• Regional Youth Council Schleswig-Holstein
• Baltic Youth Office
• Baltic Times
• Norden

• Partner

• 
• Union of the Baltic Cities
• 
• Commission on Youth Issues
• 
• BSSSC
• 
• Baltic Sea Net

• Council of the
  Baltic Sea States

Meeting 29-31 March 2004 in Berlin

Topics

• 1. Evaluation, part I


• 2. Evaluation, part II


• 3. Minister conference


• 4. Financial report 2003/ budget 2004


• 5. Activity report of the Secretariat


• 6. Baltic Sea Youth Centre/ study visit to Finland


• 7. CSO meeting, invitation of the WGYA


• 8. Prolongation of the Mandate of the Secretariat


• 9. Working Plan for 2004


• 10. Presentation on BSSSC youth activities by Anna Golec


• 11. Presentation by Nathalie Stockwell, EU Commission


• 12. National youth policy presentations

Follow up

Monday, 29 March 2004

The meeting started with a short presentation round of the participants, since the representative from Latvia, Ms Renata Minnibajeva, and the representative from Lithuania, Mr Juozas Meldziukas attended the meeting of the Working Group for the first time.

Due to major changes in the governmental structures in Russia, Roman Alexandrov could not be present. The Danish Working Group member, Charlotte Netterstrom, excused herself, too.

1. Evaluation, part I

The evaluation process was started with a short self-presentation of the evaluators, Mr Klaus Potthoff and Ms Marieke van Dijk of the schiff gmbh, Germany. Their company is located in Kiel and very active in the field of network management and counselling for enterprises, evaluating processes and also interested in Baltic Sea cooperation.

The evaluators employed certain methods to get to know the Working Group members and then presented their approach to the evaluation. It is based on a so called RADAR method and on a questionnaire that should be distributed to the ministries.

RADAR stands for: Results (objectives), Approach (strategy), Deployment (implementation), Assessment, Review

The questionnaire (see attachment) should be filled in by the national ministries responsible for youth affairs. The same questionnaire should be sent to other structures in the BSR dealing with youth issues.

The meaning and value as well as the set up of the these two methods did not became clear to the participants. They expressed dissatisfaction with the approach and presentations of the evaluators. The common impression was that the evaluators do not have the necessary understanding of the region and the structures in youth cooperation.

Furthermore the methods presented did not seem to match the scope of the evaluation as it was defined by the working group members.

It was proposed to end the contract with these evaluators and start the process anew.

This was put into practice on Tuesday morning.

Tuesday, 30 March 2004

2.Evaluation, part II:

The WG discussed the question on how to deal with this new situation. It became clear that the evaluation is further a high priority and should be conducted and finished in 2004. It was agreed upon the following Finances:

• Germany: 9,500 EUR


• Sweden: 3,600 EUR


• Finland: 3,000 EUR


• Norway: 2,400 EUR


• Poland : 1,750 EUR


• Estonia : 1,000 EUR

Total 21,250 EUR - 5,000 EUR (first try)
16,250 EUR

Procedure:

• each Working Group member will look for new potential evaluators in their respective country


• by April 30, the candidates shall be presented via email to the Secretariat (name, background, CV, availability)


• the Secretariat will put together a summary on the candidates and send it out to the Working Group


• by May 10, all ministries shall name their priorities on the candidates via email to the Secretariat


• the Secretariat will send out a summary on the decisions to the group


• the final decision will be made by the task force on the basis of that summary (Sweden, Estonia, RYC)


• evaluator prepares a proposal for the evaluation


• 14-15 June extra meeting with the evaluator and the working group


• costs for travel and accommodation are covered by the ministries[/item
  
• 3-4 months time for the evaluation (in total)

Criteria for the evaluators:

• knowledge in youth work,


• knowledge in Baltic sea affairs/cooperation,


• scientific background,


• experience in dealing with governmental level

Objectives for the evaluation :

• based on the 4 questions from Tartu, see below


• how to use the EU YOUTH Program for the Baltic Sea youth cooperation


• Northern Dimension Action Plan and the partnership for Health and Social well being


• invite the evaluators to come up with proposals on how to approach the BSR cooperation in the future (after EU enlargement)


• define conclusions/directions for the evaluation


• come up with an outlook for the future of the cooperation

1. How has the Working Group on Youth Affairs (and the former Steering Committee) and the Baltic Sea Secretariat on Youth Affairs contributed to the implementation of the Plans of Actions?

2. How did they involve other actors (Baltic Youth Forum, Baltic Sea Youth Project, Baltic Youth Office, Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation, Union of the Baltic Cities, Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference) in the focussing on youth questions in the Baltic Sea cooperation?

3. How their work on the level of national ministries and national youth councils has contributed in each country to the interest in the Baltic Sea youth cooperation as part of the international cooperation in the youth field?

