EUROPE 2000 - Youth participation: the role of young people as citizens - CG (6) 7 Part II

Rapporteur: Mr Venturini (San Marino)

-------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe has been invited to adopt a position on the participation of young people.

A number of years after a European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Municipal and Regional Life was adopted in 1992 in Resolution 237, the time has come to review the question of the relationship of young people to public life.

Firstly, it stands to reason that the quality of our freedoms, our democracy and of the growth of citizenship depend upon the extent to which citizens participate in public affairs and secondly, their future is closely tied to the involvement of the younger generations.

The major changes of 1989 mean that the 1990s were particularly eventful in political, social and economic terms.

Now we have sufficient distance to assess the situation and consider whether the lessons of the recent past can guide us towards the new millennium which is now so close (Europe 2000).

In particular, as regards implementation of the Charter, are there new factors in respect of youth participation? How will the situation develop in Council of Europe member states and especially in central and eastern European countries?

For these reasons the CLRAE’s Youth Group decided to hold a conference entitled "Europe 2000: Young People and their towns: what involvement? Comparing policies (23-25 October 1997)" at the European Youth Centre in Budapest, in co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly, the Governing Board of the EYC/EYF and the European Steering Committee for Intergovernmental Co-operation in the Youth Field.

About 200 people took part in the conference, during which both adults involved in politics and representatives of young people spoke.

The following report aims to give a brief overview of the conference and to describe the thinking behind the draft resolution.

I - INTRODUCTION

In his opening speech, on Thursday 23 October 1997, the anniversary of the 1956 Revolution, the Mayor of Budapest, Mr Gabor DEMSZKY, emphasised the heroic role of students and young workers in Budapest and the Hungarian countryside, forty years earlier. Throughout the period of resistance and during the fighting in 1956, 1968 and 1980-81, young people had acted as a catalyst. Today’s young people had inherited something extremely precious from those generations, namely the ability to enjoy freedoms which had been so hard won.

Nevertheless, the role of public authorities in integrating young people into local life remained important. In what ways did the town of Budapest, in particular, plan to implement the Charter?

Activities had included a total overhaul of vocational training in order to combat youth unemployment, young people’s sense of initiative and business start-ups had been given a boost by the involvement of the Enterprise 2000 Foundation, efforts had been made to facilitate freedom of expression and communication (through youth newspapers in schools, Internet access etc) and study grants had been awarded.

The Municipality was not oblivious to the risks to young people and had therefore introduced a complex programme of preventive action and awareness-raising in conjunction with other social operators. An ecology awareness-raising programme had been established by several schools in Budapest. In short, Budapest was endeavouring to integrate young people into local life but the town – the country’s social, political and economic centre – also wanted to lead Hungary into Europe. The two goals were complementary.

Mr O'BRIEN, Vice-President of the CLRAE, relocated the conference in the context of the Council of Europe and its recent development, more particularly in that of the CLRAE and its basic texts. Thus, the European Charter on Local Self-Government considered, in its Preamble, that local authorities were one of the main foundations of any democratic regime and that the right of citizens to participate in the conduct of public affairs was one of the democratic principles shared by all Council of Europe member states. It was at the local level that this right could be exercised most directly and the existence of local authorities possessing effective responsibilities made efficient and accessible local government possible. While the Charter on the Participation of Young People in Municipal and Regional Life, adopted in 1992 – unlike the European Charter on Local Self-Government or even the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Local Life – was not a binding legal text subject to ratification, it nevertheless carried considerable moral weight and was of growing importance. The participation of young people was not simply a fashionable concept but also a necessity, given the current economic and social climate. Its implementation could not be disassociated from the current context in general or from its impact on young people.

In 1994, in its Recommendation 5 on Europe and its elderly people, the CLRAE had proposed a “pact between generations” emphasising the mutual responsibilities and obligations between different age groups. Such a pact, however warranted, now needed to be supplemented by an institutional pact on the role of young people as citizens. Young people could no longer be asked to bear the increasing burden of the future unless they were given help to shape our shared world. This meant helping young people to increase their commitment to the community, in particular through the cultural and social fields, leisure activities, sports and solidarity-related and environmental activities.

Resolution 43, adopted by the CLRAE in 1997, on presentation by its Youth Group, had recommended that Europe be opened to all young people from all social backgrounds, notably through "travel" in the sense of being generated by genuine group activity in which the youngest members of the community learnt to work together, to share their time and interests, to make friends and support each other. It would also be a good idea to give young people greater opportunities to travel more and enter different occupations by providing them with a genuinely multilingual education, which would be a source of new activities and future employment (as envisaged by, inter alia, CLRAE Recommendation 25 (1996) on unemployment/employment: new activities and occupations. It had to be stressed in this respect that the CLRAE did not foresee an elitist Europe: Resolution 236 on a policy for multicultural integration, the Charleroi Declaration and Resolution 243 on social exclusion and citizenship were there to remind us of this.

While the purpose of local democracy was principally to foster citizenship, civic commitment and the capacity to act freely together were needed to preserve, renew and develop our local institutions. The time had perhaps come for local and regional authorities to recognise young people as partners in community life and to support the creation of ad hoc bodies promoting democratic discussion and the formulation of proposals as already existed in some towns and regions in the form of youth councils, youth parliaments, youth forums and appropriate public places and bodies in which young people learned to become responsible adult citizens. However, from the beginning, adult institutions needed to enable young people to contribute to a democratic town or regional project while at the same time opening up to young people in a complementary spirit of sharing decision-making.

The Youth Director at the Council of Europe, Mr Franco MARZIALE, the Chair of the Sub-Committee on Youth and Sport of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Mikko ELO, and the Chair of the European Steering Committee for Intergovernmental Co-operation in the Youth Field, Ms Francine Meyer, then each gave the view of their respective institutions on the situation of young people in Europe and on the issue of youth participation in political life.

Special emphasis was placed on Committee of Ministers Recommendation (97) 3 on youth participation and the future of civil society. Such participation, especially that of disadvantaged young people, was "a decisive factor in ensuring social cohesion and upholding democracy and the values of a multicultural society". This text recalled "that any national youth policy must be reflected at local level if it is to respond appropriately and flexibly to the particular needs, aspirations and culture of a specific population and that youth participation must become one of the guiding principles of local youth policies". The Committee of Ministers recommended that the governments of Council of Europe member states encourage the participation of young people in voluntary organisations and support the development, at local and regional levels, of appropriate facilities for political and civic participation and encourage the implementation of the European Charter on the participation of young people in municipal and regional life.

II - THE EUROPEAN CHARTER ON THE PARTICIPATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL LIFE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

Mr Claude CASAGRANDE (France), Chair of the CLRAE’s Youth Group, presented the first introductory report to the conference.

With a view to the Budapest Conference, the Youth Group had launched a survey in the form of a questionnaire sent to towns and regions of Europe on youth participation policies and implementation of the Charter. Mr Alain ROY, CLRAE consultant (Université des Sciences Humaines, Strasbourg) had drafted an assessment report on the basis of the 407 replies received from 30 countries.

