A FEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE

Transcription

A FEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE CREATION OF
A EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY
AND LANGUAGE LEARNING
Final Report
18 May 2005
A study for the European Commission,
Directorate General Education and Culture
Approved by :
Alain Denis,
Managing Director,
Yellow Window Management Consultants (a division of eadc n.v.)
Feasibility study concerning the creation of a
European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning
Final report
Table of contents
Page
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................6
1.
BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY..................................10
1.1. Background of the study ..............................................................................................10
1.2. Main objectives .............................................................................................................10
1.3. Scope of the work..........................................................................................................10
1.4. Expected outputs of the study......................................................................................11
1.5. The EU policy context...................................................................................................11
2.
STUDY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................14
2.1. Approach .......................................................................................................................14
2.2. Desk research ................................................................................................................15
2.3. Mapping of actors .........................................................................................................15
2.4. Interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders.......................................................16
2.4.1. Approach .................................................................................................................16
2.4.2. Sample description ..................................................................................................16
2.5. ‘Think tank’ exercise ....................................................................................................18
2.6. Virtual discussion forum ..............................................................................................18
3.
LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND LANGUAGE LEARNING IN EUROPE ..................20
3.1. Organisations active in the field ..................................................................................20
3.1.1. Government departments and public institutions.......................................................20
3.1.2. Academic and research institutions............................................................................20
3.1.3. NGOs and European networks...................................................................................20
3.1.4. International organisations.........................................................................................21
3.2. Results from the mapping survey among actors........................................................21
3.2.1. Type of institution......................................................................................................21
3.2.2. Scope of work ............................................................................................................21
3.2.3. Staff............................................................................................................................22
3.2.4. Networks ....................................................................................................................22
3.2.5. Financing ...................................................................................................................23
3.2.6. Sources of information...............................................................................................23
3.2.7. Target groups .............................................................................................................24
3.3. Linguistic diversity and language learning in Europe : initial observations...........24
4.
PERCEIVED NEEDS AND GAPS .....................................................................................26
4.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................26
4.2. Policy support................................................................................................................26
4.3. Research and knowledge-building ..............................................................................27
4.4. Co-operation and networking......................................................................................27
4.5. Promotion and awareness-raising ...............................................................................28
4.6. Co-ordination ................................................................................................................28
2
Yellow Window Management Consultants
A division of e.a.d.c. NV/SA
Final report
4.7.
4.8.
Representation ..............................................................................................................28
Other needs and gaps ...................................................................................................29
5.
THE WAY FORWARD : ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
DIFFERENT OPTIONS.......................................................................................................30
5.1. Overall preferences.......................................................................................................30
5.2. Extending the role and tasks of an existing institution..............................................32
5.2.1. The European Commission........................................................................................32
5.2.2. The Council of Europe / the European Centre for Modern Languages .....................32
5.2.3. EBLUL / Mercator centres.........................................................................................33
5.3. Creating a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning ....33
5.3.1. Advantages and disadvantages...................................................................................33
5.3.2. Potential role and mandate of an Agency ..................................................................35
5.3.3. Target groups .............................................................................................................38
5.3.4. Conditions for a successful autonomous Agency ......................................................38
5.3.5. Perceived added value of an autonomous Agency.....................................................39
5.3.6. Scenario for a ‘European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning’40
5.3.7. Human resources, infrastructures and overall costs required to set up the Agency...42
5.4. A European network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’.............................................46
5.4.1. Background to the idea of a European network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’ ....46
5.4.2. Scenario for a European network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’ ..........................46
5.4.3. Some specific aspects of this model in comparison to an Agency ............................48
5.4.3. Advantages and disadvantages...................................................................................49
5.5. Opinions expressed in the Internet discussion forum................................................50
6.
AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY BODIES : A UNIQUE ORGANISATIONAL
MODEL .................................................................................................................................52
6.1. Why create an autonomous institution ? ....................................................................52
6.2. The political and legal framework for Community Agencies ...................................53
6.3. The case of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning 54
7.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................57
7.1. Needs assessment ..........................................................................................................57
7.1.1. Needs as perceived by the stakeholders.....................................................................57
7.1.2. State of the art in relation to the needs as perceived by the European Parliament ....59
7.2. Analysis of the options..................................................................................................60
7.2.1. A European Agency for linguistic diversity and language learning ..........................60
7.2.2. Alternative option : a European network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’ ..............62
7.2.3. The no-action scenario is not an option .....................................................................63
7.3. Overall cost of options ..................................................................................................65
7.4. Recommendations.........................................................................................................66
ANNEXES
1. Questionnaire used for the consultations with stakeholders
2. List of interview respondents
3. List of participants in the ‘think tank’ meeting of 1 December 2004
4. Working documents from the Internet Discussion Forum
5. Bibliography
6. List of actors in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning
3
Final report
TABLES
Table 1 :
Table 2 :
Table 3 :
Table 4 :
Table 5 :
Table 6 :
Table 7 :
Table 8 :
Table 9 :
Table 10 :
Table 11 :
Table 12 :
Table 13 :
Table 14 :
Table 15 :
Table 16 :
Table 17 :
Table 18 :
Sample distribution – in % (N=77)
Core activity of organisations – in % (N=77)
Scope of activities, in absolute numbers and in percentage of the category total
(N=77)
Sources of financing – in absolute numbers (N=54)
Importance of sources of financing – in percentage (N=54)
Main target groups – in absolute numbers and in percentage of the category (N=52)
Average ranking of the different options to solve the needs identified (N=77)
Adequacy of different options to solve the needs identified, in percentage of
respondents placing the respective option on the first place (N=77)
Average ranking of options by type of respondent (international organisations and
‘other’ are omitted)
Average ranking of options by country of origin of respondent (non-EU Member
States are omitted)
‘All in all, do you think that the Commission should establish an autonomous
Agency?’ (N=77, 1 ‘no reply’)
What should be the scope of work of an Agency ? (in percentage, N=77)
“Should ‘all languages’ be covered by an agency ?”, by type of respondent (in % N=77)
Potential roles for an Agency, according to interviewed stakeholders, in percentage
(N= 77)
‘Which should be the main target groups of an Agency for Linguistic Diversity and
Language Learning ?’, in percentage of interview respondents (N = 77)
Budget summary table (costs in Euro)
Personnel costs (costs in Euro)
Operating expenses (costs in Euro)
4
Final report
Introduction
This report is the Final Report referring to contract number 2004 – 2714 / 001 – 001 ETU ETU,
dated 1 September 2004, between Yellow Window Management Consultants, a division of
e.a.d.c. NV/SA, and the European Commission, DG Education and Culture, regarding a
feasibility study concerning the creation of a ‘European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and
Language Learning’.
The present Introduction is followed by an Executive Summary. Chapter One explains the
objectives and scope of the study against the background of the idea to establish a European
Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning.
The second chapter in this report describes the approach that has been followed to realise the
study.
Chapter Three provides a description of the current landscape in the field of linguistic diversity
and language learning in Europe. It explains the profiles of the organisations active in the field
and gives the results from the mapping survey among the actors.
The fourth chapter is devoted to the needs and gaps perceived by the different actors in the
domain of linguistic diversity and language learning.
Chapter Five subsequently looks into the advantages and disadvantages of the different
alternative options to tackle the perceived needs. Notably the creation of a European Agency for
Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning, and the setting up a European network of
‘Language Diversity Centres’ were two of the options that were explored in detail.
Chapter Six places the option of creating an autonomous Community Agency against the
institutional background of the European Union in order to verify the political validity of this
option. It recalls the conditions that were put forward by the European Commission as justifying
the creation of autonomous agencies. Also the legal and political framework of Agencies is
reviewed.
Finally, Chapter Seven presents the conclusions and recommendations resulting from the study.
5
Final report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Context of the study
On 4 September 2003, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution with recommendations to
the Commission on European regional and lesser-used languages – the languages of minorities in
the EU – in the context of enlargement and cultural diversity (2003/2057 (INI)).
In this Resolution, the European Parliament, calls on the Commission, to present a proposal for a
legal act, setting up a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning, taking
due account of regional and minority European languages.
The Commission undertook to study that possibility by commissioning a feasibility study on the
possible setting up of an Agency. This report presents the findings of this feasibility study.
Study methodology
The main activities undertaken for this study consisted of :
¾ a desk research consisting of an identification and analysis of written sources on issues
related with the subject of the study;1
¾ a ‘mapping exercise’ through which the actors in the field of linguistic diversity and
language learning in Europe were listed;
¾ interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders in the field at the regional, national, EU, and
international levels;
¾ a ‘think tank’ exercise with experts;
¾ a virtual discussion forum, for which five working papers and accompanying questions were
used as input.
The logics followed for the study was the following :
¾ to identify which needs exist in the field for which no or inadequate solutions exist at
present,
¾ to verify which of these needs can be tackled by initiatives at the EU level,
¾ to define the most adequate solutions that can be provided at the EU level,
¾ to lay out the advantages and disadvantages of these options.
Needs and gaps in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning in Europe
The study has shown that there exist needs that can be solved by interventions at the EU-level:
either by filling in gaps or by more efficiently responding to needs through the offering of
solutions at the EU-level.
