S. Petersburg26 appreciated the interest and the will of foreign volunteers to help the organisation in its activities. Of course, some of the young participants were already experienced and contributed much more to the achievement of the hosting organisation’s aims, while others needed a longer period of adjustment. This was clearly visible also in Ukraine. As concerns the volunteers’ selection criteria, motivation, knowledge of the hosting country, language skills, interest in the activity to be carried out in the host country and autonomy were elements indicated as fundamental for the success of the project. Furthermore, one of the most significant impacts on the participants was really the improvement of their language skills, as they had the possibility to study Russian.

As regards the Action 5 project involving Youth Group of the Interchurch Partnership, the organisation’s representative interviewed (who was also the only participant in the project) underlined the importance of learning from the exchange of experiences with other participants and the possibility to develop new projects in the youth sector.

As regards the organisations, the YOUTH programme supported them in strengthening their relations within already established international networks and, at the same time, in getting in touch with both new PC and CIS partners. Moreover, thanks to the Programme, CIS organisations improved their skills in project management and became more experienced in hosting volunteers from Programme countries organisations.

As the only project realised in Russia was an Action 2 (Action 1 and 5 projects were realised abroad), local actors’ involvement in the projects was quite limited.

PARTNERSHIP

The partnerships worked well with the exception of specific cases. The common element in almost all the projects visited was that the partnerships established have been successful when the organisations involved already knew one another.

In the case of Help to Youth cooperation, though it is an affiliated member of an international network, its representative knew very little of the third-country strand.

Friends House of Moscow was involved in the Programme only as an intermediate organisation. According to the information gathered, the volunteer had been placed in another Russian organisation whose personnel do not speak English and probably do not know to be involved in a YOUTH project.

26 The only Russian organisation interviewed hosting volunteers.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

87


The involvement of the local community was not particularly significant for the success of the projects assessed. At national level there is no visible support also because the voluntary service is not officially recognised27. Russian organisations reported that there is a growing interest from both central and local government for youth issues even if at the moment only “sport and military actions” have been realised at national level. The Russian Ministry of Emergency seems “the most active and the least militarised” in this direction. At local level, institutions like schools and orphanages were generally involved in the projects.

The Municipality of Moscow seems to be the only one active and interested in supporting YOUTH projects. Friends House reported that the municipality finances local NGOs in projects involving youth people on themes like environmental protection and ecology. Anyway, as the capital of Russia, it has to be considered as a “state within a state”, a reality completely different from the outside. Generally, 50% of news on newspapers and on television regard Moscow; the people living in rural areas are neglected. They are, as an interviewee said, “without the consciousness to change their status”.


All interviewees share the opinion that the YOUTH programme has no visibility in the country and very little information is provided. Many of them heard of the Programme through their links with foreign partners28.

Generally, Russian organisations have newsletters or little brochures, which are distributed by the volunteers themselves within schools and universities, or through the Internet. The latter is considered the best means of disseminating information but is still not widespread and only few organisations have their own website. The Youth Group of the Interchurch Partnership published also some books with the results of specific studies and meetings held in Russia. Only sometimes national newspapers report brief articles.


According to the interviewees, there is no link between national policies and the YOUTH third-country cooperation programme, probably also due to the too recent fall of the Soviet Union and to the still weak political stability. Most of the associations visited receive financial resources from international donors (Soros foundation and other US organisations mainly) or within cooperation programmes implemented by EU organisations.

As far as sustainability is concerned, the projects aroused interest in future projects under the YOUTH programme. Nevertheless, due to the fact that CIS organisations cannot apply directly to the Programme, it was indicated many times that being a member of an already established network with EU partners is the only way to participate in the YOUTH programme.

27 In Russia the volunteer is also the one who goes in the army. 28 In one case the interviewee knew only something about Action 1.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

88


Almost all interviewees were quite enthusiastic about the experience made, considered as a little step toward their integration in the EU.

As concerns the problems indicated, the procedures for obtaining visa or residence permits is the most common and felt. Many embassies do not know the Programme and thus they are not aware of the possibilities offered young Russians to go abroad. Furthermore, in Russia restrictive laws on immigration are creating many problems in hosting volunteers, who can be invited only for a period of three months to be renewed several times.

Lack of information about the YOUTH programme is the second major problem. Information is normally passed by word of mouth or through the NGOs’ networks. Furthermore, all documents are in English and many local NGOs’ do not know it. If some material written in Russian (i.e. a user’s guide) should be created, most organisations could be better informed about the Programme and the participation would increase.