The survey results had been given to all conference participants in writing (see doc.Conf.Jeunes (97) 1) and in person. Before briefly summarising them, it would be useful to give an overview of the European Charter.

Part I on "sectoral policies" emphasised that young people’s participation in municipal and/or regional life needed to be part of a comprehensive policy based on the coherent interlinking of policies on leisure activities and community organisations, employment, the living and urban environment, training and education, mobility, preventive social and health measures, the dissemination of information, equality of treatment, rural regions, culture and the environment.

Such policies needed to be implemented in conjunction with young people and their representatives. Part II therefore set out the various forms of institutional participation that municipalities and other territorial authorities were endeavouring to introduce: a youth delegate, a structure for joint management of projects and a structure for consultation so that sectoral policies could be devised and followed up.

Sectoral policies and forms of participation were closely linked in the questionnaire sent to towns and regions.

The replies on municipal and regional structures for youth participation revealed a great diversity of forms not only between countries but also within the same country. Nevertheless, in general, the two main areas of participation were, firstly, youth organisations which co-ordinated and even shared in decision-making on youth policies and, secondly, more recently, ad hoc consultative structures, some of which had decision-making powers as appropriate on some projects managed autonomously within the limits of budgetary provision: municipal youth councils, youth parliaments etc. Many replies highlighted public support for youth clubs, peer groups, youth forums etc.

It appeared that traditional and recent forms of participation complemented rather than competed with each other since they all aimed to teach young people to assume responsibility. However, clearly facilities set up by municipalities relied more heavily on the involvement of young people in everyday and local affairs, the management of local, accessible projects and learning about citizenship. The replies also emphasised the aims of participation as perceived by young people on the one hand and elected representatives and officials on the other as well as obstacles which hampered the successful participation of young people.

The questionnaire sought to assess the European Charter’s impact. Thus, approximately 50% of replies claimed to be familiar with the Charter (now available in several languages)1 and described priority policy areas (sectoral policies).

The Charter seemed to give elected representatives and policy-makers reference points to help them devise youth policy. It allowed for greater consistency in work with young people and more operational planning of youth activities. It encouraged young people to participate by providing an appropriate working framework and clarified the various types of potential facilities for participation within a municipality or region.

For youth organisations, the Charter offered a framework which made an operational approach possible and gave substance to municipal and regional youth policies. Approximately 22% of replies emphasised that it had helped in establishing youth councils. In general, it was motivating for young people already involved in participatory bodies.

The survey highlighted the fact that the Charter was no substitute for the political will to create/support participatory facilities for young people at local and regional level nor for young people’s determination to play a part in political affairs and take an interest in public life. Lack of interest in political debate and the negative image of politics among young people were stressed by 87% of the replies.

YOUTH PLANET: the birth of a European network

Marton BEKE, a 20 year-old Hungarian, announced the launch of a new European body for co-operation called Youth Planet (participation of young people in networks of local authorities in today’s Europe).

The idea had first been mooted during a joint meeting of ANACEJ (National Association of Youth Councils, France) and INJEP (National Institute for Youth and Open Learning, France) in Marly-le-Roi (France) on 6 February 1995. It was a preparatory meeting for a conference on “the participation of young Europeans in local life”, due to take place in Strasbourg in November of that year, on the invitation of the municipality and with Council of Europe support. Approximately 100 representatives from 17 countries had taken part in the Strasbourg Conference which had laid the foundations for European co-operation. Immediately afterwards the participants had set up or developed national federations to co-ordinate the various types of municipal structures for youth participation and youth organisations elected by young people at local level.

Not only the idea but also the purpose, goals and structure of a European federation had been agreed upon during two subsequent meetings of representatives from five European countries which had already organised a national federation with France, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Switzerland as members.

It had been decided to register the new European federation, called Youth Planet in France, with its central office in the premises of ANACEJ in Paris2 and at the same time to apply for membership of the European Youth Forum as an international NGO. It had also been decided that three committees should be set up on, respectively, national associations, children’s and young people’s representatives and adults and professionals supporting the initiative. Two projects had been devised: firstly training programmes for elected representatives, adults and adult youth assistants and, secondly setting up a resource centre which currently held information on Youth Planet and national associations.

The assembly of Youth Planet had met for the first time in Budapest at the EYC on 22 October 1997. The active members were as follows:

– ANACEJ (central office of Youth Planet, Paris);
– PAL-TIN Foundation (Bucharest);
– Democrazia in Erba (Rome);
– FSPJ (Rufenacht, Switzerland);
– Gyermek-és Itfusàgi Önkormànyati Tàrsasàg (Budapest).

The associate members were:

Devon Youth Council (Exeter, UK).

The observers were:

– Nigel Hillier (Exeter, UK);
– Bernard Abrignani (Marly-le-Roi, France).

The Chair of the new association was Mr Claude CASAGRANDE, the Vice-Chair was Mr Marton BEKE, the Secretary General, Mr Ion OLTEANU and the Treasurer, Mr Giovanni CASTELLANI.

III - COMPARING TOWN POLICIES

On Friday, 24 October 1997, an initial session was devoted to the experience of participation in several European towns, with Mr Karl Christian ZAHN (CLRAE member and Mayor of Dorsten in Germany) in the chair.

Representing the municipality of Budapest (with roughly 2 million inhabitants), Mr Andras SZABO started by pointing out that the Hungarian capital was divided into 23 districts, each with competence in the youth field. The municipality’s role was primarily to initiate and co-ordinate activities. However, direct intervention in some areas was possible, in association with other bodies. Nonetheless, municipalities had to make a better job of fulfilling this role if youth policy was intended to become a genuine means of helping young people to grow into responsible adults. An action programme and efforts to optimise resources were highly desirable. The idea was to motivate everyone involved, including young people. In the meantime, the municipality had suggested that youth organisations structure themselves at municipal level so that they could voice their opinions and take part in town-level discussions. At the same time, central government had initiated a project aimed at improving the situation and opportunities for young people starting out.

To sum up, Budapest was currently seeing changes in two closely linked areas, namely comprehensive and sectoral youth policies and participation.

Mr Jean-Claude RICHEZ, Deputy Mayor and Community Councillor, described the situation of a town, Strasbourg (population: approximately 250,000), which now had several years’ experience of young people participating in local life. Relations between the centre and periphery in the conurbation as a whole (roughly 430,000 inhabitants) were becoming less compartmentalised. The young people interviewed were on the lookout for informal social activities in small groups run and managed by themselves but when they succeeded their efforts were often undermined by bad behaviour and vandalism. The consensus seemed to be that traditional clubs and socio-cultural centres designed to keep young people off the streets did not meet their needs. It was mainly the middle class children who attended formal activities and joined associations.

Public measures for young people firstly represented the fulfilment of the town’s legal obligations: school facilities from the ages of 2 to 11 and neighbourhood social action, carried out on behalf of the département (young people aged between 13 and 26). In France, such measures came under the authority of municipalities, départements, regions and the state.