For the definition of the potential mandate and scope of work for an Agency or an alternative
option, it has to be determined on which of the identified needs the focus should be. Indeed,
whereas it is important to tackle the most stringent needs, it is equally important to avoid any
risks for duplication with the work of existing actors. Below are the main needs that can more
adequately be covered at the EU-level.
¾ Policy-making level: the need for support to policy-makers at all levels as expressed by
stakeholders is highest in terms of the provision of basic information and awareness raising
for the issue. Too often policy makers are taking decisions without basic knowledge or data.
¾ Knowledge:
Rather than to create new knowledge, the needs are highest in terms of:
1. the dissemination of the existing knowledge to the right target groups
1
Documents containing references to the possible creation of a European Agency for Linguistic
Diversity and Language Learning, about activities of existing actors in the field, etc.
6
Final report
2. the collection and centralization of information and knowledge
3. comparative (cross-national) research
4. new research, mainly in the new Member States
¾ Awareness raising and the promotion of ‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ among
all target groups, with a particular emphasis on the policy makers (see above) and the public
at large.
¾ An important ‘gap’ exists in terms of monitoring and supporting the ‘mainstreaming’ of
linguistic diversity within EU-policy domains. The domain of linguistic diversity is a
horizontal domain cross-cutting many policy areas. The EU therefore adopted a specific
approach that is called ‘mainstreaming’. This mainstreaming is considered by most
privileged observers as not yet or insufficiently existing.
¾ Although more financial support for concrete actions is considered as very important by the
stakeholders, the management of programmes does not necessarily have to be the
responsibility of an Agency or an EU-wide network. The potential role of an Agency would
probably be better in line with its aims and the horizontal nature of the domain to be covered
through the ‘expert = knowledge centre’ function and the ‘mainstreaming’ function at the
service of the various programmes the European Commission is managing and where
linguistic diversity, multi-lingualism and language learning are or could be covered.
Adequacy of different solutions to the perceived needs
The study looked into different solutions that can be offered at the European level to the
identified needs.
The stakeholders and practicioners in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning were
presented a number of different potential solutions to the perceived needs. The list below shows
the various options in order of how adequate stakeholders consider them to be to remedy the
needs :
1. to create an autonomous (new) agency;
2. to develop or create existing / new networks;
3. to extend the role and tasks of the European Commission;
4. to extend the tasks of an existing institution;
5. a virtual agency (managed by existing institutions as a project);
6. a ‘no action’ scenario.
The study results learned that the two most valid options that should be considered are the
creation of an autonomous Agency and the building of a network. Depending on the mandate
that should be defined for any solution, both options offer the possibility to solve (a number of)
the perceived needs, although to a different.extent.
Main conclusions
¾ The case for setting up an autonomous EU Agency in the broad domain of lingusistic
diversity and language learning is strong. This is mainly linked to the increasing importance
of this policy domain and the opportunities that exist to significantly improve the public
sector efficiency and impact through EU-level initiatives.
¾ Setting up an autonomous Agency is not the only potential solution to help cover the gaps
and needs. The most valid alternative solution would be a networking model that could
federate and enhance efforts of various types of organisations active in the field.
7
Final report
This solution seems adequate for a mandate that concentrates on the promotion of linguistic
diversity, multilingualism and language learning. It is less adequate for a mandate that would
cover the full set of needs identified.
¾ Independently of the solution chosen, any initiatives taken should build on existing
structures and avoid duplication of efforts. The importance of the work done by the Council
of Europe in this field is widely recognised. Any solution has to be linked in an adequate
way to the initiatives of the Council of Europe, both for reasons of efficiency and credibility.
A European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning
The study learns that the creation of an autonomous Agency as an independent body of the
European Union, which would be established with the aim to promote and strengthen linguistic
diversity in Europe, could allow to address the most important needs and gaps that were
identified. Also when checking the case of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and
Language Learning against the conditions that were put forward by the Commission for the
creation of autonomous Community Agencies, the analysis learns that these conditions do appear
fulfilled. Furthermore, an Agency is the option that is most preferred by the stakeholders and
experts.
On the basis of a mandate for an Agency covering the needs as described above, the total annual
costs in the beginning of its operation would probably be around 11 Mio euro. The proposed
budget is a realistic minimum, and should less resources be provided to an Agency, the scope of
its responsibilities must be reduced.
Keeping in mind the scope of its responsibilites and mandate, it seems appropriate to foresee for
the Agency a minimum of 25 to 30 staff members, spread over different professional levels. It is
important for these staff members to dispose of previous professional experience in the field of
linguistic diversity and language learning.
The following advantages and disadvantages of the creation of an autonomous Agency were
identified through the study :
Advantages

Disadvantages

it underpins the long term perspective
it brings expertise together (expert staff)
it can help to develop and implement a
macro-level, coherent policy in the field
this legal form gives authority
it can have ‘normative power’ / power
from its status and through knowledge
it can support the mainstreaming
approach (integration of the issues related
with the subject in other policy domains
than language)
it ensures visibility and underlines the
importance of the issue

a concern for overlap / duplication
important institutional cost (less ‘value
for money’?)
time needed before autonomous body is
operational (long decision-making
process)
a concern that the creation of an Agency
would just be ‘window dressing’, and not
result in real action
a concern that the Commission itself
would lower its efforts for the subject if
an Agency were created
8
Final report
Alternative option : a European network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’
The network option can be considered as the most valid alternative to an autonomous Agency.
As there is no existing network that can be given the required roles to solve the needs as they
appeared through the study, an adequate network would have to be built.
The basis of the network concept is to create a formal network of independent organisations all
involved in linguistic diversity and language learning
The advantages and disadvantages of the creation of a European network of ‘Language Diversity
Centres’ as they were identified through the study are presented below.

Advantages
the ability to embrace the broad variety of
stakeholders, each with different needs
it allows concrete action at the decentralised
level, supported by the EU
the possibility of integrating existing structures
(EBLUL, Mercator) which can be members
serving the network
huge multiplier effects
membership is reviewed and can be withdrawn
can get started more quickly than an Agency

Disadvantages
is not a permanent infrastructure
(no guarantee of continuity)
less ‘status’ than an Agency
limited visibility
no authority
is not a structure that can support
mainstreaming within the European
Commission
Recommendations
Which option ?
A final choice between the two main options proposed will eventually be a political decision.
Both options are valid alternatives even if they cover the needs in a different way. The no action
scenario is clearly not an option: there exist important needs and expectations for action have
been created among the stakeholders.
The strength of the Agency option lies in its function as a knowledge centre and in its support
and monitoring of the mainstreaming approach within EU-policies. The strength of the
networking option lies in the promotion and networking functions, which could be covered
equally well in terms of impact by this second option, with probably a better value for money
ratio.
Whatever option is chosen, there are overall recommendations:
•
The inclusive approach to languages is the only way forward: there is a strong support for
this approach which is already adopted by the European Commission and by the Council of
Europe.
•
To complement existing structures and avoid duplication: the scope of what still needs to be
done is so significant that any loss of efficiency has to be avoided. The work of the Council
of Europe and particularly of the Language Policy Division and the ECML should be
complemented and certainly not competed with. The proposed mandate and scope for both
options are taking this into account.
9
Final report
1.
Background, objectives and scope of the study
1.1. Background of the study
On 4 September 2003, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution with recommendations to
the Commission on European regional and lesser-used languages – the languages of minorities in
the EU – in the context of enlargement and cultural diversity (2003/2057 (INI)).
In this Resolution, the European Parliament, considering that respect for linguistic and cultural
diversity is a basic principle of the EU, “calls on the Commission, on the basis of Articles 149,
150, 151 and 308 of the EC Treaty, to present a proposal for a legal act, setting up a European
Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning, taking due account of regional and
minority European languages”.
The Commission undertook to study that possibility by commissioning a feasibility study on the
possible setting up of an Agency. This feasibility study is the object of the present contract.
1.2.
Main objectives
The overall and specific objectives pursued by the Commission with this study are defined as
follows in the tender specifications :
Overall objectives
-
To allow the Commission to respond to the request of the European Parliament by
establishing a preliminary assessment of the likely positive and negative impacts of the
setting up of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning;
If need be, to provide the Commission with input for the proposal for a Decision on the
setting up of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning and to
define the mandate of the Agency;
If need be, to propose alternative scenarios;
If need be, to propose a no action scenario.
Specific objective
To assess the need for setting up a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language
Learning taking into account the existing organisations in the field of linguistic diversity and the
policies set out in the Commission’s Action Plan.
1.3. Scope of the work
According to the terms of reference for the study, the following specific activities are required:
-
to take stock of the activities of existing associations, institutions or organisations in the
field of linguistic diversity and language learning in Europe such as: local or regional
bodies, associations in the field of regional and minority languages, language boards,
research centres and other bodies involved in the promotion of regional and minority
languages;
-
to collect the opinions and expectations of the relevant European public bodies and
stakeholders in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning, including regional
and minority languages on the need to create a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity
and Language Learning;
10
Final report
-
to analyse the need in terms of the available data on the situation of linguistic diversity
including regional and minority languages in an enlarged European Union;
-
to identify the possible users of the Agency;
-
to analyse the option of developing a network of organisations, bodies and institutions that
already fulfil some of the tasks of a possible European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and
Language Learning;
-
to make relevant proposals on the objectives and the tasks of a European Agency for
Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning based upon the analysis of the situation as
outlined above.