Financial problems also emerged: the main problem is given by bank transfers. In some countries bank transfers are not possible at all, while in others are heavily taxed29. In some cases, also pocket money are subject to taxes.

Many Russian organisations are subject to very frequent turn-over. This situation seriously threaten their possibility to establish stable and durable contacts with PC organisations. In this sense, it would be useful to link projects together (e.g. by a thematic point of view) in order to stimulate the participation of both young people and an organisation’s staff to the activities and projects carried out by the same organisation over the years.

In many cases Russian organisations move continuously from an office to another changing their reference numbers and becoming untraceable for EU organisations looking for a local partner. It could be very useful to set up a “point of reference” at local level where a foreign organisation can ask for a local partner.

Finally, a large number of interviewees underlined that they had to wait for a long time to receive answers about the results of their applications. This problem is particularly serious for organisations working on a voluntary basis.

29 In both Russia and Ukraine, for example, also bank transfers of donations are taxed.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

89

UKRAINE

INTRODUCTION

According to the general criteria set out in the YOUTH programme’s Users Guide30, Ukraine is included in the Priority 1 Table of “Third Countries” as a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

The interviews have been carried out between 24 and 25 of June 2003. As for the visit to Russia it was not easy to get in touch with the organisations as well as with the persons responsible for the projects on which the interviews were focused. In fact, many organisations changed their addresses and contact numbers and in some cases the project officers were no more working in the same organisation.

The following is a table indicating the names of the persons and organisations contacted.



Position within the organisation

Place where the organisation is

located


1 Volodymyr Horshykhin

Ymca Ukraine Vice-president Kiev 24/06/2003

Anna Heychuk Vice-president

2 Oksana Yuryk

Ukrainian Association for

Youth Cooperation Alternative V

International Programme Co-

ordinator

Kiev 25/06/2003

3 Vasylyna Dybailo GURT Director Kiev 25/06/2003



Ecosfera S.p.A.

90

The table below shows for each organisation the number and typology of projects carried out during 2000-2002 in the YOUTH programme third-country cooperation strand to give an exhaustive idea of the experience of the organisations visited.

NAME OF ORGANISATION ROLE PROJECT NUMBER

ACTION YEAR CONTRACTOR

SEND 95301 2.2 2001 DK YMCA UKRAINE

SEND 107055 2.2 2002 DK

PAR 93704 5.1.2 2001 CE

PAR 95295 5.1.2 2001 CE

HOST 95328 2.2 2001 CE

PAR 95543 5.1.2 2001 IT

PAR 105600 5.1.2 2002 CE

PAR 105722 1.2 2002 DE

SCO 105878 2.2 2002 CE

PAR 105968 1.2 2002 IT

UKRAINIAN ASSOCIATION FOR YOUTH COOPERATION

"ALTERNATIVE-V"

PAR 107043 5.1.2 2002 PL

GURT UNTERSTÜTZUNGSZENTRUM FÜR NGO ENTWICKLUNG

HOST 103786 2.2 2002 DE

The interviews in Ukraine were carried out in Kiev. All the interviews were carried out in English.

ORGANISATIONS

The organisations visited are NGOs and non-profit organisations set up during the Nineties. Many of them were founded in 1992, after the official declaration of independence of many of the former Soviet Union’s states.

These organisations work mainly with young people, encouraging their social integration and increasing their employability and active participation in activities realised at both national and local level. Furthermore, they promote values of peace and solidarity and provide young people with legal support. As in the case of Russia, it was evident the devotion of the organisations visited for some specific issues and themes and, in particular, to the voluntary activity, even if it is not yet recognized by national authorities.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

91

Another organisation much involved in voluntary activities is the Ukrainian Alternative V a NGO which realises projects in the field of education, culture, environment, historical heritage protection and helps disadvantaged people to integrate themselves into society. Its members are active in organising international meetings and seminars, study trips and work-camps. Furthermore, the organisation is a member of several international associations, among which the National Youth Council (UNCMO), Service Civil International (SCI), International Cultural Youth Exchange (ICYE), Alliance of European Voluntary Service Organisations and founding member of East-Link (co-operation platform for voluntary service organisations in Eastern and Central Europe).

YMCA Ukraine is a local branch of the international YMCA (Young Men Christian Association) Network. It is active in realising cultural, educational and sports activities as well as in organising training courses and seminars on different themes, international voluntary service, summer camps and language courses. It is present in Kiev and in 11 Ukrainian regions.

Gurt organisation was the only organisation which pursues goals different from the others by providing consulting support to other NGOs and public institutions in building partnerships, promoting and managing volunteerism, promoting public procurement, organising training courses and providing information support. It is the only organisation which provides this kind of service in Ukraine.