As for urban events, the town dealt mainly with socio-cultural centres (three-yearly agreement, provision of premises, joint funding). Posts for youth organisers were funded jointly with the département. This set-up acted to encourage a diversity of experience by drawing upon the voluntary sector’s inventiveness and capacity to renew itself. Recently, the town had taken initiatives to integrate young people in economic terms, set up cultural and musical centres, provide leisure activities during school holidays, establish youth councils and organise sports.

However, the operation and cost of socio-cultural facilities presented problems and the quality of staff suffered as a result. Priority was not given to integrating young people in difficulty and preventing exclusion, and work in this area had been undermined by the département’s withdrawal from preventive work conducted by teams on the street. Inevitably, this lack of overall organisation in disadvantaged areas would rebound on the town.

What were the prospects for making a genuine contribution, together with families and schools, towards ensuring that all young people grew into responsible, active and critical adults? It would be a good idea to harness the capacity of the voluntary sector by drawing up contracts and setting goals jointly, delegating work to them related to leisure activities, employment, issues concerning the recognition of young people, identification with the community, relations with others and access to decision-making. The real issue was how to reach those whom current action failed to reach.

In this general context, the Youth Council established in 1993-1994 in seven areas of the town covered young people aged between 13 and 17 who elected representatives for two years to submit their wishes and suggestions to elected representatives on the municipal council. It was both a civic and an educational process, whose purpose was to ensure that young people genuinely participated in the life of the community. Among other things, this had led to the creation of a newspaper, multisport pitches in local areas, a drug abuse strategy, meetings etc.

In 1996, 4,322 teenagers (35% of young people at school) had participated in the town election of 185 representatives divided among the 10 neighbourhood councils. Of these representatives, 70% lived in peripheral neighbourhoods and 50% were the children of immigrants. The urban areas concerned varied a great deal. However, mutual discovery perhaps opened the way for learning about other people and other areas. Training for the young "elected representatives" considered their grasp of their environment as a whole and sufficient knowledge as a prerequisite for tailoring the structure and the operation of the Youth Council to their own needs (role and function of an elected representative, group work, communication, the culture of citizenship, how to behave in meetings and speak in public). These young people were shown how to construct projects which had to be presented and defended before adult elected representatives who retained sole decision making authority.

The ten neighbourhood councils had set up cross-sector joint committees dealing with a theme concerning the whole town or young people in general. They were run jointly by the council’s supervisory team and by its external partners. Thematic committees consisting of elected representatives of a single neighbourhood had been set up. Three plenary sessions of young elected representatives, the mayor and the whole municipality had been scheduled during the council’s term of office: this work had had an impact on the operation of certain municipal services.

However, the issue of how to create a better relationship between young elected representatives and the rest of the population (of all ages) remained: some neighbourhoods had set up a "Youth Council" letterbox but collaboration with schools was yet to be introduced. These teenagers also sat on neighbourhood committees where they were able to put items on the agenda. It was vital for young elected representatives to succeed in achieving something tangible.

While the committees did real work, it was even more important for young people to understand that without them and unless each of them became genuinely involved, projects could not succeed. Participation was an ambitious political goal but the reality was more modest. There was a risk of limiting activities to formal events or projects. Whatever the situation, policy-makers could not resign themselves to abandoning the ambition of ensuring that young citizens participated in community life.

The experience of Newham (a London borough), described by Martin TILBURY, was typical: a detailed analysis of the situation of the population (approximately 25,000 inhabitants) and young people under 16 years old in particular (60,500 in 1996) demonstrated that this borough of the capital had both the youngest population in the country (25%) and the most diverse ethnically (51%).

There was widespread poverty and unemployment, which affected men more directly than women, was particularly high in the 18 to 24 year old age group. The 1991 census had highlighted serious gaps in accommodation conditions for children under the age of 16. However, the number of young people between the ages of 16 and 24 in full or part-time education had increased considerably during over the preceding five years.

The neighbourhood forums provided an arena for discussion allowing young people to give their opinions and suggest new initiatives. They were open to young people between the ages of 14 and 19 and, in some cases, between the ages of 11 and 21. Four young people per "sector" took part in the forum and demonstrated the diversity of work carried out in their sector as well as putting across the neighbourhood’s needs. However, the number of these representatives could vary depending on the needs of the neighbourhood.

The forum met at least quarterly, a few weeks before the Youth Consultative Group. Its meetings were co-ordinated by a youth councillor.

The Youth Consultative Group was the liaison body between Newham Council and young people. Its composition was mixed, consisting of 12 young people elected by the neighbourhood forums and two councillors appointed annually by the council. It was assisted by four youth councillors (one per neighbourhood). Its primary role was to assess and implement measures adopted by the council but it also assisted and co-ordinated the council’s activities for young people. It could make recommendations, including on budgetary grants and proposals, and draw up projects.

On behalf of the municipality of Turin (Italy), a town of nearly a million inhabitants, Ms Rosanna BALBO illustrated the main principles of the Youth Project which had been established a few years previously.

Firstly, this project was based on the principle of sharing and partnership: services were made available for young people as part of a contract. The project aimed to reach the greatest possible number of young people and was organised on the basis of a series of consultative forums for young people as well as a monitoring council composed of various authorities including youth organisations.

Teaching young people how to achieve well-being seemed to be a more appropriate way of tackling their marginalisation than seeking to prevent unhappiness. However, one-off information had to be widely available and be accompanied by the provision of specific services, places and opportunities encouraging young people to take independent initiatives. Some initiatives covered the whole town, while others concerned specific areas and the balance between the centre and the periphery was a constant concern.

The project offered young people the opportunity to participate on a voluntary and unpaid basis in activities and events affecting all citizens. Moreover, while it provided trained adult mediators for young people it also addressed general attitudes which it sought to influence by means of on-going observation based on the key characteristics of young people. In addition to such observation, research, planning, production and assessment were also important.

In conclusion, examples of participation in community life included one 1000 "buyers" of products suggested by 2000 young people (aged from 11 to 14) who took part in the Festival of the Imagination – the money raised had been spent on renovating a public park and on decorating public spaces with permanent "furniture". The "Young People for Turin" initiative had enabled young people between the ages of 16 and 26 to promote visits to the town’s museums; and the "Kids’ Exchange" sought to ensure that young people maintained the contacts they had made on exchanges. In 1997, secondary schools (14 to 19 year olds) had organised travel/contact with Lisbon, Marseille and Strasbourg. In 1998, there were plans to base this programme on the fight against racism and xenophobia.

The Mayor of Baia Mare (Romania), Mr Cristian ANGHEL, emphasised that the last general election in Romania, which had been marked by a low turnout of young people in contrast to elderly people who had voted massively, demonstrated the need for further education and understanding of democratic mechanisms. The town had therefore supported the "PAL-TIN" Project (participation of young people in local government), initiated by the NGO, Master Forum, which now covered 13 to 17 year olds.

The project acted as a catalyst for young people, the municipal authority and adults in general.