1.4. Expected outputs of the study
The terms of reference state that the Contractor has to provide technical analysis and advice to
the Commission departments:
¾ on the need to create a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language
Learning;
¾ on the existence of, and best way to develop, a network to promote linguistic diversity
and language learning taking into account European regional and minority languages;
¾ on the state of progress at European level of the collection and collation of data on the
situation of regional and minority languages in an enlarged European Union;
¾ on the advantages and disadvantages (positive and negative impacts) of the setting up of
a European Agency for linguistic diversity and language learning including regional and
minority languages;
¾ on the possible responsibilities and mandate of such an Agency and its possible links
with other European bodies.
¾ on human resources, infrastructures and overall costs required to set up the Agency;
¾ on the advantages and disadvantages (positive and negative impacts) of alternative
options to meet the same objectives and fulfil the same tasks identified in the Resolution
of the European Parliament, taking into account Commission’s Action Plan “Promoting
Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity”;
1.5. The EU policy context
For several years, the European Union has financed projects for language learning and linguistic
diversity, including regional and minority languages, through programmes like Socrates,
Leonardo Da Vinci, Culture (these programmes are currently being reviewed), and also through
Structural Funds actions2. Between 1983 and 2000 projects to protect and promote regional and
minority languages were funded by the Commission under a separate budget line3.
Aiming to maintain the momentum of the successful European Year of Languages 2001, which
successfully highlighted the many ways of promoting language learning and linguistic diversity4,
2
3
4
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/evaluation/evaluation_en.html
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/langmin/support.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/langmin/langmin_en.html
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/actions/year2001_en.html
11
Final report
the Commission launched a wide public consultation based on a Discussion Document5. In the
light of the results of this consultation, the Commission published on 24 July 2003 a
Communication 'Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity - An Action Plan 20042006'6.
The Action Plan proposes an inclusive approach for all European languages. This approach
includes regional and minority languages, in preference to the adoption of a specific multiannual
programme for the promotion of these languages. The Action Plan contains 45 actions based on
resources available under current European Union programmes and activities that can be
undertaken at European Union level in three key areas:
(1) life-long language learning for all citizens (including effective early learning of
languages and improving the range of languages available in schools);
(2) improving language teaching (including improving their training and dealing with supply
problems); and
(3) creating a more language-friendly environment (including ‘mainstreaming’ the support
for regional and minority languages, making better use of the skills of multilingual
citizens and providing more opportunities for language learning throughout life).
The Action Plan stresses the fact that Member States bear the primary responsibility for
promoting language learning and linguistic diversity. The European Union’s role is to support
and supplement actions taken at national and regional level. Under the Treaty establishing the
European Community, the principle of subsidiarity fully applies in the fields of education (Art
149), vocational training (Art 150) and culture (art 151).
In the context of a call for proposals (EAC/45/03)7, seven projects were selected to set up
networks to prepare the implementation of the Commission’s Action Plan and to disseminate
information on and to raise awareness of the potential of existing programmes and activities to
promote regional and minority languages8. In order to support networking and cooperation
among regional and minority language communities and to disseminate European information in
these communities, the Commission continues to allocate running-costs subsidies to the
European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL) and the three Mercator information and
research centres, Mercator Education9, Mercator Legislation10 and Mercator Media11. The
Commission approves a work programme and budget for each of the four organisations on an
annual basis and closely monitors their activities. These organisations of European interest are
included in Part 1 of the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a
Community action programme to promote bodies active at European level in the field of
culture12.
The Commission launched an external evaluation of the activities of the European Bureau for
Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL) and the three Mercator centres over a 5-year period (19982002) and of the projects financed by the Commission in the field of regional and minority
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SEC (2002) 1234 of 13 November 2002
COM (2003) 449 final:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/calls/languages/index_en.html
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/calls/languages/selection.pdf
http://www.mercator-education.org/
http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/
http://www.aber.ac.uk/mercator/
COM (2003) 275 final.
12
Final report
languages between 1998 and 2000. The final report that includes the conclusions of this
evaluation have been published and are available on the Europa site13.
13
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/evaluation/langmin.pdf
13
Final report
2.
Study methodology
2.1. Approach
To cover the objectives mentioned above, the study has been conducted in 6 main phases as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Briefing
Desk research
Selection of interview respondents and development of tools
Main study phase :
• Activity 1: Interviews with policy-makers at the EU level
• Activity 2: Interviews with stakeholders at the supranational and national level
• Activity 3 : ‘Think thank’ exercise
• Activity 4 : Virtual discussion forum
5. Analysis of data collected, including the study of potential alternative options and
potential ‘models’
6. Reporting and presentation
The interviews with the different target groups have run partly in parallel, as presented on the
chart below.
“FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR
LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND LANGUAGE LEARNING” - phases of the project
Phase 1 :
Briefing
Phase 2 :
Desk research
Phase 3 :
Selection of interview respondents and development of tools
Phase 4 :
Main study phase
Activity 1 :
Interviews with policy
makers at the EU level
Activity 2 :
Interviews with stakeholders at
the supranational and national level
Activity 3 :
‘Think tank’ exercise
Activity 4 :
Virtual discussion forum
Phase 5 :
Analysis of data collected
Phase 6 :
Reporting and presentation
Draft final report
FINAL REPORT
14
Final report
2.2. Desk research
Throughout the study period, desk research has been undertaken whereby secondary information
sources were identified and analysed.
This was done for several purposes :
¾ to optimise the efficiency of the primary data collection;
¾ to contribute to the mapping exercise (cfr. below section 2.3);
¾ to investigate the institutional framework of Community Agencies as the model intended for
a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning if it were created.
The bibliographic list is included in annex 5 to this report.
2.3. Mapping of actors
The purpose of this exercise was to identify relevant stakeholders and to map the actors at all
levels (regional, national, EU, international) active in the field of linguistic diversity and
language learning.
Sources used included :
- the different documents referred to in the terms of reference for the study;
- additional secondary sources from the Internet and written material.
Furthermore, a ‘snowballing technique’ was applied : the identified actors were contacted and
were asked for more information on their activities, as well as for additional contacts with other
actors in the field.
Given the very broad field under consideration (‘linguistic diversity and language learning’), one
of the first steps of the mapping exercise was to ‘frame’ the field. The purpose of this framing
exercise was to allow us to judge the relevance of different actors for inclusion in the mapping.
The following categories were defined for the mapping :
¾ Governmental / public bodies or institutions
¾ Research and academic institutions
¾ NGOs and European networks
¾ International organisations
By looking at the websites of many of the organisations identified, it is not always possible to
know what exactly the activities of these organisations consist of and who their target groups
are. Therefore, a ‘mapping questionnaire’ was developed and sent to the majority of these
organisations. An important number of them – although not all – did reply and sent back the
completed questionnaire. These completed questionnaires are being made available to the
Commission as a separate, additional deliverable, which was not originally foreseen in the tender
for the study, alongside the final report for the study.
The list of actors resulting from this desk research is included in annex 5 to this report.
15
Final report
2.4. Interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders
2.4.1. Approach
In total, 85 interviews took place, of which 14 were held at the EU level and 71 at regional /
national and international levels. This number exceeds the target number of 75, which was
established at the outset of the study.
Of the total number of interviews, 34 were face-to-face and the remaining mostly by telephone.
In five cases, the respondent returned a completed questionnaire after initial contacts, while no
‘interview’ as such took place.
As to the selection of the interview respondents, the greatest care was taken to select a balanced
sample of stakeholders. In terms of the profiles of the stakeholders, there is a good and balanced
representation of policy-makers, stakeholders from public bodies, NGOs, as well as from the
academic / research community (as can be seen in table 1 below).
The list of interview respondents is included in annex 2 to this report.
The questionnaire used for the interviews consisted of a mix of both open and closed answer
category questions. Whereas open questions allowed to analyse and understand the perspectives
of the different stakeholder groups, the closed questions (with limited and predefined answer
possibilities) allowed to gain insight into the importance of certain aspects and to quantify where
relevant specific opinions.
The final version of the questionnaire (in English) is included in annex 1. to this report.
The procedure followed for the consultations was as follows :
¾ Stakeholders were first contacted by phone or e-mail, whereby the purpose of the study and
the reason for contacting them were explained. On this occasion, their willingness to give an
interview was verified.
¾ When the respondent agreed for an interview, the interview questionnaire was sent by email, and the stakeholder was asked to have a look at the questions before the interview took
place in order for them to be prepared for the questions in advance.
¾ Subsequently, the interview took place.
In general, the stakeholders contacted for the study showed a high level of interest in the subject
and in co-operating in the study.
Interview durations ranged from 40 minutes up to more than one hour and a half (even for
telephone interviews), which illustrates the involvement of the stakeholders and their eagerness
to express their views.
2.4.2. Sample description
While in total 85 consultations took place, the number of consultations that could be analysed
quantitatively is 77. This difference is due to the fact that a number of interviews were not done
on the basis of the prepared questionnaire, but following an ad hoc checklist. The reason for this
was the particular nature of the respondent’s organisation (e.g. the European Commission, the
Council of Europe) or the fact that the interview was a pilot interview (with open questions
only). In a few cases, the respondent refused to follow the questionnaire but agreed to give
his/her opinions and points of view in an open conversation.