As concerns the YOUTH programme, some organisations already knew it as they were involved in previous projects (Alternative V was involved in several projects), YMCA Ukraine was at its second project), while Gurt was at its first experience.


Most of the projects realised were under Action 2, indicating the high interest and involvement of Ukrainian organisations in this issue. The main activities in this Action were the involvement of the foreign volunteers in daily activities and their integration into daily life. Many volunteers, in fact, had the possibility to study Ukrainian and improve their knowledge of a society very different from the one they come from. Furthermore, in many organisations they also met and shared their experiences with other volunteers, often coming from the USA. Other aims were related with peace, tolerance and protection of human rights.

Alternative V participated in a multilateral training project (organised by the Polish organisation “Association for Support of Community Initiatives”) involving 21 participants from 2 EU countries, 2 pre-accession countries and 3 CIS countries with the aim of building up a common understanding of the concept of “European Citizenship” and the development of international partnerships among the project’s beneficiaries.

In the YMCA Ukraine’s project three Ukrainian young boys volunteered for YMCA soldiers in Copenhagen. They were involved in the daily running of the centre and of leisure activities.

Gurt hosted three volunteers within a German-Russian project involving several volunteers from Europe. The volunteers were involved in the organisation’s daily activities (in particular promotion, dissemination of information, developing of the organisation’s Web-site) but after


Ecosfera S.p.A.

92

few weeks one of the two preferred to work with a different NGO as she was not interested in such activities.

MANAGEMENT

All Ukrainian organisations visited have many relationships with western organisations which support them in their activities or are part of international networks where, in some cases, act as a “local branch” (i.e. YMCA Ukraine). It was evident that many organisations and foundations from the USA are very active and close to CIS organisations: they send volunteers for long periods and also host Ukrainian people to train them both linguistically and technically.

Ukrainian organisations were very active in managing projects realised within their countries, in particular those involving Volunteers. A specific problem was faced by Gurt: as one of the volunteers preferred to cooperate with a different NGO. This created some problems within the organisation, whose officer had to re-arrange the remaining volunteers’ activities.

Other problems met with by Ukrainian organisations were very similar to those faced by Russian organisations. The main issues brought up have been:

Obtaining visa and residence permits: this is a common problem for almost all organisations visited, but it was indicated as particularly difficult with some embassies and consulates. Some organisations utilise a support letter from the UNESCO to obtain Visa and residence permits when they participate in other non-EU programmes and suggested the same kind of support from the EC and/or EC Delegations.

Communication of the approval of the project: concerning Action 2 projects, as EVS projects have a duration of 12 months, the organisations’ activities are generally defined with the help of foreign volunteers. Delays on the approval of the project caused, as a consequence, the postponement of the overall organisation’s activities, which have to be re-programmed. Anyway this is a concern also for organisations involved in other Actions.

Financial problems: Interviewees who participated in Action 1 projects emphasised the need to increase to co-funding percentage for travel expenses from the actual 70% to 100% due to the high costs of air tickets. As concerns Action 2, some organisations stated that the pocket money which goes to the volunteer is too high while the board and lodging budget is low. Sometimes, the volunteers are not conscious of the high amount of money they have compared with the salaries of the local population. Heavy taxes on funding and pocket money are also a significant problem.

RESULTS/IMPACT

Results and impacts of the projects appear to be in line with expectations.

As regards participants, the Programme allowed both young Ukrainian and Europeans to get to know one other and exchange their experiences. The possibility to host a young volunteer from Europe as well as the opportunity to send a young Ukrainian abroad is seen as the most important tool to bridge the cultural and social gap and the prejudices generally linked with


Ecosfera S.p.A.

93

eastern countries. Furthermore, the programme had a positive effect as it made it possible to compare different working methodologies and approach problems by several points of view.

It is to be emphasised that Ukrainian hosting organisations appreciated the interest and the will of foreign volunteers to help them in their activities. The volunteers’ selection criteria were mainly based on motivation, interest in the activity to be carried out in the host country and autonomy, while knowledge of the hosting country and language skills were elements indicated as important but not fundamental for the success of the project. One of the most significant impacts on the participants was the improvement of their language skills, as they had the possibility to study Ukrainian.

As regards the organisations, they are much more informed on the Programme itself, which is not particularly visible and promoted. Furthermore, they strengthened their relations within already established international networks or, as in the case of Alternative V, got in touch with both new PC and CIS partners.