A Youth Council, composed of councillors representing young people and neighbourhoods, had been elected in elections organised in primary and secondary schools throughout the town. Once elected, this council had set up five committees in the following areas: the environment, sport/leisure, education/culture, the media/external relations and budget/funding. Activities suggested by youth councillors in conjunction with their constituents had been discussed and approved in plenary session. These proposals had involved thousands of children in several fieldwork projects. In this respect, the young people involved had demonstrated remarkable spontaneity and inventiveness. Similarly, they had showed an extraordinary capacity for managing the project themselves right from organising elections to managing fieldwork itself. Budgetary autonomy had been guaranteed by contributions from a variety of donors, including the municipality. The town’s social relations department was responsible for opening up the municipality to young people and co-ordinating activities. Close contact with the day-to-day running of the municipality and experience of the town’s problems had generated dynamic interaction between the Municipal Council and the Youth Council. This had led to co-operation between schools and the participation of young people in all the municipality’s major events.

The young people of Baia Mare were in contact with young people from other municipalities in Romania who now supported the same PALTIN project, as well as with youth councils abroad. To sum up, the young people had learnt a great deal about how local government functioned and about how major problems were perceived. They had acquired valuable experience which would be passed on to their successors. They had genuinely shared information, participated and demonstrated tolerance and as a result would be better equipped citizens than their elders.

The councillor from the town of Leeds (United Kingdom), Mr Gerard HARPER, emphasised that for many years the Municipal Council had given young people in Leeds a voice. More recently, in 1994, following a study on services for young people, the council had devised a youth strategy called "Seen, Heard and Listened to – Young People in Leeds". In 1995, a survey had given young people a chance to give their views on life in their town and the conclusions had been incorporated into the report on "Leeds gives its young people a voice" (1995) and a new municipal youth committee had been set up.

The committee, composed of elected representatives, allowed young people to speak out on youth services and co-ordinated the policies of different municipal departments. On the ground, youth forums, each with their own rules and structures, devised and managed their own budgets and undertook community projects. These forums (which would number 50 in 1998) were to be grouped into eight neighbourhoods which would elect young representatives to sit on the municipal council.

However, young people took part in other events and activities – notably through youth clubs – and specific projects. A youth week, organised entirely by young people, had been scheduled for 3-9 November 1998 on the theme "giving young people a voice". The events would include a hearing with local and national elected representatives allowing young people to discuss a whole range of issues concerning them.

The municipality of Lyon (France) had a population of 425,000 and 100,000 students. On the Mayor’s initiative, Ms Bernadette BERTRIX, a municipal and community councillor, had set up a municipal council for young people in Lyon in 1996. Candidates in the election of 73 youth councillors had been appointed by the Assembly of electors, comprising delegates of fifth and lower sixth year students (ie between 14 and 16 years old) from all Lyon’s schools. The elections had been held in the Town Hall.

The youth representatives elected worked in thematic committees, chaired by two officials on subjects and projects freely chosen and managed, and funded by the deputy mayor who was involved on each occasion. Some of the committees’ most significant activities had been producing a handbook on working life; drafting a charter against violence and producing a video on preventive action; solidarity with homeless people on reintegration schemes by inviting them to performances and sporting events; organising shows in geriatric hospitals and creating a roller park.

The Youth Council was to be extended to all districts of the town. It would have its own website featuring thematic discussions. Recently, a discussion group of adult elected representatives and young people and head teachers had considered how to involve young people in community life.

WHAT YOUNG PEOPLE SAID

Following the talks by officials from the seven towns, chaired by Mr VENTURINI, member of the CLRAE (San Marino), a special session was devoted to representatives of the youth councils of five European towns from five different countries.

On behalf of the Youth Council of Baia Mare (Romania), Mr Bogdan ANDRONESI said that the first elections to the Youth Council had taken place in October 1995, when 4,000 pupils from the town’s schools between the ages of 12 and 15 had elected 40 councillors out of 150 candidates. A second election, for a second term of office, had been held in February 1997.

The proposals made during the electoral campaign and subsequently approved by the Youth Council together with resulting activities could be classified into four groups. Firstly, projects which had been devised more or less independently by young people but which required the agreement or even support of external structures: setting up radio stations in schools, painting and graffiti competitions and establishing a telephone helpline for children. A large number of activities had been either conceived or carried out jointly with municipalities: concerning the elderly, orphans, environmental protection – in particular cleaning up a river (1,200 young people had taken part in this activity). The Youth Council maintained contact with other youth councils and associations throughout Romania (Bucharest, Calafat, the Master Forum Association) and elsewhere (Berlin, Brest etc). It had helped to found the Romanian Federation of Youth Councils and had participated in a meeting of the Federation of Romanian Towns and in international conferences in Leipzig and Rotterdam.

In conclusion, while the institution of youth councils aimed mainly to educate and train young people in democratic citizenship, it was also aimed at adults whether they were civil servants, teachers, parents or members of civic or youth associations. For this project needed the support and partnership of adults in order to succeed. The latter were thus called upon to establish a new form of communication with young people and to engage in dialogue and work with other adults. The Youth Council therefore acted as a genuine bridge between the generations.

Ms Yolande TAGBOR-CLAVEL described the experience of the first Youth Council in Strasbourg (France) which had existed since 1993. Once committees had been set up, she had chosen to work with the one dealing with the problems of her neighbourhood, Elsau. Its main aim was to draw the attention of the youngest children to the dangers of drug abuse. A documentary film had been produced for this purpose. However, she had also taken part in the work of neighbourhood inter-council committees, including twinnings with the councils in Krakow and Leicester.

In general, it was fair to say that youth councils had enabled young people to understand that it was possible to take an active role in society even though not all young people intended to pursue a political career. Politics did not have a good image among young people.

Her experience had made it possible to assume personal responsibility for her own actions and demands, to understand how local government operated and to learn more about other people and the world. The opportunity to talk freely to adults with political responsibility had been a learning experience and a source of satisfaction for her!

If young people did not play a part in constructing the society of the future, the future of politics itself was in jeopardy. This was Ms Charlotte WHITTAKER’s opening comment on the experience of the Youth Council in the County of Devon (United Kingdom) of which she was Chair.

This council had been set up in 1993 and was the only one of its kind to have been democratically elected and to be run entirely by and for young people; it was an autonomous body enjoying strong support from the local authorities.

Contact and liaison between the County Council and the Youth Council was extensive, close and constant: young people exchanged information with the sub-committee responsible for general policy, and members of the two councils attended each other’s sessions which enabled young people to assess the impact of initiatives and to react; daily liaison and periodic meetings took place with the county’s various departments and contact was maintained with the consultative group consisting of those working in the youth field who provided support, information and directives to the Youth Council. Devon’s Youth Council had also convened and chaired a joint committee of the County Council, responsible for monitoring implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Youth Council had established close links with the police, health authorities, judges, members of the national and European Parliaments and youth councils in the United Kingdom and abroad. It had the ear of the British Youth Council and various authorities in the United Kingdom.