In four countries (of the 31 countries covered in the study), no interviews took place on the basis
of the questionnaire: Portugal, Slovenia, Iceland and Liechtenstein. These countries are therefore
not covered in the quantitative part. The opinions of one Slovenian respondent (received by
phone and e-mail) are however included in a qualitative way.
16
Final report
The distribution of the sample (of which results were analysed quantitatively) over the different
categories of actors, together with the geographic scope of the organisations, is shown in the
table below. Percentages mentioned are shares of the total sample (N=77).
Table 1 : Sample distribution – in % (N=77)
Public / governmental
Academic
Research
NGO
Int. organisation
other
Total
Regional
9%
1%
1%
5%
17 %
Total
34 %
34 %
9%
20 %
3%
1%
100 %
National
18 %
31 %
6%
8%
64 %
European
4%
1%
1%
6%
3%
16 %
International
3%
1%
4%
The core activity of these organisations is as follows :
Table 2 : Core activity of organisations – in % (N=77)
% of sample
Represenation
/ defence
17 %
Promotion
Education
Research
Cultural
Media
Other
1%
43 %
30 %
7%
1%
1%
The full scope of the activities of the respondents’ organisations is logically broader, as can be
seen on the table below.
Table 3 : Scope of activities, in absolute numbers and in percentage of the category total (N=77)
Public /
governmental
(N=26)
Academic
(N=26)
Research
(N=7)
NGO
(N=15)
Int. organisation
(N=2)
Other
(N=1)
Total (%)
Represenation
/ defence
7
(27%)
Promotion
Education
Research
Cultural
Media
Other
10
(39%)
24
(92%)
11
(42%)
9
(35%)
5
(19%)
-
1
(4%)
1
(14%)
10
(67%)
1
(50%)
-
3
(12%)
1
(14%)
10
(67%)
-
21
(81%)
2
(29%)
10
(67%)
2
(100%)
-
25
(96%)
7
(100%)
5
(33%)
1
(50%)
1
(100%)
65 %
2
(9%)
2
(29%)
9
(60%)
1
(50%)
-
-
-
-
-
3
(20%)
1
(50%)
-
1
(7%)
-
30 %
12 %
1%
26 %
1
(100%)
33 %
77 %
17
-
Final report
2.5. ‘Think tank’ exercise
A ‘think tank’ meeting took place on 1 December 2004 in Brussels (at the premises of the
European Commission). In addition to the two external experts involved in the study team14, five
more experts in the field with different background and expertise participated in this round table
discussion. All but one of these persons had been interviewed prior to being invited for the ‘think
tank’ meeting. The list of participants at this meeting is included in annex 3 to this report.
The purpose of the discussion meeting was to focus on the question of whether there are any
alternative options to the scenario of establishing an autonomous Agency, and what would be the
advantages and disadvantages of each option. Its aim was also to discuss a number of options
identified for a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning.
The experts were first confronted with the main results of the consultations that had been
performed up to that point. After that, the discussion focussed on the needs at the EU level and
on any gaps within the existing structures as they were perceived by the stakeholders, in order to
define possible solutions to these needs. Potential roles of a new structure were discussed as well
as the advisable scope of the mandate of such structure.
2.6. Virtual discussion forum
Following the ‘think tank’ exercise, working documents were drafted reflecting the outcome of
the discussions. These working documents were subsequently used as input for a virtual
discussion forum.
The virtual discussion forum was carried out between 10 December 2004 and 5 January 2005.
All stakeholders interviewed, as well as a number of other actors previously contacted but not
interviewed, were invited to participate in this forum. By doing this, the discussion was again
opened up to a wider public (after the more restricted reflection exercise of the ‘think tank’).
Five working documents, accompanied by a set of questions were made available for comments
and feedback on the website of Yellow Window :
1. Alternative 1: concept of an autonomous agency “European Agency for Linguistic
Diversity and Language Learning”
2. Alternative 2: concept of a network of “European Language Diversity centres”
3. Comparison between alternative 1 and alternative 2 (advantages / disadvantages)
4. Working languages: an original and practical solution ?
5. Stakeholder involvement: for either alternative (Agency or network option), how to
organise and structure involvement of stakeholders
The discussion was ‘off line’, in the sense that contributors sent opinions to a discussion leader
who analysed and reported back to the discussion participants through the posting of an update
and an analysis of the responses received (with statements and reasons for changes to the
updated document). On 17 and on 24 December 2004 such updates were posted.
The documents used as input for the discussions are included in annex 4. to this report, together
with a synthesis of the feedback received from participants in the forum.
14
Dr. Antoinette Camilleri Grima (Malta) and Prof. Guus Extra (The Netherlands)
18
Final report
In total, 20 different persons from as many organisations from fourteen countries contributed to
the forum discussion. This number is lower than expected, but is most likely due to the difficult
timing of the forum (end of the year period). Six of these 20 persons were stakeholders that were
not interviewed before.
The type of organisations represented by those who contributed to the forum were : 9 public /
governmental institutions, 6 universities, 3 NGOs, 1 international organisation and 1
independent consultant.
19
Final report
3.
Linguistic diversity and language learning in Europe
The present chapter looks into the status and activities of existing associations, institutions or
organisations in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning in Europe.
3.1. Organisations active in the field
Taking into account the broadness of the field, the wide range of possible activities related to
‘languages’, the variety of ‘language groups’ (official, national, regional and migrant minority
languages) and the high number of languages themselves, as well as the duration of the study, it
has been a challenge for the study team to try to be as complete as possible in mapping the field
across Europe, covering 31 countries. The study team acknowledges that it would be extremely
difficult to generate a list that is exhaustive and recognises that there might be organisations
missing in the list produced, despite the efforts undertaken.
For the sake of this ‘mapping exercise’, the organisations active in the field of linguistic
diversity and language learning have been grouped into four categories. These categories are
explained below.
3.1.1. Government departments and public institutions
This category covers the governmental / public bodies involved in language policy definition
and/or implementation in the countries covered by the study. These can be various ministries,
but include also language boards and other types of organisations with for example advisory or
planning functions.
The members of the European Commission’s Working Group on Languages are typically
coming from bodies that can be found in this category.
Those universities and research institutions that are ‘public’ bodies are not included in this
category, but are listed under the heading of ‘universities and research institutions’.
3.1.2. Academic and research institutions
Among the category of academic institutions, only those organisations were included with either
a specific ‘centre’ dedicated to a study field falling within the area under consideration (e.g. a
‘centre for multi-lingualism’, ‘centre for language and migration’, …), and / or where one or
more experts are active which were identified as leading in one or more of the sub-fields of
interest in our mapping.
‘Ordinary’ language departments (e.g. of the Germanic languages) in a university were not listed
in the mapping as it has not been the aim to list all academic institutions in Europe where
languages are taught or research is done.
3.1.3. NGOs and European networks
Non-governmental organisations active either at national or international level, as well as
(European) networks were grouped together in a separate category.
Actors in this group are a variety of organisations, mostly aiming at promoting and protecting
minority languages and/or more broadly minority cultural groups.
20
Final report
3.1.4. International organisations
This category contains international organisations (like UNESCO, the Council of Europe,
European Commission), but also organisations that act as departments or divisions of these
institutions (e.g. the European Centre for Modern Languages, Linguapax).
Other organisations included in this section with a wider than national geographical scope are for
example : the British Council or the European Centre for Minority Issues.
3.2. Results from the mapping survey among actors
The mapping survey was sent out to (nearly) all actors identified through the study. In total, 54
organisations sent back a completed questionnaire with information about their organisation’s
status and activities.
Below is a description of what can be learnt from these questionnaires.
3.2.1. Type of institution
Out of the 54 organisations responding:
• 18 (33%) were public / government bodies
• 18 (33%) academic institutions
• 16 (30%) research institutions
• 7 (13%) national or European NGO’s
• 3 (6%) international organisations
• 6 (11%) others – media, cultural (Goethe), one political party etc.
Most organisations indicating two types of activity were universities doing research.
The main geographic scope of these organisations is as follows :
• 15 only regional
• 21 primarily national
• 6 European
• 15 international – most of those also operate on a European level and some also on a
national level
3.2.2. Scope of work
Respondents were asked to indicate which of the following activities applied to them:
• Representation (defending the rights of linguistic communities) / Legislation
• Promotion of and awareness-raising about language learning and the multi-lingual society
• Education (language learning, teaching methodologies)
• Research
• Cultural activities and cooperation in the broad sense
• Media
Public and government bodies say they are involved in several of these activities. Several of
them are ministries of education so they are obviously involved in education issues. However,
21
Final report
they are also involved in representation / legislation – probably more the latter than the former.
They are furthermore active in ‘promotion’ and ‘cultural’ work.
For the academic and research institutions, the order of importance is research work, education,
and promotion.
For NGO’s, the main concerns are ‘representation / legislation’ and culture.
Some of the individual responses go into some detail (for which the reader can refer to the
individual questionnaires). For example, the Austrian Centre for Language Competence in Graz
(not ECML), who are involved in most of the listed activities, but particularly refer to
dissemination of good practice and research, and furthering innovation in language teaching.