In the case of the Gurt project, the expected results were not completely reached. Anyway the organisation’s officer was quite happy of the experience made and wished to be involved in future projects, but indicated the possibility for them to select the volunteers as an essential criterion for the success of the project.

As regards the local level, the main impact was represented by the fact that foreign volunteers are still an event which attracts the media’s attention, especially in rural areas. This gave a good visibility to the project but particularly to the organisations.

Furthermore, the Programme had a significant effect also on the beneficiaries of the projects in which young volunteers were placed. In rural areas, for example, local people had the possibility to get in touch, in some cases for the first time, with foreign people bringing values of solidarity and peace.

PARTNERSHIP

The partnerships established have been successful when the organisations involved already knew one other. In fact, all organisations emphasized that only Ukrainian organisations which are already in contact with an EU partner or are part of an international network generally participate in the YOUTH Programme.

Alternative V organisation (involved in an Action 5 project with a Polish organisation) underlined that even if seminars and training courses could be good means to create new contacts, the “on-site activity” is the only way to create strong partnerships among organisations. Alternative V also reported that they generally select with particular attention their Ukrainian and other CIS countries’ partners as various organisations are not adequately reliable.

Gurt was at its first experience within the YOUTH programme. Despite the problems met with, its representative underlined the extreme usefulness of getting in touch with both European and CIS region organisations as, thanks to this experience, it was possible to learn from other cultures by comparing working methodologies.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

94

YMCA Ukraine sent its volunteers to other YMCA organisations located in Europe, thus, it did not get in touch with new partners but reinforced its relations within its network.


Organisations visited reported that at national level the Ukrainian Ministry of Youth finances a very limited number of activities while at local level it is easier to have financial support from regional and local governments. This tendency is given by the decision of local authorities to support organisations located in rural areas, as in towns and cities there are enough funds. As a consequence, many organisations apply for local funds through their local branches.

Schools, cultural centres and orphanages are the institutions most involved at rural level. Here foreign volunteers generally spend most part of their time, also thanks to the high level of autonomy given by the hosting institution, in developing strong relations with the local community. It was reported that in some cases the volunteer lives autonomously in the rural areas, providing the hosting organisation with information on a weekly basis.

Finally, Gurt reported that the 20% of their budget comes from the Municipality of Kiev, while Alternative V said that all the organisation’s personnel (who are volunteers working part-time) are not paid through national or regional funds but through projects funded by the Soros foundation or other international networks.


As for Russia, all interviewees share the opinion that the YOUTH programme has no visibility in the country and very little information is provided.

Generally, Ukrainian organisations have newsletters or little brochures, which are distributed by the volunteers themselves in schools and universities, or through the Internet. The latter is considered the best mean of disseminating information but is still not diffused and only few organisations have their own website.

Finally, there is an interesting aspect to underline. In Ukraine the presence of a foreign volunteer is still an event attracting local and national media which emphasise the volunteers’ activities. This is particularly common in rural areas.

In this context, the activity of Gurt organisation is of particular interest as its main activity is providing information and technical support to other NGOs and public authorities. In particular, Gurt promotes new programmes in Ukraine and realises training seminars on NGO issues. As it is known by practically all Ukrainian organisations, it represents an important point of reference for other NGOs.


According to the interviewees, there is no link between national policies and the Youth third-country cooperation programme, probably also due to the too recent fall of the Soviet Union and the still weak political stability of the country, which has other priorities. Most of the


Ecosfera S.p.A.

95

associations visited receive financial resources through their involvement in international networks, especially with US organisations, from international donors or within cooperation programmes implemented by EU organisations.

As far as sustainability is concerned, the projects aroused interest in future projects under the YOUTH programme. Nevertheless, the involvement of Ukrainian organisations in the third-country YOUTH cooperation Programme depends mostly on their contacts with PC organisations.


The main conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from the interviews are:

The Programme represents an important tool for increasing reciprocal knowledge and bridging the social and cultural gap between European countries and Ukraine. All interviewees were quite enthusiastic about the experience made, seen as a little step towards their integration in the EU.

Volunteers working in rural areas often become important points of reference for the local community. This is an extremely positive factor which attracts also the attention of both local and national media. Anyway, once the volunteer’s stay comes to an end and there is no replacement, the potential future impact of the project may result fruitless.

As concerns the problems emerged, they are very similar to those indicated by Russian organisations, thus showing similar difficulties to be faced by CIS region organisations.

First, the procedure for obtaining visa or residence permits is the most common and serious critical point. Many embassies do not know the Programme and thus they are not aware of the possibilities offered young Ukrainians to go abroad. The recommendation is to ask the EC Delegations in Ukraine to inform the embassies about the Programme and prepare a standard letter to obtain the visa and residence permits for NGOs which participate in the Programme.