The council’s strength lay also in its ongoing contacts with grassroots organisations, through meetings organised at county and lower levels. Young people were encouraged to organise debates between themselves, with the Youth Council and with local decision-makers. This area of activity had led to conferences, research, information-gathering and long-term projects.

However, the quality of the partnership between young people and adults remained the key to any success in terms of ensuring the council’s credibility in young people’s eyes, the Adult Council's recognition of young people’s good ideas and the relevance of political and practical decisions.

The Youth Council genuinely encouraged young people to assume responsibilities and to learn how to become citizens. It was therefore important to give young people the capacity to act. Hence the Youth County Council, which brought together all young people in Devon, had been supplemented by the establishment of youth forums in each community which could function effectively. At present, there were 30 such forums headed by a county forum. Another forum participated in voluntary organisations and schools throughout the county were given considerable help and encouraged to set up effective schools councils.

To sum up, firstly young people were more inclined to comply with decisions if they had been consulted and listened to. The council made this possible. Secondly, the Devon authorities had benefited from the contribution of young people and Devon had everything to gain.

The Mayor of the Youth Council of the XXth district of Budapest (Pesterzsebet), Ms Zsòfia ANGHELI, presented the achievements of the first term of office of the council elected on 11 November 1995. The council consisted of 20 young delegates from each primary and lower secondary school in the area. Six committees had been established. The council’s budget came from ministries, foundations and the (adult) District Council. Relations between the two councils were maintained by ensuring that their chairs attended each other’s sessions.

In 1997, this Youth Council had helped establish a second body for youth participation in a district near Budapest. The activities of Hungarian youth councils covered a very wide range of fields (culture, sport, leisure, social activities, the environment and communication). Ms ANGHELI particularly emphasised the organisation of holiday camps (for the 23 winners of a writing and poetry contest and for those who had shown an interest in youth councils).

The Chair of the Youth Council in Genk (Belgium), Mr Filip MEYTEN, described Belgium’s policies on youth work which were divided between several authorities at both community level (Flemish and French-speaking) and federal level (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels, the capital).

The role of the Flemish Minister for Culture, who had competency for youth leisure, was given as an example of this. At community level, the Flemish authorities confined themselves firstly to ensuring that young people had the widest possible choice of leisure activities without undermining the dynamism of private initiatives and secondly to making efforts to encourage (and, if necessary, help and support) available services while ensuring respect for the values of openness, tolerance and democracy. The authorities were under an ongoing obligation to assess their youth policy in the light of opinions and expectations. Recent policies focused on integration and education.

The general activities of Flemish youth groups were funded by decree (roughly BF 550,000,000 in 1997); this involved youth organisations (from 6 years old onwards), movements of young adults over the age of 14 (socio-cultural activities), student movements and welfare and religious services. All these organisations belonged to the Flemish Youth Council and advised the Flemish authorities.

Local authorities which had defined a local project on youth work over a three year period received Flemish financial aid (the 1997 budget had been BF 550 million). Municipal rules aimed to regulate procedures rather than the content of local projects since the aim was to encourage interested persons, including children and young people, to help to define and carry out the project concerned rather than to leave this task solely to the local authorities.

Nevertheless, over the first four years, youth work had been focused as a priority on disadvantaged children and teenagers. Grants had been awarded for running costs, training programmes for youth leaders, tutors' salaries and infrastructure intended purely for local initiatives. The youth departments of local authorities had been excluded although they played an important part in devising youth work programmes and projects because they were well placed to guarantee the widest possible participation of young people in defining such programmes.

In this framework, which seemed to give priority to the role played by youth organisations, the Youth Council apparently had to be considered every time as a specific local (and three-yearly) initiative in order to be eligible for Flemish financial help although this did not affect eligibility for direct aid, financial or otherwise, from local authorities.

TOWNS AND REGIONS: A SECOND COMPARISON OF POLICIES

The third session was chaired by Ms Olga BENNET, member of the CLRAE and a councillor in Dublin (Ireland). This session was devoted to the policies pursued by five European towns and regions to encourage the participation of young people.

Malgorzata MORAWIEC, from the Youth Centre in Krakow (Poland) illustrated the town’s multifaceted policy. In the field of leisure and adult education, a network of 11 cultural centres targeted children and young people between the ages of 5 and 18. A typical example of this activity was the H Jordan Youth Centre which sought to cultivate the intellectual, artistic and sporting talents of young people, including during their free time. The Centre organised a wide range of activities including workshops on working independently, literature, theatre, cinema, museums, musical events, competitions, seminars, co-operation with young Poles from neighbouring countries and with young people from other European countries, including school exchanges and holidays as well as youth tourism.

The town helped young people, particularly those out of work, to carve out a niche in society. The Youth Information Centre ran an educational programme: reception facilities, information, documentation, help with school registration, various kinds of legal assistance, action to combat youth unemployment (showing young people how the labour market operated, writing CVs, meetings, workshops etc), projects designed to foster young people's initiative and social commitment, and organising surveys.

The municipal authorities co-operated with NGOs to encourage young people to participate in local life as well as to be active in international co-operation between young people. They had helped to set up a Centre for European Youth Co-operation which raised young people’s awareness of their European identity, fought against racism and intolerance, co-operated with young people from East and West and provided training for those involved in youth policies.

In general, the Town supported young people’s cultural activities. Funding requests could be submitted by organisations, schools and parishes. The Town also funded 80% of international youth exchanges.

The representative from the town of Herne (population 173,000, located in North Rhine Westphalia in Germany), the Deputy Mayor Olaf KLEFFMANN, emphasised firstly that the participation of children and young people was currently a very fashionable topic because, with the support of committed adults, this part of the population had been able to demonstrate its capacity to think about planning for the future. Children/young people brought a genuinely new dimension to thinking. Nevertheless, participation meant sharing decision-making and the resulting solutions with adults, also required a clear grasp of its implications and had to lead to tangible results which were suited to children and easily co-ordinated by adults. Last but not least, youth participation could help to encourage adults to participate as well since what worked for children often also worked for adults.

For some years, Germany had had various forms of participation. Open participation (eg forums, neighbourhood assemblies, round tables) had given everyone with an idea to put forward a chance to argue their case either on their own or with others. Another form of participation had grown up around the media (eg the children’s assembly of the Saar broadcasting corporation, the "Courage – Agis" activity organised by the magazine Mücke (Mosquito), a children’s summit on nature or the open column space reserved for school classes in a number of local newspapers). A particularly appropriate form of participation for children was that linked to a specific project, for instance creating play areas.

There was also participation in parliamentary activities: municipal councils of young people, children’s consultative councils and parliaments of children and young people. Herne had chosen this kind of participation. Each of its schools had appointed a delegate aged between 9 and 18. The first session, chaired by the Mayor, had been attended by officials and politicians.

Since the parliament met once a term, the young people had organised four district working groups to meet every two to three weeks. The aim was to ensure that children and young people actually spoke out and were listened to. The parliament’s principal goal was to make the town a more pleasant place for children to live. It seemed to have succeeded in this aim. The variety of subjects discussed explained this success: school problems, leisure activities, playing, sport, traffic and the environment. However, the Mayor’s direct protection was a considerable help because it prevented the children’s proposals becoming mired in red tape.