One ministry of education preferred not to use the given categories but defined their scope as
‘language policy development and setting objectives for language education’.
The Czech Ministry of Education gives a detailed explanation of their activities, of the national /
local responsibilities – seeking synergy between their national programme and the main
recommendations of the Council of Europe’s language policy.
3.2.3. Staff
The academic respondents refer to linguistic departments in their universities. 23 academic and
research people gave staff numbers totaling 365, resulting in an average of 16 per institution.
The 14 respondents from public / government bodies – often ministries of education – referred to
729 staff in total, giving 52 persons on average.
The 5 NGO’s had an average of 12 staff each and the 2 international organisations averaged 10
staff members each.
Overall, for the 45 institutions quoting staff numbers the average was 27 per institution. Parttime staff were included in this, but not volunteers. One particular respondent was also excluded
from the given averages – Goethe Institute with no less than 3,200 staff.
3.2.4. Networks
11 respondents said they are leading a network.
For example the Research Centre on Multilingualism (Brussels, Belgium) leads a network of
researchers specialised in multilingualism. The Goethe Institute, Ostfriesische Langschaft, De
Spieker - Heimat, Linguapax, EBLUL, The Welsh Language Board and Siebenbuergenforum are
all heading networks.
CIEMEN stated to run the Mercator network. LDU in Hungary is a network of 340 local
Hungarian-German minority self governments as well as 500 civil organizations.
20 respondents specified they are members of a network. Some of the more interesting ones
quoted were:
• Cidree – Consortium of Institutions for Development and Research in Education, in
Enschede, The Netherlands
• ECML
• European Commission
• The Mercator network
• European Language Monitor
• EBLUL
• CONSEU
22
Final report
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FEGAMP, EIXO Atlantico
Nordic-Baltic-Russian network of Finnic minority and regional languages
European Institute of Immersion Teaching
Federal Union of European Nationalities (FUEN)
Linmiter, Spell
Landesform
Termcelt
17 said they are not part of a wider network.
3.2.5. Financing
The numbers of respondents by sub-group were as follows :
Table 4 : Sources of financing – in absolute numbers (N=52)
Ac. / research
Public bodies
others
Public
subsidies
22
14
7
Grants
Commercial
activities
8
3
2
20
10
5
donations
others
2
2
3
1
3
However, the respondents giving percentages for each category provided us with a clearer
picture.
Table 5 : Importance of sources of financing – in percentage (N=41)
Ac. / research
Public bodies
others
Public
subsidies
67 %
87 %
50 %
Grants
22 %
11 %
25 %
Commercial
activities
7%
1%
3%
donations
others
total
2%
1%
6%
2%
0%
16 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
3.2.6. Sources of information
Some of the organisations / institutions quoted as main sources of information are worth listing :
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Council of Europe / ECML (info services and websites)
European Union / European Commission
EBLUL
OECD
United Nations
OSCE
Mercator Centres
Eurolang
UNESCO
Tempus Public Foundation
Landesforum
British Council
23
Final report
Miscellaneous
• EBLUL, FUEF, Soros Foundation, Ipsa, SEL
• Universities, Catalan Government, International Research Organisation
• CTNL, Termigal, Xunta de Galizia etc.
• CNRS, Ministère de l’Education, de la Recherche
• Institute of Minority Research, Minority Ombudsman etc.
3.2.7. Target groups
Of the 54 organisations who returned this questionnaire, 2 did not reply to the question about the
main target groups of their organisation (giving a ‘no reply’ rate of 3.7 %).
Table 6 : Main target groups – in absolute numbers and in percentage of the category (N=52)
Ac. / Research
(N=27)
Public bodies
(N=16)
Others
(N=10)
General
public
8
(30%)
10
(63%)
4
(40%)
Children
+ adults
14
(52%)
8
(50%)
3
(30%)
Adults
Teachers
Researchers
6
(22%)
7
(44%)
5
(50%)
18
(67%)
8
(50%)
6
(60%)
22
(81%)
4
(25%)
3
(30%)
Policy
makers
13
(48%)
9
(56%)
6
(60%)
Others
2
(7%)
5
(31%)
3
(30%)
As can be seen from the table above, there were 27 Academic / Research institutions indicating
what their target groups are. Eight of them (or 30% of the 27 Academic / Research respondents)
target the general public
Obviously, the academic institutions (university language departments) are targeting students but
many of the respondents were research departments rather than teaching departments so they
target other researchers and teachers and sometimes policy makers.
Public bodies (often ministries of education) have a broad target group.
3.3. Linguistic diversity and language learning in Europe : initial observations
A number of observations can be made when analysing the actors in the field of ‘linguistic
diversity and language learning’ in Europe :
•
Different ‘categories’ of languages can be recognised, on which actors are working :
‘national / official’ languages, regional / minority languages (RML), immigrant languages.
Little or no interaction, co-ordination, or networking takes place among these groups of
actors (between language ‘categories’).
•
Even within the ‘category’ of RML, there is little transfer of knowledge or ‘good practice’
from one language community to another. This is probably largely due to the fact that the
results of work carried out are available only in the concerned RML, and are often not
translated (hence reducing the possibility of ‘transfer of knowledge’). This problem is
recognised by the stakeholders, who state that one easily becomes isolated as an actor
focussing on a particular RML.
•
The category of ‘immigrant languages’ is mainly the subject of the work of academia /
research centres, which in many cases cover these languages in a broader (socio-cultural)
context. Significantly less organisations representing these language communities were
24
Final report
identified through the mapping exercise than has been the case for the other language
categories. Indeed, while there exist many NGOs representing RML communities, hardly
any exist for immigrant language communities.
•
It appeared through the study that in the new EU member states (notably in ex-communist
states), the actors in the field are predominantly universities (with ‘regular’ teaching
activities), while interests of RML are represented by political parties or groupings, or
‘broader’ socio-cultural organisations.
25
Final report
4.
Perceived needs and gaps
4.1. Introduction
The questionnaire for the consultations with the stakeholders covered a section on the needs and
gaps perceived by the actors. The respondents were asked whether they think there is a need for
more substantial action or greater support at a European level, considering the broad field of
‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ and the wide variety and important number of actors
in this field.
The following three areas were indicated by the respondents as most important needs, with a
large majority (60 % or more) of the respondents saying greater support at a European level
would be ‘very useful’ :
¾ financial support for concrete actions (in e.g. research, awareness raising, promotion) is
considered as ‘very useful’ by 73 % of the sample (while up to 85 % among the academic
and research organisations, and overall stronger than average in the most recent Member
States);
¾ policy advice to EU and national level decision-makers;
¾ dissemination of information.
These areas are closely followed by another three areas, on which clear needs are identified (for
each, around 58 % of the respondents stated more support at EU level would be very useful) :
¾ research and knowledge-building;
¾ co-operation and networking;
¾ promotion of the multi-lingual society.
More details on the results obtained on this question are described in the next sections.
4.2. Policy support
Greater support at a European level in terms of policy advice towards national and EU decisionmakers was perceived as ‘very useful’ by 65 % and 61 % of the respondents respectively, with
only 7 % of the respondents considering such support as ‘not useful / adequate provisions exist’.
The proportion considering that policy advice towards the national policy-makers is needed is
highest among the respondents from the category of academic or research organisations, (where
up to 82 % stated this would be ‘very useful’), and in the new Member States (with up to 77 %
of the respondents from these countries who answered ‘very useful’).
The percentage perceiving more support in the form of policy advice as ‘not useful’ is highest
among the public / governmental organisations : 15 % of them state that more support would not
be useful, neither towards national nor EU policy-makers.
Policy advice towards institutions (in general) was considered as a lower priority, with only 38
% of the respondents saying this would be ‘very useful’, and 46 % saying this ‘can be useful’.
For 8 %, this is ‘not useful’.
The share of those who consider such support as ‘very useful’ is highest among the category of
academic / research organisations (46 %).
26
Final report
4.3. Research and knowledge-building
The most important need perceived by the stakeholders in terms of ‘knowledge-building’ is for
the dissemination of existing information: 61 % of the sample, and in the new Member States up
to 69 %, say more support at EU level for such dissemination would be ‘very useful’.
Overall, the NGOs are less convinced of this need, with only 40 % of them saying such support
would be ‘very useful’.
More substantial action in terms of comparative (cross-national) research, based upon existing
research results, is considered as ‘very useful’ by 58 % of the respondents. It is particulary the
academic and research organisations who emphasise this need, with 70 % of them indicating this
as ‘very useful’. Also the respondents from international organisations also shared this opinion.
Ten percent of the stakeholders (mostly from national public / governmental organisations) do
not perceive such need, saying such support would not be useful.
New empirical research (through the collection of statistical and other data) seems however also
needed, with 55 % of the stakeholders saying this would be ‘very useful’. This percentage was
significantly higher in the new Member States, where 62 % stated more support for new research
would be ‘very useful’.
12 % of the total sample does not consider new empirical research would be useful. Again, these
were mostly respondents from (national) public / governmental organisations.
To centralise information and knowledge at EU level is considered ‘very useful’ by 52 % of the
sample. The respondents from the public / governmental organisations were strongest in stating
this (with 58 % saying this would be ‘very useful’).
As regards the development and testing of tools and methods, about half of the sample (51 %)
say this would be ‘very useful’, while 12 % do not think this would be useful. This need was
recognised most by the academic and research organisations, while recognised least by the
respondents from public / governmental organisations.