4. What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the Baltic Sea Cooperation in the youth field regarding the Working Group and its Secretariat? Based on this, what future activities, e.g. voluntary services, Northern Dimension Action Plan & the Partnership for Health and Social well being, use of the EU YOUTH Programme, etc. could be further developed, taking into account the financial resources of the actors involved?

3. Next ministers (ministerial) conference

The discussion made clear that the WG members do not see an acute need for a Baltic Sea Ministers Conference in the upcoming year. However, organising a Baltic Sea Youth Conference, as Lübeck 2002, might be of value. It is important to identify three main topics and clear ideas for such a conference.

4. Financial report 2003/ Budget 2004

The financial reports were presented by the Regional Youth Council of Schleswig-Holstein, the administrative body of the Secretariat

The WG asked to receive a signed budget and the sealed page of the audit report.

For the budget 2004 the following was asked from the Youth Council:

i. add under wages: Sandra + Secretary 15h/ week

ii. footnote for the Working Group meeting on the German contribution

iii. add expected contribution in kind from Russia

5. Activity report 2003

Presentation by the Secretariat, see attachment

6. Baltic Sea youth Centre/ study visit to Finland

In November 2003 Finland and Lithuania were named as members of a task force on the Baltic Sea Youth Centre. In that frame Finland offered to organise a study visit to Finnish youth centres in order to provide information on the different forms and types of youth centres. The study visit took place from 7-10 March 2004. Participants were

• Arunas Kemezys-. from Lijot (Lithuanian National Youth Council),


• Snieguole Andruskaite from the Lithuanian State Council for Youth Affairs,


• Marius Seijedal from LNU (Norwegian National Youth Council),


• Seija Astala from the Finnish Ministry of Education and


• Sandra Weidemann from the Baltic Sea Secretariat for Youth Affairs

Lithuania informed during the study visit that Lijot, the Lithuanian National Youth Council, was given the task to develop a concept for the establishment of the Youth Centre

Juozas Meldziukas from Lithuania presented a first concept paper on the establishment of the Centre to the Working Group. (has been distributed to the participants)

The WG discussed that such a Centre must clearly define its peculiarity in regard to other youth centre. Funding for investing in the establishment of the centre might be available but financial support for the running of the centre might become difficult.

The WG recommended the following to the actors in Lithuania:

• Finnish experience shows that it is more promising to start on a regional level and grow into the international one


• Study the development of the Swedisch international youth centre in Eksjö


• not to put too much focus on the private sector, otherwise the profile of youth centre will disappear


• to have an international board for running the centre (lesser emphasis on Lithuanian participation)


• the Centre should be located close to Vilnius due to infrastructure reasons

Follow up

• continuation of the investigation


• working group could function as an advisory body on that issue

7. CSO meeting in Pärnu, 15th April

The Working Group has been invited to send a representative to the meeting of the Council of Senior Officials of the CBSS. It was discussed what message the WG wants to give to the CSO and what issues should be brought on their agenda. The issues identified were:

a) support from the CSO needed on the visa issues with Russia – in the sense of visas being a huge obstacle to the mobility of young people

b) objectives of the work of the WG

The CSO also asked if the WG wishes to participate on a regularly basis in further meetings. The WG agreed to establish a system according to other CBSS Working Groups and expressed a general interest in participating in the meetings

8. Prolongation of the Secretariat

The Secretariat, as the working body of the Working Group, has been active based on a mandate upon which all ministries in the WG agreed. The first mandate was given from 1999-2002 and a second one from 2002-2004.

With December 2004 coming closer the ministries have to decide upon a further prolongation of the Secretariat and its mandate. However, the outcome of the evaluation is in some countries important to define this mandate. Therefore it was proposed to prolong the mandate of the Secretariat for one year. In the run of this year the findings of the evaluation can be discussed and included in the new mandate which again should cover a longer period. The prolongation of the Secretariat is connected with financial contributions from all countries in the Working Group. Thus, only countries that contribute their share to the budget of the Secretariat can participate in the Working Group and decide upon the work and tasks of the Secretariat.

Germany, Norway and Finland indicated their readiness to continue the support for the Secretariat for at least one more year and underlined that there is a political will to support it also beyond 2005. Sweden needs the results of the evaluation and will afterwards decide upon a longer commitment.

It was decided that for the meeting in June all ministries should indicate their positions on the prolongation of the Secretariat for at least one year and also beyond. At the meeting by the end of 2004, with the results of the evaluation, a commitment from all member state should be made on the future of the Secretariat.

9. Discussion of the Working Plan 2004

A proposal for the Working Plan 2004 was presented by the Secretariat. On that basis the WG discussed the following and proposed further activities:

• develop a more unified plan – tasks of the Sec/ tasks of the WG (from terms of references, agreement on the mandate, plan of action Vilnius)


• possible topics for seminars: e.g. youth research, drug prevention, voluntary services


• define objectives for the future of the coop


• develop criteria to measure the effectiveness of the work of the Sec/ role of the WG


• better promotion for the website/ new CMS (include the number of hits on the website, possible to find out how many hits per country?)