Lack of information about the YOUTH programme is the second major problem. Information is normally passed by word of mouth or through the NGOs’ networks. Furthermore, all documents are in English and many local NGOs’ do not know it. If some material written in Ukrainian (i.e. a user’s guide) should be created, most organisations could be better informed about the Programme and the participation would increase.

Financial problems also emerged: the main problem is given by bank transfers. In some countries bank transfers are not possible at all, while in others they are heavily taxed31. In some cases, also pocket money is subject to taxes.

A large number of interviewees underlined that they had to wait for a long time to receive answers about the results of the application. This problem is particularly serious for organisations working on a voluntary basis as they have to arrange their activities in consideration of the availability of the volunteers.

31 In both Russia and Ukraine, for example, also bank transfers of donations are taxed.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

96

Furthermore, it has been observed that many volunteers took plenty of time in learning Ukrainian or getting confident with the local environment. Some organisations have proposed to introduce in Action 2 projects a brief preparatory period, to be spent in the volunteer’s country, to learn the language, together with meetings for general organisational matters and the presentation of the specific project on which he will be working.

Finally, it could be useful for the success of Action 2 projects to let the volunteers be selected directly by the hosting organisation.


Ecosfera S.p.A. 97

ANNEX 1 - LIST OF CONSULTED ORGANISATIONS and PROJECTS VISITED


Ecosfera S.p.A. 98

ALBANIA


Name of the organisation Project number Action Contractor Year Date of the

interview

1 Kreshnik Collaku Associazione Italianisti d’Albania 93759 1.2 Italy 2001 31/03/2003

2 Floriana Hima/ Ariola Agolli

Albanian Youth Council 88169 5.1.2 Italy 2000 31/03/2003

3 Anila Sulstakova/ Daniela Leskoj

Independent Forum for the Albanian

Women 88169 5.1.2 Italy 2000 31/03/2003 and

01/04/2003

3 Xheni Sinakoli Albanian Society in Development 107154 5.1.2 Portugal 2003 01/04/2003

4 Blendi Dibra Intelektualet e Rinj. Shprese 105952 5.1.2 Italy 2003 01/04/2003

5 Bernard M. Derois Shoqata e Guidave dhe Scouteve ne

Shqiperi 107170 2.2 Italy 2003 02/04/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

99

BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA



Project Action Contractor Year

1 Senada Cesic Mladi Most 104361 2.2 France 2002

2 Jasminka Tadic Husanovic Prijateljice 103746 2.2 Germany 2002

3 Anka Izetbegovic Duga 107098 2.2 United Kingdom 2002

4 Tomislav Dobutovic Kairos Ministry 95439 2.2 Sweden 2001

5 Midhat Kapo Wings of Hope 92204 1.2 Germany 2001

6 Eleonora Emkic Proni Institut 88882 2.2 Sweden 2000

7 Biljana Ivanović of the

Directorate of European Integration

MINISTRY OF EUROPEAN

INTEGRATION


Ecosfera S.p.A.

100

CROATIA


Name of the organisation Project Action Contractor

Year

1 Boris Najdenovski

Globus association for intercultural

learning

107000 2.2 Germany 2003

2 Siniša Mitrović

Youth Peace Group Danube 92214 1.2 UK 2001

3 Zoran Vukić Antuntun 95374 2.1 Finland 2001

4 Magdalene Scherer

Franciscan Monastery 95584 2.2 Germany 2001

5 Goran Hosni Centre for creative work 92211 1.2 Austria 2001

6 Lidija Burić Volunteers Centre Zagreb 93703 5.1.2 Belgium 2001

7 Nada Jakir MINISTRY OF EDUCATION


Ecosfera S.p.A.