4.4. Co-operation and networking
Also in terms of co-operation and networking, clear needs are recognised by the stakeholders in
the field. 58 % of the sample stated that the support and development of networking among
various actors and at different levels (regional, national, EU, international) would be ‘very
useful’. This need was notably emphasised by actors in the field of regional minority languages,
who expressed a substantial need for more exchanges of experiences among the different actors
in this field.
Another 29 % said this ‘can be useful’, while for 7 % (all but one working in public /
governmental organisations) there is no need for more support in this area.
The respondents from public / governmental organisations were most divided on this : while 65
% of them considered more co-operation and networking as ‘very useful’, 15 % were of the
opposite opinion stating there is no such need.
27
Final report
4.5. Promotion and awareness-raising
The proportion of respondents saying that more substantial action at EU level in terms of
promotion of the multi-lingual society would be ‘very useful’ is 58 %. Questionnaire
respondents and experts emphasised the importance of promoting languages in general
(regardless of the ‘type’ of language : official, regional, …), of promoting multi-lingualism
through better and more diversified language learning.
23 % of the sample were more hesitant and stated this ‘can be useful’, while 12 % of the
respondents do not consider there is such need.
Overall, the perception of this need was lowest in the new Member States where only 46 %
stated that more support in terms of promotion of the multi-lingual society would be ‘very
useful’, and where the proportion saying that such support would not be useful amounted to 23
%.
The academic and research organisations were most divided: while 64 % of them say this would
be ‘very useful’, another 18 % stated this would not be useful – both these percentages being
significantly higher than the averages for the sample.
4.6. Co-ordination
Although slightly less in numbers, there is still 51 % of the stakeholders who perceive an
important need in terms of co-ordination at the EU level of activities undertaken by various
actors in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning, stating more support at EU level
in this area would be ‘very useful’. This share even amounted to 61 % among the respondents
from academic and research organisations, and was overall perceived more strongly in the ‘old’
Member States than in the new Member States.
Those respondents who expressed the need for more co-ordination emphasised current
inefficiencies and duplication of work, due to the fact that actors are unaware of what others are
doing or have already done.
Another 35 % of the consulted stakeholders recognise more support at EU level in this area ‘can
be useful’, and only 5 % stated they do not perceive a need in terms of co-ordination.
4.7. Representation
The opinions among the stakeholders are mixed with regard to the defence and representation of
RML (regional / minority languages) / lesser-used language communities.
While 46 % of the respondents stated that more support in this area at the EU level would be
‘very useful’, 29 % were more hesitant saying this ‘can be useful’. A relatively high share of the
respondents (18 % of the sample, and in the new Member States up to 31 %) were of the opinion
that such support would not be useful or stated that adequate provisions exist (notably at the
national level). 8 % of the sample did not express themselves on this issue.
The NGOs were particularly strong on this point, with 67 % of these respondents indicating that
more support in this area at the EU level would be ‘very useful’. Especially respondents active
28
Final report
on RML expressed a need for a stronger pressure on national governments to implement the
rights of RML in every day life.
The share of those who do not perceive a need in this respect was highest among the category of
public / governmental organisations (where 23 % stated this would not be useful), and among the
academic and research organisations (with up to 24 % stating this would not be useful).
In general, a certain reticence could be observed among the stakeholders with respect to this
area, and many referred to the subsidiarity principle explaining that while needs do exist in terms
of representation of language communities, this remains largely a national responsibility.
4.8. Other needs and gaps
One fifth (21 %) of the stakeholders perceived also other needs than those mentioned above for
more substantial action at a European level.
These needs are (each mentioned by one respondent, unless otherwise mentioned) :
¾ the identification and dissemination of best practice in the field (mentioned by 3
respondents);
¾ in relation to RML :
o to set standards for the protection of RML;
o to defend, rather than represent RML;
o to do research on using RML in economic development and conflict resolution;
¾ in relation to immigrant minority languages :
o to represent immigrant minority languages;
o to work on ‘immigrants and language use in Europe’
¾ in relation to ‘rights’ :
o an enforcing agency for linguistic rights;
o ‘to do something in countries that do not give rights to their linguistic minorities’
¾ miscellaneous other ‘needs’ identified are :
o to monitor protection measures;
o to identify needs and overlaps;
o to do something about the working languages of the EU;
o the protection of lesser used EU official languages;
o innovation in planning and teaching, revitalising languages.
29
Final report
5.
The way forward : advantages and disadvantages of different options
During the interviews, the stakeholders and practitioners in the field of linguistic diversity and
language learning were asked how the needs they identified (as described in chapter 4 of this
report) can ideally be solved at the European level. Different alternatives were proposed, and the
respondents were asked about the adequacy, advantages and disadvantages of these options in
order to tackle the stated needs.
Also during the think tank meeting and the Internet discussion forum, the advantages and
disadvantages of the two options that were considered as most adequate were discussed.
5.1. Overall preferences
The following potential solutions to the perceived needs were listed in the questionneire :
to extend the role and tasks of the European Commission;
to extend the tasks of an existing institution – whereby the respondent could specify which
institution he/she saw apt;
to develop or create existing / new networks;
a virtual agency (managed by existing institutions as a project);
to create an autonomous (new) agency;
a ‘no action’ scenario.
The respondents were asked to rank the suggested options in terms of how adequate they thought
these options would be to solve the identified needs. The ranking was from 1 to 6, with 1 being
the preferred option. If another option was suggested by the respondent, the ranking could go on
to 7.
The table below gives the average ranking for each of the options proposed15.
Table 7 : Average ranking of the different options to solve the needs identified (N=77)
Option
Average ranking
To create an autonomous (new) agency
2.23
To develop or create existing / new networks
2.61
To extend the role and tasks of the European Commission
3.31
To extend the tasks of an existing institution (other than the
3.36
European Commission)
A virtual agency (managed by existing institutions as a project)
4.00
No action
6.14
The table below presents the percentage of respondents that considered the respective options to
be the most adequate.
Table 8 : Adequacy of different options to solve the needs identified, in percentage of
respondents placing the respective option on the first place (N=77)
Option
% of respondents
49 %
15
The tabel we present is with 'average' positions of each option (= making the average, across all
respondents' rankings for this respective option). E.g. the autonomous Agency would get '1' if all
respondents ranked it '1'. It now got an average ranking of 2.23 (because not everybody gave it the
highest place) - but still it has the highest average ranking.
30
Final report
Option
To extend the tasks of an existing institution (other than the
European Commission)
No action
% of respondents
20 %
14 %
14 %
3%
0%
As can be seen from the tables above, an autonomous (new) agency is clearly regarded as the
most adequate solution to the perceived needs. The second-best option on the basis of respondent
opinions would be the development or creation of existing / new networks.
Two options are clearly rejected by the respondents: the creation of a ‘virtual agency’ which
could be managed by existing institutions as a project, as well as the ‘no action’ scenario.
The rejection of a virtual agency was motivated by the fact that it would never be able to solve
the needs as they were previously identified, while a ‘no action’ scenario was firmly rejected as
‘not an option’ because solutions to the perceived needs were deemed as absolutely necessary.
In the table below, the results of the ranking are presented based on the type of organisation of
the respondent.
Table 9 : Average ranking of options by type of respondent (international organisations and
‘other’ are omitted)
Option
Total
Public /
Academic
NGO
sample
government / research
To create an autonomous (new)
2.23
2.76
1.97
2.14
agency
To develop or create existing / new
2.61
2.84
2.43
2.50
networks
To extend the role and tasks of the
3.31
3.52
3.39
2.58
European Commission
To extend the tasks of an existing
3.36
3.58
3.31
2.92
institution (other than the European
Commission)
A virtual agency (managed by
4.00
3.88
4.35
3.33
existing institutions as a project)
No action
6.14
6.00
6.20
6.25
The overall results are confirmed for each type of organisation, especially as the autonomous
Agency and the network option are ranked first and second by each of the types of respondents.
Still, the enthusiasm for an autonomous Agency is clearly less strong among public sector
organisations in comparison to academia with an average ranking of 2.76 against 1.97.
The European Commission scores clearly better among NGOs.
Table 10 : Average ranking of options by country of origin of respondent (non-EU Member
States are omitted)
Option
Total
15 ‘old’ EU
10 new EU
sample
M.S.
M.S.
2.23
2.25
2.46
2.61
2.67
2.38
31
Final report
Option
To extend the role and tasks of the European
Commission
To extend the tasks of an existing institution
(other than the European Commission)
A virtual agency (managed by existing
institutions as a project)
No action
Total
sample
3.31
15 ‘old’ EU
M.S.
3.55
10 new EU
M.S.
2.38
3.36
3.29
3.50
4.00
3.86
4.31
6.14
6.17
5.92
When looking at the country of origin of the respondents, the ranking is not always identical.
Respondents from new EU Member States have a different opinion as they rank the European
Commission and the network option as first, and the autonomous Agency just below as third.
The difference is small but a sign of differences in situation and opinions, particularly in the
former communist countries.
The advantages and disadvantages of the main options, as seen by the stakeholders, are
described more in detail in the sections below.