Since 1993, the Schools Committee of Herne’s Municipal Council had given the young parliamentarians an opportunity to speak in front of local authority representatives. In 1994, the Municipal Council had given young people the right to speak in committees and district assemblies, and they regularly exercised this right. The local authority had also decided to involve children in projects affecting them, notably the creation or improvement of play areas or measures to improve the urban environment. A joint working group co-ordinated these measures and provided administrative support.

Some of the parliament’s achievements included the creation of pedestrian areas, play facilities, the free loan of toys, a guide to the town for children, various events, a monthly page in the local newspaper, forums and information campaigns. The parliament had an office at the Town Hall, equipped with a computer and Internet access. Its annual budget was DM 10,000, but it also received sponsorship from a variety of companies. Those involved also received allowances for representing their peers.

The participation model used in Herne could be termed ideal. Indeed, after five years, Herne’s youth policy could not function without it, so much had it become an intrinsic part of the town. Since then, the parliament had gained increasing autonomy and support from “old hands” to grown. It was also true that other towns had not been as lucky as Herne in receiving such direct and forthright support from the mayor.

Appenzell-Rhodes was one of the smallest of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, with only 54,000 inhabitants. Mr Ulrich WIDMER, a member of Government (Councillor of State) started by placing the canton’s youth parliament in the context of the Swiss system of (tax, constitutional and legislative) autonomy and direct democracy. All citizens had the right to participate in political decisions, concerning both important measures and matters of detail.

The Youth Parliament had been founded in 1991, on the 700th anniversary of the Confederation, on the initiative of a group of young people. Young people between the ages of 15 and 22 had been asked in schools to stand as candidates and the first 63 members of parliament (the same as the number of councillors in the canton) drawn by lot, met immediately in the Parliamentary Hall of Heriseau.

In its six years, the Youth Parliament had carried out twelve or so projects. While the experience had been entirely positive, nevertheless, it had revealed a number of weak points which were worth considering. Firstly, since it lacked legal status, the Youth Parliament had merely been invited to submit its conclusions to the cantonal government and the political parties. Annual funding also depended upon the goodwill of the government. In addition to these institutional deficiencies, the members had been extremely mobile and the parliament had alternated between high points and low points. Nevertheless, the canton’s support for the Youth Parliament, whose mandate had been extended indefinitely, had been based on the absolute conviction that it was the focal point for preparing the community’s immediate future.

Mr Antoni BIARNES I MAS, of the Secretariat General for Youth, talked about the participation of young people in Catalonia (an Autonomous Region of Spain with a population of approximately 6.5 million).

As an Autonomous Region, Catalonia had exclusive authority over young people. The Secretariat had essentially four functions, each with a participatory element.

Firstly, to devise a youth policy which could be incorporated into a triennial inter-ministerial plan. Particular emphasis was put on training for young people and on efforts to combat exclusion. The plan had been drawn up on the basis of wide consultation and its workshop-based implementation included youth representatives.

Young people were encouraged to set up associations which were then grouped, along with local youth councils, into the National Youth Council, which was the body closest to the Catalan Government.

Management of the services for young people (including a eurocard, 24 youth hostels, educational and recreational activities, tourist projects, exhibition halls and European programmes) was to be gradually transferred to youth organisations, not-for-profit associations and service-providers.

Lastly, co-operation with the local community was conducted mainly by the 50 Catalan counties which covered roughly 1,000 municipalities. The policies pursued by municipal councils were frequently innovative since they were based on access.

A high level of participation called for young people to meet certain prior conditions. The political authorities were responsible for laying the foundations for such participation. In this respect, much remained to be done to combat unemployment among young people, school drop-out rates, the high cost of accommodation, sudden eruptions of violence and the spread of AIDS. The message communicated constantly by the public authorities was that young people should become involved, assume their responsibilities and develop a sense of initiative. However, participation in political life was reduced to the right to vote, while membership of NGOs (one young person in three) was relatively low. Facilities such as youth clubs or centres did not make young people feel that the proposed forums and projects genuinely belonged to them. Local youth councils were either not sufficiently representative or they were vaguely consultative and demand-led.

More generally, whereas participation in schools and universities was gaining ground, young people’s working lives were still governed by supervision and authority.

In conclusion, it was fair to say that implementation of the European Charter had made real progress in Catalonia even though there was still some way to go.

This session was concluded by a paper from Mr Werner WINTERSTEIN, from the Alpen Adria Alternativ Association in Villach (Austria), who described the establishment in May 1997 of the Municipal Council of Young People in Villach (roughly 50,000 inhabitants) and the drawing up of a Manifesto for European youth as part of the second European Youth Academy (1996). Drafted by an international group of young people and adopted by a Youth Parliament, it had already been submitted to some European authorities and to UNESCO; the manifesto was a very useful tool for encouraging young people to participate politically at European level.

IV - THE PARTICIPATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE AND THE ROLE OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

The last session on Friday 24 October was devoted to the role of national umbrella associations for participatory bodies for young people. It was chaired by Mr Martin HAAS, member of the CLRAE and President of the town of Wiinterthur (Switzerland).

Mr Ion OLTEANU, Co-ordinator of the PAL-TIN Foundation, talked about the participation of young people in public decision-making in Romania.

The democratic transition in Romania had caused concepts to be reformulated, particularly those concerning participation, together with practices whose significance had been destroyed or distorted by the regime prior to 1989. Freedom of association, political freedom and freedom of the press had played a key role in youth policies, whereas the public sector had experienced difficulties in going beyond the authoritarian and paternalistic models of the past. Participation, dialogue and partnership with young people had been discussed merely in the abstract, often for electoral ends. Only in 1997 had local government been able to fund a number of youth projects, submitted by NGOs.

In the beginning, youth associations (NGOs) had expressed a vague tendency towards general representation of young people and had concentrated mainly on drawing up a national youth policy. During this period, there had been no real participation but rather a sort of supervised involvement of young people in various political bodies. Since then, associations had developed specialised interests in different fields (the environment, leisure, culture, sport, tourism etc) and the participation of young people had become a mechanism for their internal functioning.

Instead, civic and educational associations had been the ones to devise the concept of participation as a goal (combating electoral absenteeism, reform of civic education etc). Priority had been given to targeting schools and local authorities. Thanks to assistance from the Swiss Foundation, SOLON, the project had kicked off in 1994 and in 1995 received support from the PHARE for Democracy Programme involving 27 children’s and young people’s councils in half of Romania’s administrative districts. The councils, elected by 65,000 young people, drew up and managed their own projects. 700 young people had already served as councillors. They had learnt to behave as responsible citizens and had helped to change the mentalities of adults by securing support from local authorities, the involvement of some teachers, the partnership of NGOs, financial support from sponsors and the admiration and support of the local population and the media.

