1st round of National Consultations of the 2nd cycle of the Structured Dialogue
Period: Trio Presidency Poland-Denmark-Cyprus
DEADLINE: Friday, 15th of July 2011.
Please find below a report form allowing your National Working Group to communicate the results of
the national consultation to the European Steering Committee. The input you will provide through this
form will serve as a common base for the discussions at EU level.
The Secretariat of the European Steering Committee will gather the reports from all Member States and
compile them thematically. These thematic compilations will be used as background documents for the
EU Youth Conference in Warsaw on 5-7th September 2011.
In order to allow the European Steering Committee to integrate the results of the national consultations
in the preparation of the EU Youth Conference in Warsaw, we kindly ask you to please send this report
form filled to the European Steering Committee for the implementation of the structure dialogue (mail
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Cc: Karolina.Wysocka@men.gov.pl) and to your national
government by Friday, 15th July 2011.
The European Steering Committee kindly asks you to please, fill this form in English language and to
return it in typed format (No PDFs please). Please note that the trio presidency intends to publish the
results, best practices and methodological summary.
Technical details of the consultation:
Please provide the requested information on your National Working Group filling in the form:
Details of the contact person
Name Angeliki MOSCHOU
E-mail address email@example.com
Institution General Secretariat for Youth
Position International Relations Department
EU Member State Greece
Members of the National Working Group (number and names)
Youth Organisations 1. ANGELOPOULOS Yiorgos – G700
2. MAKRYSTATHIS Dimitrios – Youthnet Hellas
3. MERIANOS Prokopis – Ioannis Kapodistrias
National Agencies 1. Anastasia FILINI - Institute for Youth
Others 1. PAPADOPOULOS Panagiotis – General Confederation of Greek
Workers (GSEE) - Youth Secretariat
2. SKLAVOUNOS Giannis – Local Youth Council of Megara
3. SEFERIDIS Ilias – Researcher – University of Macendonia, Greece
4. GOULOUSI Ioanna – Kalamatas Youth Centre
5. GREMOS Ioannis – Panhellenic Socialist Educational Wing (PASP)
of Electrical & Computer Engineering of the Aristotle University of
6. MANOUSIADIS Charalabos - Alderman, Commissioner of Youth
Issues in the Municipality of Keratsini-Drapetsona, Greece
7. KAVVADIA Dimitra – student in the international & European
studies Department of Panteion University
Level of the consultation (national, regional, local)
Estimated number of young people 350
participating to the overall
1. Please describe in a few words (Maximum 500) the methodology used for the consultation
(Meetings, E-questionnaire, …)
Meetings of the National Working Group, elaboration of data and creation of a more specific
questionnaire – e-questionnaire on the guiding questions. Open online Invitation to youth
organisations, local youth councils and young people to submit their opinions and proposals on the
thematic of the second consultation. Elaboration of submitted opinions and proposals during the
meetings of the National Working Group. Final report composition.
2. Comments, suggestions and/or best practices on the consultation process
Unfortunately, the time of the consultation coincided with the time of summer vacations and the access
to young people was limited. In addition, the subject of the consultation was too narrow, having to do
mostly with the cooperation with Eastern Europe and Caucasus, a fact that did not motivate more
young people to participate.
Summary of the results of the consultation:
Please present the results of the consultations, where relevant, with a paragraph per topic (maximum
500 words) synthesising the main outcomes of the consultation.
1. Interest in international youth cooperation
Which EU neighboring regions/countries are most interesting for young people from your country to
cooperate with and why? What could increase youth interest and knowledge about EU neighboring
countries? What is the specific attitude towards cooperation with youth from Eastern Europe and
Caucasus countries among youth in your country?
The 85% of young people answered that they were in favor of getting involved in cooperating with EU
neighboring countries. 66.2% preferred cooperating with the Mediterranean Basin, while 27.9%
with South – East Europe and 25% with Eastern Europe and Caucasus.
From the 15% of those who were not in favor of such a cooperation, 41.7% believed that we
do not face the same problems, 33.3% mentioned that there is a lack of information for
cooperating possibilities, 16.7% said that they are not interested at personal level in
cooperating and participating with neighboring to the EU countries in such programmes and
8.3% mentioned administrative or other barriers.
Regarding the ways of increasing youth interest and knowledge about EU neighboring
countries, 42.5% believed that it could be achieved by promoting entrepreneurial, education
and employment opportunities in non EU countries, 32.5% by mobility opportunities, 27.5%
by cooperating in the field of tertiary education, 13.8% by voluntary work in neighboring
countries and 7.5% by constant communication (emails, fora, social networks), discussions on
common problems and better information on issues concerning these countries.
50% of young people had a rather positive attitude towards cooperation with youth from Eastern
Europe and Caucasus countries, while 42.5% had a rather negative one. 3.8% were positive and 3.7%
2. Cooperation with youth from the EU neighbouring countries in the area of mobility in
non-formal education and volunteering
2.a) What could be the main value of cooperation between young people from the EU and
neighboring countries in the area of non-formal education and volunteering (on personal, social and
cultural level)? Could you give any concrete examples of successful cooperation in these aspects (from
Regarding the main value of this cooperation, the 26.3% believed that it has to do with strengthening
the intercultural dialogue, 21.3% with promoting entrepreneurship, employment and volunteering,
18.8% with strengthening young people’s mobility with neighboring countries, 17.5% with
strengthening young people’s social inclusion, 16.3% with active participation of young people as
European citizens and citizens of the world, 15% with acquisition of skills and competences, 12.5% with
young people’s activation and mobilization around global environmental challenges and climate
change, 11.3% with dialogue development on today’s global challenges and 1.3% with something else.