101

DENMARK



Project Action Contractor/Region of the Exchange

Year Date of the interview

1 Susan Krag Dansk American field service 88704 2.2 LA 2000 22/04/2003

2 Kim Brynaa Copenhagen City Youth School 104638 1.2 CIS 2002 22/04/2003

3 Morten Siesgaard Next Stop 105932 2.2 SEE 2001 23/04/2003

4 Bryan Rodrigues Terra Brasilis 107058 2.2 LA 2002 23/04/2003

5 Anne Marie Boile Nielsen Diakoni Aaret 107055 2.2 CIS 2002 23/04/2003

6 Ole Scholer Aalborg Ungdomsskole 105918 1.2 CIS 2002 24/04/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

102

GERMANY





1 Hans Joachim Rosenberg

Evangelische Kirchengemeinde 93688 1.2 SEE 2001 22/4/2003

2 Motamed Ashfari Behrooz

Bosporus Gesellschaft 88612 1.2 SEE 2000 23/4/2003

3 Simon Hubert Campus 15 88603 1.2 SEE 2000 23/4/2003

4 Salvatore Romagna ICYE Berlin 95328 2.2 CIS 2001 24/4/2003

5 Stephan Malerius Deutch Russicher 103786 2.2 CIS 2002 25/4/2003

6 Elisabeth Bolda Heinrich Boll Foundation 93840 2.2 LA 2001 24/4/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

103

ITALY


Name of the organisation Project Action Contractor/Region

of the Exchange Year Date of the interview

1 Davide Di Pietro and Erika Lombardi

Associazione Lunaria 95458 1.2 SEE 2001 01/04/2003

2 Silvia Volpi Veb Accademia Europea 107131 1.2 SEE 2002 04/04/2003

3 Gabriella Zoncapè and Lucia D’Auria

Cooperativa ideale Srl 92319 2.2 LA 2001 04/04/2003

4 Anja Gunjac Arci Nuova associazione 104859 5.1.2 SEE 2002 10/04/2003

5 Massimiliano

Viatore and Cuca Maset

Associazione per gli scambi e le

attività interculturali

80025 1.2 CIS 2000 10/04/2203

6 Gino Motta Associazione Polriva 107066 2.2 CIS 2002 07/04/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

104

SPAIN




1 Marc Castells and Josep Maria Carpi

Consell Camarcall de l’Anoia 93725 2 CIS 2001 23/06/2003

2 Ramon Canal and Anna Farrè

Coordinacio Catalana de

Colonies, Casals I Clubs d’Esplai

105779 1 LA 2002 23/06/2003

3 Paloma Fernandez Avila and Maria

Trevigno

Afaij Asociacion para la formacion y

actividades interculturales para

la juventud

107147

107158 2 LA 2002 24/06/2003

4 Jesus Migallon Sanz

Madrid Puerta Abierta 105782 5 SEE 2002 24/06/2003

5 Helena Buceta Facorro

Asociacion Espanola del

Esperimento de la Convivencia

95469

107213 1 LA 2001/2002 25/06/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

105

POLAND



Project Action Contractor/Region

of the Exchange Year


1 Michał Smoczyński Youth Support Foundation Bonus 102717 1.2 SEE 2001 03/05/2003

2 Waldemar Korycki EAST LINKS 95290 5.1.2 SEE 2002 05/05/2003

3 Piotr Fraczak/ Dariusz Wlazlic

Association for support of community initiatives

107043 5.1.2 SEE 2002 05/05/2003

4 Alicja Rożnowska Szpot

Jordan Youth Centre 105689 5.1.2 CIS 2002 06/05/2003

5 Agnieszka Pawlik Semper Avanti

105761

101549

105698

107042

1.2

2.2

5.1.2

CIS 2002 07/05/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

106

BRAZIL





1 Eduardo Assed AFS Intercultura Brasil 88872 2.2 CEE 2000 05/05/2003

2 Lola Campos SFB Solidariedade França Brasil 95297 2.2 France 2001 23/04/2003

3 Càndido Grzybowski

Ibase

Instituto brasilenho de anàlisis sociais-

econòmicos

107155 2.2 Spain 2002 24/04/2003

4 Marcos V.

Carrasqueira and Gisélia Poténgy

Idaco

Instituto de desenvolvimento e açao comunitaria

92288 2.2 France 2001 05/05/2003

5 Jairo Coutinho Viva Rio 88541 1.2 France 2000 25/04/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

107

MEXICO




1 Luciano Mendoza

and Moisés Dominguez

Instituto Mexicano de juventud (IMJ) 88853 5.1.2 Spain 2000 09/05/2003

2 Flores Vidal

Vimex

Voluntarios Internacionales

Mexico

95310 2.2 Belgium 2001 07/05/2003

3 Cristina Ruiz

Siijuve

Servicio internacional para

el intercambio juvenil

107147

104320 2.2 Spain and Finland 2002 08/05/2003

4 Maylet Osorio Yori-Yoreme 105811 2.2 Belgium 2002 08/05/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

108

RUSSIA




1 Sergey Nikitin and Sergei Grusko Friends House 88892 2 United Kingdom 2000 22/06/2003

2 Yelena Vilenskaya Soldiers Mothers of St. Petersburg

93856

105824 2 Belgium 2001 19/06/2003

3 Alexeev Vadim Youth Group of

Interchurch Partnership

105595 5 Belgium 2002 19/06/2003

4 Nadezda Malysheva

Help to Youth cooperation 105676 1 Netherlands 2002 19/06/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

