MEP Marie-Christine Vergiat defends a sustainable funding for European organisations at CULT Committee

The 30 Stakeholders’ Coalition initiated by EUCIS-LLL and the Youth Forum following up on “Erasmus for all” gathered on 2 July and decided to increase the pressure on MEPs concerning a sustainable administrative support for European organisations. A letter has been sent to MEPs of the CULT Committee to defend the EU added value of European organisations and express their essential need for new funding schemes if operating grants were to be cut in the next programme. Stakeholders remain flexible to discuss eligibility criteria; Commissioner Vassiliou also showed some openness for further negotiations. See EUCIS-LLL and the Coalition’s positions and amendments. See also below (“institutional news” section) the intervention of MEP Marie-Christine Vergiat on this issue during the last CULT Committee.
30 STAKEHOLDERS’ PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT REGULATION “ERASMUS FOR ALL”
Contact: Audrey Frith, EUCIS-LLL, on behalf of the coalition, +32 2.234.61.38, Audrey.Frith@eucis-lll.eu.
“Erasmus for All” is the new programme proposed by the European Commission on 23 November 2011 for education, training, youth and sport. The draft regulation is now being discussed at the European Parliament and Council. The coalition praises the proposed budget of 19 billion EUR while acknowledging that it is a minimum allocation necessary to have a real impact in the current economic crisis and to match the ambitious targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. It also welcomes the commitment to simplify the programme. However it considers that some adjustments could be brought to the proposed Regulation in order to ensure a greater impact and European added value. This concerns the need to reinforce the lifelong learning dimension and the recognition of key and transversal competences and skills gained through non-formal education, to strengthen the complementary aims of learning – active citizenship, social inclusion and employability as equally important. Furthermore, it is crucial to better acknowledge the importance of civil dialogue and civil society and the support to them. The coalition invites EU institutions to take into account the arguments that underlie each of these statements. It also presents very concrete proposals in order to simplify the management and administration of the future programme.
Key Messages
As developed in this position paper
PART 1: CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE GENERAL APPROACH & STRUCTURE
1. Why we should reinforce the lifelong learning approach and how to do it
2. Why we should reinforce the social dimension and how to do it
3. Why we should reinforce active citizenship and how to do it
4. Why we should reinforce civil dialogue and how to do it
5. Management and simplification
PART 2 – ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT SIMPLIFICATIONS
1. Simplifying application procedures in 4 steps
2. Simplifying the financial management of projects
3. Ensuring the sustainability of EU projects and networks
4. Guiding principles for authorising officers
5. Specific rules for operating grants
PART 1: CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE GENERAL APPROACH & STRUCTURE
1. Why we should reinforce the lifelong learning approach and how to do it
The coalition welcomes the idea to have a programme that supports a lifelong approach to learning but we consider that the proposed Regulation is insufficiently reflecting this approach in terms of opening the programme to all type of learners from early childhood to seniors. It also observes a lack of coherence especially on indicators and definitions. Lifelong learning is a continuum that the programme should reflect with a genuine integrated approach. We can only achieve this if all the sectors are covered and their actors encouraged to work together.
1.1. All sectors should be given equal importance. EU programmes give a positive impulse and are complementary to the work that is done at national, regional and local levels in all the sectors – secondary and higher education, vocational education and training, non-formal education and adult education. All the target groups from the current programmes should have adequate opportunities to continue to receive EU support. For instance, the transnational mobility of primary and secondary students, of adult learners should be promoted together with that of higher education and vocational training students and of young people involved in non-formal activities (article 7.1(a)). Clear mechanisms that will guarantee this equal access, for example by planning to allocate a certain proportion of funding to the various target groups, should be mentioned in the Regulation itself. It will ensure that small organisations – which are primarily found in the school, youth work and adult education fields – have opportunities to participate alongside bigger institutions. Appropriate indicators should also be defined for each target groups (article 5). Finally, internationalisation should concern all the sectors (article 8) and not only higher education. Furthermore, the structure needs to be clarified in order to ensure that the programme is tailor-made for each learner group. This means that the three types of actions (article 6) be implemented in a way that is relevant to each target group.
1.2. We call for a clearer recognition of non-formal education. We regret that this sector is not mentioned in the scope of the programme (article 1) or in the Communication that accompanies the Regulation whereas it plays an important role, including in the outreach to disadvantaged groups. Today more and more learning takes place in non-formal or informal settings. Civil society organisations that provide quality non-formal education, notably youth organisations, should thus be supported at national and European level. It is also important to recognise and validate these learning outcomes. Furthermore; we ask for a clarification in the use of “non-formal learning” when in fact it should refer to the “non-formal education” sector (notably in article 2 Definitions).
1.3. Cooperation for innovation and good practices should aim towards common goals. We feel it is important to look at remaining barriers within educational systems to encourage more flexible lifelong learning pathways. The Regulation focuses too much on partnerships between the education and business worlds. Furthermore it creates a distinction between higher education and VET (article 8 b). We recommend that the goals of partnerships be focused on modernising education and training systems, on capacity building for organisations from all sectors and on learners’ personal development, active citizenship and social inclusion. Applicants should be encouraged to build projects with various types of actors: educational institutions, civil society organisations, social partners and local authorities. Indeed the format of these partnerships should depend on the challenges identified and on learners’ needs. As the High Level Group on Lifelong Learning (High Level Expert Group, “Analysis of critical factors for the implementation of Lifelong Learning strategies and policies”, 2010) concluded: “lifelong learning can only succeed if (these) parties work towards common goals and complement each other. Therefore, cooperation, consultation, consensus building and fruitful partnership are crucial.” This is even more important if we really want to achieve an integrated approach. In the same way, the aims of learning mobility should be clarified (article 7). More emphasize should be given to personal development, social inclusion and active citizenship and a specific mention to intercultural learning and to language teaching should be made.
1.4. Most of our networks feel that the denomination “Erasmus for All” is not appropriate. For many people it refers to higher education and students’ mobility whereas lifelong learning covers formal, non-formal and informal learning. We are concerned that, by using a brand name which is so strongly affiliated to a specific programme, it could lead to misconceptions and end up being misleading for the general public. Furthermore it goes against the EU priority to raise awareness on lifelong learning – and we know a funding programme is a great leverage to do so. “Lifelong Learning” or “Learning Europe” might be more appropriate brand names and would allow continuity with the current programme that has proved to be successful; many actors in Europe know the name already. Download 30 STAKEHOLDERS’ PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT REGULATION “ERASMUS FOR ALL”.