Regarding the concrete examples of successful cooperation in these aspects, they mentioned the
- The Programme Socrates Comenius for the exchange of ideas and mobility opportunities for
teachers, teacher trainers and non-teaching staff involved in school education (from pre-
primary up to upper secondary) or adult education between various European countries
- Promotion of entrepreneurship, employment and volunteerism via the Ioannis Kapodistria NGO,
by creating significant academic and research activities for young people, as well as by
organizing seminars on volunteerism and European youth
- Attempts to strengthen intercultural dialogue and in particular the cooperation between those
with Muslim minority background from Thrace and those with Greek minority background from
the neighboring countries
- The Cultural Triangle of Prespa
- Student exchanges via ERASMUS Programme
- Participation in the European Youth Week, Brussels, 2011.
2.b) What are the barriers and obstacles (administrative, political, social, cultural) in the cooperation
with young people from the EU neighboring countries? How can these obstacles be reduced? Provide
ideas on concrete actions/tools, good practices. Which barriers and solutions are specific for
cooperation with youth from Eastern Europe and Caucasus?
Regarding the barriers and obstacles in the cooperation with young people from the EU neighboring
countries, 35% blamed xenophobia and stereotypes, 32.5% blamed the different cultural
understanding, 30% blamed the time and cost of visa issuing, 21.3% blamed the conflicts at regional
level and 11.3% said that there are other reasons, such as:
- Reassurance, safety and assurances
- Lack of information on employment and entrepreneurial opportunities issues, as well as fear of
investing in countries with no stable political regime
- Political constraints imposed during the Cold War, which a lot of people have still in mind when
talking about Eastern European Countries
- The fact that, till now, main goal of the Europeans was the European expansion. As a result, no
one and never was truly interested in developing real cooperation bonds with these countries.
Since European Union has reached a glut, the only solution to find new allies is to address the
When it comes to reducing these obstacles, 33.8% believed that the solution is to promote Civil
Society’s representatives exchange and strengthen their participation in the framework of the
cooperation between the EU and neighboring countries. 31.3% were in favor of providing more
opportunities to EU and neighboring countries’ citizens, for the interaction and mutual understanding
of their societies and cultures, while 28.8% spoke for promoting educational and cultural exchanges.
21.3% considered that free access, with simplification of the visa issuing procedures, both for
participants and volunteers should be ensured, 12.5% were in favor of the participation of neighboring
countries in the EU institutions’ meetings and programmes in the EU framework and some 7.5%
thought that something else should be done.
Regarding the barriers and solutions targeted specifically for cooperation with youth from Eastern
Europe and Caucasus, they mentioned the following:
- Stereotypes, xenophobia and cultural differences
- These countries are not, like Italy, Spain or Germany, close in range and preference (touristic
destinations, trend, music, culture, standard of living) of the Greeks
- Low educational level
- Lack of programmes
- Many years alienation of Eastern Europe
- Difficulty in learning Slavic languages and the indifference of the Europeans to learn such
- Difficulties in understanding because of language differences.
- Information on the culture of these countries, interaction opportunities
- Assurance of free access, with simplification of the visa issuing procedures, both for participants
- Participation of neighboring countries in the EU institutions’ meetings and programmes in the
- In order to overcome the stereotypes both governments and citizens should be willing and the
central-Europeans should find something interesting in these countries (new markets, history,
- More interaction and mutual understanding opportunities
- More communication and acquaintance opportunities
2.c) What concrete new actions and tools are needed in the EU for the development of
cooperation with youth from the EU neighbouring countries?
How to support the existing structures of youth organizations in order to foster such cooperation? What
specific tools are necessary to foster the creation of contacts and networks? Which tools are needed
specifically for cooperation with young people from EECA?
Regarding the concrete new actions and tools, needed in the EU, for the development of cooperation
with youth from the EU neighboring countries:
33.8% mentioned strengthening researchers’ mobility and promotion of mobility scholarships, 30%
mentioned educational exchanges and academic cooperation, 28.8% referred to promotion of
cooperation and exchange between youth workers in different continents, 25% referred to advertising
and communication strategy including information action, 23.8% spoke about strengthening cross-
boarder cooperation and promotion of intercultural dialogue with Civil Society’s participation, 16.3%
spoke about “Green” volunteering actions and 11.3% mentioned raising awareness for global
environmental issues and climate change.
When it comes to supporting the existing structures of youth organizations in order to foster such
46.3% asked for cooperation with state institutions in the implementation of programmes, 41.3%
demanded more provision of mobility facilitations, 35% asked for more information and 1.3% wanted
information on the cooperation programmes with young people from Europe to be given to schools,
universities, colleges and in general to youth unions.
Concerning the specific tools, necessary to foster the creation of contacts and networks, 47.5% wanted
more information at national level, 41.3% demanded for state support for technical equipment and
36.3% asked for training seminars
The tools needed specifically for cooperation with young people from EECA are:
- Information provision
- Strengthening cross-boarder cooperation and promotion of intercultural dialogue with
Civil Society’s participation
- Development of cooperation programmes with young people of these countries and constant
- Cooperation in the scientific field between institutions of the tertiary education, Slavic language
learning facilitation, interactive development of touristic relations, network development for
supporting new entrepreneurs in cooperation with the Professional Chambers of these
- Advertising of the common cultural elements
- Communication facilitation
3. Participation of young people in democratic life in Europe and international youth
What influence does international youth cooperation have on youth participation in democratic life in
Europe at various levels (on civil society engagement, participation in elections, volunteering,
involvement in processes of policy-making etc)?
43.8% Rather positive
6.2% Rather negative