109

UKRAINE




1 Volodymyr Horshykmin Ymca Ukraine 107055 2 Denmark 2002 24/06/2003

2 Hanna

Heichuk

Ukrainan association for

youth cooperation 107043 1 Poland 2002 25/06/2003

3 Vasylyna

Dybailo Gurt Gszentrum fur

NGO 103786 2 Germany 2002 25/06/2003


Ecosfera S.p.A. 110

ANNEX 2 – GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERVIEWS


Ecosfera S.p.A.

111

EVALUATION OF THIRD COUNTRY COOPERATION

OF THE YOUTH PROGRAMME 2000-2002

INTERNAL GUIDELINES FOR FIELD VISITS

Ecosfera S.p.A.

Viale Castrense, 8

00182 Roma ITALY


Ecosfera S.p.A.

112

1. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

The main aims of the evaluation are: to provide orientations and recommendations for the new Programme to be established in 2007 and to reorient the action in the second phase of the Programme, as it is now half-way of the Programme development.

In order to be able to make the said evaluation, it is necessary to analyse the activities carried out in the previous period (2000-2002) and to evaluate their results.

The objectives of the Programme are to allow young people to acquire knowledge, skills and competencies, and to exercise responsible citizenship in order to become an active part of society and being aware of the importance of promoting equal opportunities.

These main objectives are to be reached through the following specific objectives:

a) to promote an active contribution on the part of young people through their participation in transnational exchanges within the Community or with Third Countries in order to to develop understanding of the cultural diversity of Europe and its fundamental common values, to promote respect for human rights and to combat racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia;

b) to strengthen their sense of solidarity through more extensive participation of young people in transnational community-service activities;

c) to encourage young people’s initiative, enterprise and creativity and to stimulate recognition of the value of informal education acquired within a European context;

d) to reinforce cooperation in the field of youth by fostering the exchange of good practice, the training of youth workers/leaders and the development of innovative actions at Community level.

As regards the cooperation with Third Countries, the objectives32 are:

e) To promote universal peace, dialogue, tolerance and solidarity amongst young people by extending and deepening cooperation and solidarity;

f) To build long-lasting and solid partnership; g) To promote the exchange of youth work expertise and know-how between non-

governmental and governmental structures in European Union and Third Countries; h) To give participants a better understanding of their respective situations and cultures i) To help them explore their identities; j) To contribute to the development of the voluntary sector and civil society in the partner

countries.

The Programme is designed to achieve the above objectives through 5 main actions:

- Action 1 - Youth for Europe - Action 2 – European Voluntary Service - Action 3 – Youth Initiatives - Action 4 – Joint Actions

32 European Commission – Education and Culture, User’s guide 2003


Ecosfera S.p.A.

113

- Action 5 – Support measures

Only 3 of these actions apply to the projects run in cooperation with Third Countries: Action 1, 2, and 5.

For the achievement of the above objectives, the European Commission has established 30 National Agencies in each of the Programme countries.

Their primary role is to promote and implement the Programme at national level. Each National Agency acts as a link between the European Commission, project promoters at national, regional and local level, and the young people themselves. The Agencies are responsible for disseminating general information about the YOUTH programme as well as encouraging and facilitating the establishing of partnerships. They advise project promoters and organise different kinds of training activities. The National Agencies are the primary sources of information for the users of the Programme.

Table 1 - List of Programme countries

EU COUNTRIES EEA COUNTRIES

BELGIUM ISLAND

DENMARK LIECHTENSTEIN

GERMANY NORWAY

GREECE PRE-ACCESSION COUNTRIES

SPAIN BULGARIA

FRANCE CZECH REPUBLIC

IRELAND CYPRUS*

ITALY ESTONIA

LUXEMBOURG LATVIA

NETHERLAND LITHUANIA

AUSTRIA HUNGARY

PORTUGAL MALTA*


Ecosfera S.p.A.

114

FINLAND POLAND

SWEDEN ROMANIA

UNITED KINGDOM SLOVAK REPUBLIC

SLOVENIA

* Cyprus and Malta participate in Euromed.

In terms of evaluation, the main questions to be addressed will be:

- To what extent has the action helped young people to acquire knowledge, skills and competencies?

- How far has it developed young people’s understanding of cultural diversity and fundamental common values?

- Has the Programme enhanced mutual understanding and respect among young people from different countries?