• prepare for the continuation of the cooperation between the ministries & the Secretariat


• website: add a section with requirements for getting visas to Russia


• potential youth conference for the upcoming year(s)


• better contact with the NAs, receive information on their activities/ develop common


• draft a paper on the continuation of the Secretariat for the meeting in June (agreement, terms of references, annual/ bi-annual working plan)

10. Presentation on BSSSC youth activities by Anna Golec, BSSSC Secretariat

• see attached file

debate on concrete activities:

• annual conference of BSSSC in Malmö in October 2004, will include youth issues, Swedish youth contact partners are needed


• financial point of view, covering costs for young people participating in the conference


• information on BSSSC youth coordinators; struggles with financial problems for organising meetings and activities


• meeting 2nd/3rd July in Gdansk, seminar of the BSSSC board together with young people, topics “labour issues” (labour market, non-formal education matters, mobility of labour forces - reservations), “voluntary services”


• support for recruitment, moderators, speakers

11. Presentation by the EU Commission

• background on the open-method of coordination


• November 2003, common objectives on participation and information have been adopted by the EU members


• Common objectives on “a better knowledge and understanding of young people” developed by the COM, aims to implement the best possible measures for youth policy issues by learning to better understand young people


• Consultation processes with youth researchers and with young people


• Analysis of the COM shows that there is a broad knowledge on youth issues, collected by different structures in the member countries but this information is scattered


• It was decided to


1) identify the knowledge in the area of youth participation, information, voluntary activities


• trying to fill gaps - supplementation
  
  2) make sure that the information is always up-dated and that it is accessible
  
  
• on the European level (Eurostat, etc.) include youth indicators


• develop a data base with these information and make it accessible to everyone


• Second set of themes: autonomy, non-formal learning (results from consultations with young people and researchers)


• will be dealt with on a second stage


3) once the information is available, ensuring of quality is important

4) dialogue, lack of dialogue among the different actors in the field


• focus on network, stimulate member states to develop networks (regrouping of actors in the field)

Reporting will be asked from the member states.

Proposal to make it an issue for the WG.

12. National Youth Policy Presentations

Iceland

• “White book” on youth work in Iceland


• New act/law on youth policy under development


• Establishment of youth houses in different areas becomes popular in Iceland, until now there are 11 youth houses, with different backgrounds and ideas (run by the red cross)


• Ministry and Red Cross involved in the financing of the houses

Lithuania

• see attached file

Poland

• youth policy unit in the ministry


• implementation of Polish youth strategy, paper has been distributed


• idea to create 16 regional youth councils in Poland

Finland

• civil participation program, aim to increase active participation of young people, e.g. in elections


• revision of youth work act, involvement of the ministry, youth researchers and Alliannssi


• revision started with enlarged discussion via internet


• discussion on which values the legislation should be based


• new legislation come into force by 2006


• preventive measures against substance abuse by young people (840,000 EUR allocated to local authorities and organisation for improving their capacities for drug abuse prevention)

Estonia

• decrease in funding on national level


• application for support from European level


• creation of a system of participation and decision making policies


• youth policy council, round table of youth work organisations, 8 expert groups coordinated by ENTK on different youth issues (10-15 people per group), planned to create a ministerial youth issue roundtable – exchange between the ministries in Estonia


• 5 year anniversary of youth work act in April 2004


• youth voluntary work forum in October

Latvia

• See attached file


• two different drafts for Latvian youth law

Norway

• reform of the child welfare system, put into force by 1 January 2004


• all measures in that area which prev. have been run by the counties have been taken over by the state


• purpose is to have a better quality of the different programs and measures


• finalization of CoE-Process of youth policy in Norway


• national report and international review should be available by all the ministries


• Norwegian youth minister suggested to CoE to have better coherence between CoE policy for children and CoE policy for youth

Sweden

• most important issue: new government bill (steering doc. for the following years)


• Swedish inheritance fund has 5 Mio SEK for youth cooperation with the Baltics and Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, topics: youth participation, human rights, gender equality, intercultural learning and tolerance


• research on “young outsiders”, problems, backgrounds and recommendations

Follow up

• look for potential evaluators and send proposals to the Secretariat by 30 April


• decide upon final evaluator and send decision to the Secretariat by 10 May


• Sweden: help for BSSSC to find youth contact partners in Malmö for BSSSC annual conference


• Support BSSSC youth event (recruitment, moderators, speakers) 2/3 July in Gdansk


• Discuss the prolongation of the mandate of the Secretariat beyond 2004

Next meeting: 14/15 June in Copenhagen
Minutes: Sandra Weidemann