In 1997, the PAL-TIN Foundation had been established to help organise the new elections and support the activities of the existing councils. In contrast, the Federation of Children’s Councils of Romania was founded to represent youth councils and promote their projects. In addition to bilateral European exchanges with local authorities (Berlin, Rotterdam, Munster, Brest, Putnok) and with associations (ANACEJ, Understanding Bus, Demo in Erba, Devon Youth Council etc), the establishment of Youth Planet seemed set to extend collaboration and the exchange of experience to European level. In Romania, local authorities and the Federation of Municipalities had supported the participation of young people. At European level, the CLRAE might promote and support the participation of young people from different European countries in joint projects. Youth Planet and the national associations of youth councils could be excellent partners.

Martina LUDESCHER, Co-Chair of the Liaison Committee for Youth Parliaments began her talk by saying that since 1991 (the anniversary of the foundation of the Confederation), the movement to set up youth parliaments at municipal and cantonal level in Switzerland had been gathering momentum. By 1997, there were already about 40 parliaments (involving some 2,000 young people) and twenty others were currently being established.

As in the Parliament of Appenzell-Rhodes, members of parliament, whether elected or voluntary, were aged between 15 and 24: the Bureau, which co-ordinated activities and directed public relations, comprised between five and twelve members while the other members were grouped by subject. Parliamentary budgets depended upon the contribution of cantons and municipalities. Women were well represented.

It had been suggested at a conference in Appenzell-Rhodes in 1993 that a confederate co-ordinating body for youth parliaments be established. Thus, the Liaison Committee for Youth Parliaments (DSJ) had been set up in 1994; its functions were to provide information, co-ordinate activities, provide advice, help establish other parliaments, liaise with confederate authorities and hold an annual conference. Each parliament was represented on it by two delegates. In addition to a steering committee of between seven and eleven members, there were two working groups. The DSJ was funded from subscriptions of its members (3.5% of the budget of each parliament) but there were also public sources of funding (the 1997 budget amounted to about SF500,000).

After an initial period of organisation, in 1997 the committee had organised a meeting of parliamentary presidents. An annual visit to members was designed to maintain contact and to supply information and advice. The DSJ formulated positions on topical political questions as well as legislative bills; it published an information bulletin and had recently helped to set up Youth Planet in Budapest.

Young people knew that their parliaments shared a common platform and therefore were not isolated. The Liaison Committee was now a powerful voice for youth policy in Switzerland. The parliaments devised and carried out their projects and served to teach young people about the art of politics. In general, they were well integrated into local government – some had consultative authority while others were allowed to submit motions. The current dynamic indicated that they met the needs of many young people. Their independence from political parties was a decisive factor for young people who wished to be politically active. They were autonomous and adult representatives were simply there to give advice. Their project-based work was ideally suited to young people’s lifestyle (mobility, frequent changes, spontaneity) and made it possible to achieve tangible results in a short space of time. This was motivating for young people and set the foundations for sustained, progressive learning about active citizenship.

Youth parliaments' input into youth policy was vital: they acted as both a platform for expressing and a means of gathering ideas, interests and concerns. Young people were thus genuinely able to influence and change their living environment. The future of the parliaments was guaranteed if they made an effective contribution to current policy and if they were truly integrated into established structures.

The Director of the National Association of Children’s and Young People’s Councils (ANACEJ, France), Ms Claire JODRY, emphasised firstly that the Budapest Conference made it possible to establish common approaches both between national associations and between such associations and the CLRAE, a European body. Links and interaction between different levels were certainly useful but presupposed the existence of a great deal of work at local level.

The foundation in 1979 of the first municipal children’s council (9 to 13 year-olds) in the Municipality of Schiltingheim in Alsace had had an explosive effect. In 1997, there were 940  such councils. Each council had tried to draw upon the experience of its predecessor. The method used at first had been purely empirical. However, the same difficulties and questions always arose: in particular, the best ways of running councils, the conditions necessary for the genuine participation of young people and the aims to be achieved.

Thus, municipalities themselves had wanted a national association to be set up to help create councils, provide information, improve the quality of work, organise exchanges, devise a methodology and act as a pressure group. ANACEJ had been founded in 1991 and now had a membership of 413 subscribing municipalities and 10 national federations of adult education; it was associated with highly qualified people and organisations with a particular interest in participation. It kept in touch with each municipality. However, at present, no young people sat on ANACEJ’s Governing Board, although this gap might be remedied in the future. Funding was relatively precarious because it was overly dependent upon national policies.

A few concrete examples of the associations' role were: providing information (databases on councils, summaries, the review “Young and Civic Minded” and videos especially on the environment), enhancing the value of the work of councils (annual thematic debate, television programmes on local people’s activities in their area), training including for adult support workers, the establishment of networks of people and experiences by theme and region, independent debate, bilateral exchanges for young people and adults, participation in the ten-country European Youth Network (Dialogue for the Future) and now participation in Youth Planet.

To sum up, the association had enabled young people to participate more fully in community life through councils and there were now greater opportunities to do so. Much still remained to be done. However, by working together it was possible.

The co-ordinator of the Italian association of children’s councils, Democrazia in Erba, Mr Giovanni CASTELLANI, said that the first councils had appeared in Italy in 1991. They now numbered 110.

Children’s councils encouraged children to interact. They were able to keep families well-informed in order to secure their support and co-operation; they helped young people and adults alike to find out about their rights and responsibilities in schools; they enlarged the often limited space available to children in their neighbourhood and promoted their mobility.

Municipal councils also served as an arena for interaction between the generations where children’s councils could submit proposals and adults could give children who so wished the benefit of their knowledge and skills.

Educating intentions, encouraging participation and a community culture summed up the association’s general ideas.

Its youngest members had be supervised by facilitators who mediated between the young people, school, the neighbourhood and the local authority.

The children’s council should be regarded as a sort of interesting game which fostered contact with other people and as a means of furthering personal fulfilment. Mayors and municipal councillors needed to become involved as it was up to them to take the decision to set up children’s councils. Schools had to identify teachers who could help, who were capable of constructing a support network. However any adult, whether from an association or active in community life, could act as mediator.

During the convention held in Perugia on 20-21 January 1995, representatives from children’s municipal councils had adopted a charter setting out basic objectives (in particular improving relations and contact between young people and adults) and minimum rules for the functioning of such councils: all young people living in an area were eligible to become representatives subject to having an approved programme. The duties and length of office could vary according to the size of the municipality. The role played by facilitators/mediators was emphasised along with the fact that it was wise to have a preparatory phase before setting up a council. The charter refused to accept tension between young people and adults, between minorities and the majority population, rivalries, lack of respect, favouritism, exploitation of young people by adults and imitation of adult forms of political action.

The main reason for founding the association Demo in Erba in Rome had been to link adults, children, teenagers and institutions in order to improve urban life. It brought together children’s and teenagers’ councils and all organisations, institutions and people who subscribed to the association’s goals (promotion of citizenship by fostering democratic and direct participation of young people in society; training and co-ordination of networks; help in setting up children’s councils and adapting their operation to the age of their members). Members of the association were divided into founder members, local and regional authorities and all other democratically elected bodies which had set up a children’s council or wished to do so, together with any institution, organisation or person capable of making a financial or other contribution. The association’s resources came mainly from subscriptions. The members’ assembly was the supreme decision-making body assisted by a governing board and a chairperson.