- Has the participation in projects carried out in cooperation with Third Countries helped them to explore their identities?

- Has it increased the solidarity amongst young people? - To what extent has the action encouraged the development of youth structures and the

voluntary sector as a means to strengthen civil society in Third Countries, promoted exchanges of information, experience and good practice between NGOs and youth structures, and built solid and long-lasting partnerships of Programme countries and of Third Countries?

- To what extent has the action facilitated the training of youth workers? What kind of impact has it had on the youth workers with reference to the initial objectives?

- How far and in which way have third-country cooperation projects developed youth work methods?

As regards the evaluation of the impact a first relevant set of questions to be addressed are the following:

- Are there indications that active participation, responsible citizenship and integration of young people into society have been supported?

- Are there indications that the action has contributed to strengthen civil society and democracy in the participating countries?

- Are there indications that the action has produced an impact on peaceful relations cooperation between EU and Third Countries in question? Between Central and Eastern European pre-accession countries and neighbouring SEE and CIS countries? Among Third Countries of the same region?


Ecosfera S.p.A.

115

- Has the action already created stable relationships between people of the different countries of origin of the participants? If so, how long have these relationships lasted? What is the aim of the relationship? How is it structured?

- Has the participation in the action encouraged the young people involved to increase or improve the acquired knowledge of the society of the exchange countries? If so, what kind of study and/or activity have they carried out?

- Has it already created stable relationships between non-governmental and governmental structures in the European Union and Third Countries? If so, how long have these relationships lasted? What is the aim of the relationship? How is it structured?

- Has the participation in the action contributed to the creation or further development of the voluntary sector and civil society?

Hereafter you will find a first set of questions relevant for the interviews.


Ecosfera S.p.A.

116

2. SET OF QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEWS

GENERAL DATA

TITLE OF PROJECT

Project Code N°

|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|

City and Region of the organisation

NAME OF THE ORGANISATION

Name and role of the person filling in the questionnaire

Date of start of the activity (month and year):

Date of end of the activity (if ended) (month and year):

1. Which Action do(es) your project/projects belong to? 2. Explain the kind of organisations you belong to 3. Comments and description of the projects 4. How did you find out about the YOUTH programme? 5. Before applying for this project, did you have any experience in European funding? 6. If so, which programmes had you already participated in? (YOUTH , Socrates,

Leonardo ecc)

ACTIVITIES, BENEFICIARIES, RESULTS

AIMS AND TYPOLOGY OF PROJECT

1. If you did not get the funding from YOUTH, would the project be financed anyway? 2. If yes, thanks to which funding ? 3. Indicate the number of the participants expected and really involved in the project 4. How many are young people with less opportunities? 5. How did you get in touch with the participants ? 6. On the basis of which criteria did you select the participants?


Ecosfera S.p.A.

117

7. Did the participants get involved in the phases of idea definition or planning and drawing stage?

MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT

1. How did you find the procedures for the application to the YOUTH programme? - Description of the main difficulties and obstacles

2. How was the selection process? 3. How do you find the procedures to manage the YOUTH programme?

- Description of the main difficulties and obstacles 4. Did you have any problem or delays in running the project? 5. Did you ask for some kind of external support in order to better achieve the expected

results? - If so, whom did you contact? (l’assistenza tecnica, l’agenzia nazionale, la

Commissione ecc.)

RESULTS AND IMPACT

6. Which will be the most significant impact your project had/will have? - ON THE PARTICIPANTS - ON THE ORGANISATIONS (la loro organizzazione e quella dei

partecipanti) - ON THE LOCAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL

2. What has been the impact of transnationality in achieving the aims of your projects? 3. Has your project facilitated the development of youth work methods?

PARTNERSHIP

1. How many and which transnational partners were involved in your project? 2. In which phase of the project has the cooperation with the transnational partners been more effective? 3. Do you think you will keep on cooperating with these partners? 4. Did you have problems in cooperating with some of the organisations because of the

country they come from? - If so, why?


1. Which local actors are involved in the project? 2. How did you know the local actors? 3. Did they know about the TC Strand of the YOUTH programme? 4. Do you think that local community involvement was fundamental for the success of

your project? 5. Did the YOUTH project allow you to trigger additional funding?


Ecosfera S.p.A.

118

DISSEMINATION AND REPLICABILITY

1. Did you organise or will you promote activities in order to disseminate the results of your action? 2. If so, how did you or will you do it? 3. Which is or will be the target groups of the dissemination of results?

RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE INTERVIEWEE

interim evaluation of third country cooperation of … · 2017-01-26 · evaluation of third...

Documents