5.2. Extending the role and tasks of an existing institution
5.2.1. The European Commission
As can be seen from the table above (section 5.1.), 20 % of the respondents think that an
extension of the role and tasks of the European Commission is the most adequate solution to the
existing needs in the field.
The following advantages of this option were perceived :
¾ the European Commission forms a central piece of the European institutional architecture
¾ the authority and power of the European Commission
However, some important disadvantages were also mentioned :
¾ there is no evidence that the Commission can adequately cover the needs, and the approach
of the subject by the European Commisson in the past and its achievements in the field till
today are not reassuring (‘le poids du passé’)
¾ institutional disadvantages : bureaucratic burden, lack of democratic legitimation
¾ the issue would be ‘lost’ within the broad domain of competence of the European
Commission
¾ the European Commission is not structured to support a mainstreaming approach
¾ the European Commission is not sufficiently ‘in touch’ with the field ‘on the ground’
5.2.2. The Council of Europe / the European Centre for Modern Languages
Of the 14 % of the sample (11 respondents) that identified the extension of the tasks of an
existing institution as the most adequate option, there were 6 who suggested the Council of
Europe and / or the European Centre for Modern Languages as the ideal institution. Of all
respondents, there were 15 who mentioned the Council of Europe and / or the ECML – although
they did not necessarily consider it as the most adequate option.
The advantages listed for this option are :
¾ the Council of Europe knows the field and has a clear understanding of language issues
32
Final report
¾ there is general appreciation for the expertise of the Council of Europe and for the value of
its work
¾ the pragmatic approach of the Council of Europe is valued
¾ the Council of Europe can rely on existing networks
The disadvantages which the stakeholders perceive for this option are :
¾ its weakness in terms of ‘power’ which stakeholders attribute to the Council of Europe (“the
Council of Europe is a toothless tiger”)
¾ the Council of Europe has very limited resources
¾ the mandate of the ECML is limited to language learning and ‘implementation’ of
educational policies, making it incompetent, as it is, to take on the role that would be
expected in order to cover the identified needs
¾ the Council of Europe is weakened by its (too) fast growth : it experiences a rapidly
increasing number of members
¾ the implementation of this option is not within the power of the European Union
5.2.3. EBLUL / Mercator centres
Some of the respondents suggesting as most adequate solution (on the first place) an existing
agency of which the tasks can be extended to solve the needs, named EBLUL (the European
Bureau for Lesser Used Languages) and / or the Mercator centres (5 respondents). In total, 12
respondents suggested EBLUL and / or (although much less often) Mercator to take on
additional roles to cover the needs – although not necessarily as the most adequate solution.
The main advantage seen in this option is the fact that it allows to build on existing work and
investments done.
The disadvantages of this option which the stakeholders perceive are :
¾ these are networks, set up as EU-funded ‘projects’, and not conceived as an ‘institution’;
¾ inherent weaknesses from the past are important risk factors : there is no continuity
safeguarded, management problems, lack of visibility of actions, lack of awareness and
relation with the realities ‘on the ground’, …16
¾ the original mandate and focus of both EBLUL and Mercator lie in RML (and members of
their networks are also mainly RML focussed) – while RML form only part of the envisaged
scope of action needed
5.3. Creating a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning
5.3.1. Advantages and disadvantages
While it can be seen from the table above that 49 % of the respondents considered an
autonomous agency to be the most adequate solution to the perceived needs (representing 38 out
of 77 respondents), it is interesting to see that to the question whether ‘all in all, do you think
that the Commission should establish an autonomous Agency’, up to 74 % of the respondents
answered ‘yes’ (57 out of the 77 respondents).
The overview of the answers to this question is given in the table below.
16
These weaknesses are also recognised in the report ‘Ex-Post Evaluation of Activities in the Field of
Regional and Minority Langugages 1998-2002’ by Interarts for the European Commission, published
in June 2004.
33
Final report
Table 11 : ‘All in all, do you think that the Commission should establish an autonomous
Agency?’ (N=77, 1 ‘no reply’)
All in all, do you think that the
Commission should establish an
autonomous Agency ?
yes
74
% of respondents
no
I have no opinion
12
13
Nine respondents answered no to this question. Eight of them are from ‘old’ EU Member States
and only one is from a ‘new’ Member State. Six of the nine are from the public / government
sector, which corresponds to one fourth of the respondents in this category.
This shows that the strongest opposition to the idea of an Agency comes from civil servants
working within Ministries of Member States. The main reasons for this opposition are described
below.
Out of the 10 respondents that said they had no opinion, 7 are from academia, and 2 from the
public/government sector. In terms of origin of the respondent, 3 of these 10 are from new
Member States.
The respondents who answered ‘no’ to this question were asked for the reasons behind their
answer. The following arguments were mentioned against the creation of an autonomous
Agency:
it is preferable to extend the roles and tasks of an existing institution – duplication is to be
avoided;
the term ‘autonomous’ causes concern for some respondents who emphasised the
importance of stakeholder involvement;
a proliferation of agencies should be avoided (‘just another agency’);
it is preferable to build a network.
The advantages and disadvantages of the creation of an autonomous Agency as they were
perceived through the study (from the interviews, the ‘think tank’ discussion and the Internet
discussion) are presented below.
Advantages

Disadvantages

the permanent infrastructure provides
safeguards for the subject
than language)

perceived as threat for existing structures
that receive funding
for money’?)
process)
a concern that an Agency would be
‘another bureaucracy’
34
Final report
5.3.2. Potential role and mandate of an Agency
Regardless of the choice by the interview respondents for an Agency or otherwise, the
stakeholders were asked during the consultations to imagine that an Agency was created, and
were subsequently asked what would in their opinion be the most useful role and mandate for
such an Agency.
First, in the case of the creation of an Agency, the scope of its work was examined. The
following options were included in this question :
activities related to the promotion of the ‘asset’ of a multi-lingual society as they are
included in the Commission’s Action Plan;
activities related to the rights of language communities;
activities related to research and knowledge-building.
The next table shows the percentage of respondents who consider that an Agency’s scope of
work should include the suggested elements.
Table 12 : What should be the scope of work of an Agency ? (in percentage, N=77)
% of respondents
considering this
should be included
The promotion of the asset of a multi-lingual society, focussing on :
lifelong language learning for all
82 %
better language teaching
79 %
cultural activities and media (involving ‘language’)
81 %
The rights of language communities in the EU
information
87 %
promotion / representation
75 %
Research and knowledge-building
centralisation of information
87 %
comparative (cross-national) meta-research
82 %
new research
78 %
Overall, the choices indicated by respondents who had not originally ‘voted’ for an autonomous
Agency are similar to those given by respondents who were immediately in favour of the
creation of such Agency.
Regarding the promotion of the asset of a multi-lingual society, there is broad consensus that this
would fall within the remit of an autonomous agency. There is a slightly higher opposition
against the idea of involvement in language teaching, mainly from respondents opposed to the
idea of an autonomous agency. This is quite certainly linked to the fear of duplication with the
work of the ECML in Graz.
Regarding the ‘rights’ issue, there is a very large consensus on the inclusion of information as a
role for a potential Agency, but much less on the area of promotion / representation. This is
confirmed by other results in the study: particularly among those in favour of the idea of an
autonomous Agency, there is a large group of respondents that recommend not to include this
subject in the scope of work. There are two main motives:
the risks involved with the subject (high political sensitivity)
the fact that other organisations have this role (e.g. EBLUL for the RML).
35
Final report
Regarding research activities to be included as part of the work of a potential Agency, these
results confirm the needs identified:
the highest need exists at the level of making information available to all: having one
central point collecting and disseminating all relevant research results, whether for the
research community, improving the quality of policy-making or for the general public’s
interest;
doing new research is also perceived as important : 78 % of all respondents, and up to 84 %
of those in favour of the creation of an Agency, consider this should be part of the scope.
As to the question which languages should be covered by an Agency (if it were created), 56 % of
the interview respondents (43 out of the 77 respondents in absolute terms) stated that they
believe an Agency should cover ‘all languages’, taking an inclusive approach to languages. The
other 44 % are in favour of a more selective approach.
There are no significant differences by the country of origin of the respondent, but there seem to
be differences by type of organisation.
Table 13: “Should ‘all languages’ be covered by an agency ?”, by type of respondent (in % N=77)
Total
Public/government Academic/research
NGO
Int’l/other
Yes
56
50
64
40
100
No
44
50
36
60
0
The inclusive approach is less favoured by NGOs, while in the public sector opinions are split
evenly among both options.
Those respondents considering an Agency should not cover all languages, indicated the
following language categories to be covered by the Agency (more than one language category
could be ticked by the respondent):
• EU official languages : 59 %
• National official languages : 62 %
• Regional official languages: 62 %
• Regional / minority languages : 79 %
• Immigrant languages : 32 %
• Other languages : 6 %
These results show differences in attitude regarding the ‘selection’ of languages:
Regarding the official languages: a group is against their inclusion as they consider there to
be no need for these dominating languages to be included in the scope. Another much
smaller group (mainly from ex-communist countries), is in favour of limiting the scope to
just these languages.
Regarding immigrant languages, the situation is more complex. Many respondents consider
the needs for these languages to be “different”. Some respondents agree to the inclusion of
these languages because they have nothing against such inclusion, others are more firm in
stating they must be included (because these languages are a reality in the EU of today, or
for social and economic reasons). For some, these languages have a lower priority (while
agreeing on inclusion, the indigenous languages are considered more important).