The origin and development of the Federation of Teenagers' and Children's Councils in Hungary was described in a particularly evocative way by Zsolt VARZEGI, its Vice-President.

In 1991, after the collapse of the former system of youth organisation, a Hungarian village school inspired a movement which was to culminate several years later in the establishment of increasing numbers of children’s and teenagers’ councils.

The pupils of the village school in TÜRJE decided to launch a campaign to set up a "pupils’ government". The pre-election period was marked by increasing activity and enthusiasm. The winning team and the elected "mayor" immediately set about implementing its electoral programme – setting up a school newspaper designed, produced and distributed by pupils, collecting funds, close negotiations with the village mayor and the head teacher to obtain two days’ holiday per year and the abolition of a children’s evening curfew as well as making the uniform optional.

Having graduated from primary school, the children wanted to continue the experiment. There was a distance between adults and young people, and the absence of an authentic community made the young people indifferent to the fate of their village. The idea of creating a "teenagers’ government" rapidly won support and was quickly put into practice following the election in December 1993.

This enabled teenagers to contribute to the transformation of the socio-cultural life of their village. In Türje, they took part in economic initiatives, they helped dependent old people (by distributing school meals, doing their shopping, cutting wood etc), they collected secondhand clothes to combat poverty and they worked for environmental protection schemes. They also designed themselves a games room made from sculpted wood; the village cinema was re-opened and two theatrical groups were established, including a permanent folk group. Together the children and teenagers reasserted their ties to the village and the conclusions of research on history and former trades were exhibited during an Open Day in Türje attended by former inhabitants who came to meet relatives and friends.

The teenagers’ representative sat on the adult Municipal Council. It was hoped that this representative, appointed jointly by young people and their families, would help secure financial assistance from the municipality because it was currently provided by voluntary contributions. Financial support for youth councils varied a great deal from area to area.

Two organisations were currently working for municipal youth councils. A support association set up in 1992 consisting of adults had advocated the idea at national level. The Federation of Municipal Children’s and Teenagers’ Councils set up in February 1996 liased between existing councils in 25 regions of Hungary. This was an important legal advance because it meant councils were now genuine organisations recognised by the state. In order to join the Federation, councils had to be democratically elected by all young people in an area (or neighbourhood) and be run effectively.

The Federation’s activities in 1998 included training for adult youth leaders, launching an information network on the association, local information days in various regions of Hungary, further summer placements and continued international relations.

Participatory bodies introduced the young to the notion of citizenship. However, what made them memorable was their optimism, laughter and friendliness, in short the feeling of satisfaction and happiness that young people felt when their shared efforts with others, including adults, to achieve intelligent goals, met with success.

V - CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of the conference followed on from a ROUND TABLE in which representatives of the different groups of participants - parliamentarians, local and regional elected representatives, young people and national and European officials - took part.

Discussions focused on four issues:

**********

Firstly, it was noted that because economic advances have failed to deliver the social progress hoped for, continuing high unemployment and an apparent general inability to reduce it in a lasting way have led to a two-speed society in which many young people are more and more affected by social inequality and increasingly lack the confidence to make long-term plans - with the result that their motivation to participate in tackling social, cultural and political issues is sapped.

In this connection, it should be emphasised that many young people in municipalities and regions are caught on a treadmill of unemployment, temporary contracts, training, more temporary contracts and more unemployment, and see themselves as service-providers facing a future that offers little prospect of proper integration into society or the world of work.

Secondly, the tendency among many young people to shun politics and politicians is justified by an image of politics as the preserve of professionals and by the fact that political debate has lost credibility, appears to offer little prospect of social progress and is seen as remote from real “grassroots” concerns.

This two-speed society produces - in response to a perceived lack of control over the future – a range of highly cautious behaviour patterns, from inward-looking and individualism to violence and xenophobia. On the other hand, significant numbers of young people are coming together to engage in new forms of commitment, in which the individual's place in society and broader socio-political loyalties are less important than the realisation of local solidarity and interpersonal values in a short-term context. Such forms of commitment include:

Despite the uncertainties spawned by economic and social circumstances, young people can identify strongly with the effort to build a united Europe, as an opportunity to invest in the future and become involved in mobility projects. Youth organisations invariably play a key role in youth participation because they are alive to young people’s concerns and can offer fresh avenues for their involvement. Many municipalities and regions in Europe – often working with youth organisations and their co-ordinating bodies - are committed to developing and/or already support local systems for youth participation in the life of towns and villages, neighbourhoods and regions;

The future of democratic freedoms and the prospect of building the united Europe envisaged by the Council of Europe are clearly bound up with the future of new generations; one means of fostering citizenship is therefore through twin pacts:

- a pact between generations;

- and an institutional pact with young people.

Training – and particularly educating young people for citizenship – is a key issue for the future of local and regional democracy and constitutes both a cultural responsibility and a collective responsibility in the process of building a democratic Europe. Education for citizenship must have more than a functional impact: it must teach respect, freedom and solidarity, human values rooted in interpersonal relationships, equality between the sexes, how to relate to the law, social justice and the quality of the environment, and must promote better ways of living together and encourage co-operation between generations, as well as multicultural links;

The European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Municipal and Regional Life (like the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the European Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level) has become one of the basic texts underpinning local democracy and the right of citizens – particularly young people – to play a part in running public affairs. The European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Municipal and Regional Life, which is now available to young people in thirteen languages, is a tool:

While youth organisations continue to function effectively in developing overall youth policies within municipalities and regions, new arrangements for youth participation – such as municipal or regional youth councils set up to manage local projects and to offer education for citizenship – provide a strong stimulus to young people to get involved in civic and political life;

One of the most urgent tasks today is to make all young people receptive to Europe, as part of a real political project;

The more young people are denied the tools to build their future and the means to participate in decisions that concern them, the greater the risk that they will become disaffected with public life and adopt deviant attitudes, turning in particular to violence and xenophobia and fearing, rather than appreciating, those who are different from themselves;

Despite the sterling efforts of many municipalities, youth involvement in municipal and regional life is seen to be hampered by a number of factors - lack of funding, the cumbersome inflexibility of municipal systems, communication problems between adults and young people, a shortage of qualified youth workers, frequently excessive delays in the implementation of projects, and young people’s wariness of being used by adults for political ends;

The willing involvement of many young people in youth organisations and local youth groups offers continuing and valuable proof that there is a future for local and regional democracy and for the construction of a democratic Europe.

*********

The foregoing considerations were restated, structured and, where appropriate, expanded in the CONCLUSIONS adopted at the end of the conference.

The draft Resolution and Recommendation, submitted to the Congress for adoption, are also based on the different conclusions of the Budapest conference.

 

1 English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Polish, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Croatian.

2 Address: 105, rue Lafayette 75010 PARIS. Tel: 00.33.1.56.35.05.35. Fax: 00.33.1.56.35.05.36