Respondents from new Member States who are in favour of a selective approach never
include immigrant languages or other languages in their selection.
The share of those defending an inclusive approach was lowest among the NGOs, of which only
40 % stated an Agency should cover all languages. All 9 NGOs not favouring an inclusive
36
Final report
approach did indicate that an Agency should cover regional / minority languages. Two of them
also included immigrant languages, while none thought that ‘other languages’ should be
included.
The interview respondents were asked, if an Agency were created, what should in their opinion
be its roles. The table below shows the results obtained in answer to this question. The
percentages put in bold highlight which are the most important roles for an Agency as perceived
by the stakeholders.
Table 14 : Potential roles for an Agency, according to interviewed stakeholders, in percentage17
(N= 77)
Provide advice to policy makers
(supporting role)
Do independent new research
Co-ordinate existing (research & other)
activities
Compile and disseminate already
existing information (knowledge centre)
Be a network building agency
Promote linguistic diversity and the
multi-lingual society (awareness-raising)
Represent RML language communities
Represent immigrant / other language
communities
Very
important
Important
No opinion
Not
important
Preferably
not
62
27
-
7
1
29
47
42
36
7
5
14
5
5
1
62
29
3
3
-
57
64
29
22
3
5
7
3
-
39
23
27
33
13
16
8
13
9
7
From the results shown in the table above, it can be concluded that according to the stakeholders
and practitioners in the field the most important roles for an Agency would be :
¾ the promotion of linguistic diversity and the multi-lingual society (awareness-raising)
¾ providing advice (in a supporting role) to policy makers
¾ the compilation and dissemination of already existing information (being a ‘knowledge
centre’)
¾ to be a network building agency
Three of the potential roles were thought of as having less importance, or even face significant
opposition, as detailed below:
¾ Doing independent research: with 14 % of respondents stating this is not important and
another 5 % saying they prefer this would not be included. This confirms the higher
importance attached to the role of a knowledge centre, building on what exists rather than
creating new knowledge.
¾ Representation of RML: with 8 % of respondents stating this is not important and 9 %
preferring this task is not included. Only one of these respondents is from a NGO. There is
no difference regarding this ‘opposition’ among new and old Member States.
¾ Representation of immigrant / other languages: with 13 % of respondents stating this is not
important and 7 % preferring this not to be part of an Agency’s role. Opposition is coming
mainly from the public / government sector and NGOs, less from academia; slightly more
from the old Members States than from the new Members States (where one in four
respondent has de facto no opinion), and significantly more from respondents who are in
favour of a selective rather than inclusive scope regarding language coverage.
17
Where percentages do not add to 100 %, this is due to the ‘no reply’ rate.
37
Final report
Nine interview respondents suggested also ‘other’ roles for an Agency :
• to foster co-operation with non-EU European languages;
• to strengthen research for RML (as there are no resources available at national level);
• to develop a coherent policy on the role and use of languages in Europe;
• to raise awareness among majority groups about RML;
• to assist in setting up centres for languages;
• to develop a strong co-operation with other official bodies (Council of Europe, Unesco) to
avoid duplication;
• to create worldwide valuable bibliographies and disseminate information.
5.3.3. Target groups
The table below shows the percentage of the interview respondents who consider the suggested
category should be part of an Agency’s target groups.
Table 15 : ‘Which should be the main target groups of an Agency for Linguistic Diversity and
Language Learning ?’, in percentage of interview respondents (N = 77)
Target groups
National or regional policy-makers and institutions
EU policy makers and institutions
Professionals in the field of language training
Language communities
The academic community
The general public
NGOs
Other
%
91 %
84 %
61 %
55 %
52 %
51 %
42 %
4%
Target groups can be grouped in 3 categories:
• the policy-makers: the consensus is highest on the need for an agency to target this category.
The national level is perceived as more important than the European level.
• NGO’s: this category is perceived as less important, because they are supposed to play their
role adequately even without an agency supporting them.
• Among the other targets, the general public deserves specific attention. Even if it has the
lowest percentage of all the other target groups, it has been mentioned to be the first priority
by a large group of respondents.
Mentioned as ‘other’ target groups are : language planners, the educational administration, the
media.
5.3.4. Conditions for a successful autonomous Agency
The participants in the study (experts, stakeholders, …) saw a number of conditions that need to
be fulfilled for the success of an autonomous Agency.
The following conditions were put forward :
¾ an Agency needs a clear mandate, whereby duplication of activities and responsibilities is
avoided;
38
Final report
¾ an Agency should have sufficient resources in order to be effective : in terms of budget,
manpower, infrastructure;
¾ Agency staff needs to be competent, have expertise in the field (recruitment should be based
on expertise), and should be multi-lingual;
¾ stakeholder involvement is crucial – the Agency needs to have close relations with ‘the
ground’;
¾ an Agency needs to be politically independent (ensuring its ‘autonomy’), which will
underpin its position as a neutral advisor;
¾ an inclusive approach will support its credibility and neutrality, in the interest of all
languages;
¾ although autonomous, an Agency must be accountable (need for accountability);
¾ sufficient political will from the part of the EU institutions and the EU Member States for
the Agency to be successful (for the provision of resources, for input in terms of data, …);
¾ the Agency should be accessible to a wide range of target groups (broad audience);
¾ an Agency needs antennas or representative offices in the different Member States – it must
be a ‘networking’ Agency.
5.3.5. Perceived added value of an autonomous Agency
The stakeholders consider that the added value of an autonomous Agency would lie in the
following elements :
¾ an Agency would ensure the concentration and focus of EU attention on the field, as single
object of work of that respective institution (without dispersion of efforts over other
competencies);
¾ an Agency would form a central reference point, working as a catalyst in the field, and as a
platform for permanent exchanges between the various categories of actors and at the
different levels;
¾ as a specialised EU expertise centre, it can put language issues into a European context and
take them out of national politics. It can thus give ‘neutral’ advice to national policy makers
and it might also be useful in conflict prevention and resolution between minorities and
national authorities;
¾ through its continuous observation of linguistic change in the European societies, and
through its role in centralisation and dissemination of knowledge, more informed and hence
better decisions will be taken by policy makers at national and EU level;
¾ an Agency can help with the definition and the implementation of policies;
¾ an Agency can help to develop the European perspective which is actually not developed, it
can articulate the EU perspective towards researchers and policy-makers (“the sum of the
total is bigger than the sum of the parts.”);
¾ the existence of an Agency would (ideally) lead to better cross-border co-operations, less
nationalism, reduced risks for conflicts based on ethnicities, easier integration of the new
Member States and an improved idea of a common European identity (an added value which
is of particular relevance for the new Member States in Eastern Europe);
¾ its creation would give a very important sign, underlining the importance of linguistic
diversity and language learning;
¾ its neutrality through its autonomy, can give it a unique position in the field.
39
Final report
5.3.6. Scenario for a ‘European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning’
In the study, the main results from the consultations, as described above, were submitted to the
participants in the ‘think tank’ meeting, and translated into a working document describing a
possible scenario for a ‘European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning’. This
‘scenario’ is consistent with the needs identified and suggestions made by the study participants.
It is however important to emphasise that for the formulation of the proposed mandate, the study
team has also taken into account the roles and activitites of existing actors as to avoid
duplication.
This document was put online for feedback from all people that were contacted during the study.
The scenario below is the end result of this ‘exercise’.
Mission
The European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning would be an independent
body of the European Union, which would be established with the aim to promote and
strengthen linguistic diversity in Europe. It should give visibility to (all) language
communities in the EU as well as to the actors in the field of linguistic diversity and language
learning, building on expertise and pursuing a long-term focus.
The founding regulation of the Agency should stipulate that membership includes all EU and
Candidate Countries, but should be open to countries that do not (yet) belong to the EU but share
its concern for a multi-lingual and language-friendly society in a multi-cultural environment.
Also, it should stipulate that the Agency should co-operate closely and co-ordinate its activities
with the Council of Europe, as well as with other relevant bodies, thus avoiding overlap or
duplication.
Mandate
The Agency should have a clear mandate. The mandate of the Agency could be the following:
1. To raise broad awareness at all levels and throughout Europe of the importance of
linguistic diversity and language learning and of the necessity to foster and respect that
diversity;
2. To be a ‘knowledge centre’, at the service of all actors in the field of linguistic diversity
and language learning : establishing databases, collecting and disseminating information
and knowledge in relation to languages in Europe, research about them, programmes and
publications, best practices, legislation, etc.
3. To stimulate and support the collection of objective, timely, reliable and comparable
data at national and European level in order to help policy makers and others take
measures or to formulate courses of action within their respective domains of
competence;
4. To stimulate and support organisations working in the field of linguistic diversity and
language learning, encouraging networking and co-ordination among them, while
pursuing an inclusive approach on languages;
5. To monitor the policies and practices with regard to the integration of the aims of
‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ in the respective EU policy domains and
40
Final report
programmes18 at the EU level (within all Community institutions and bodies, an in
particular within the European Commission);
6. To be a platform for exchange between experts and practitioners, including policy
makers, who are working in the different areas of language so that they can take stock of
the developments at the international level, and relate these to national contexts.
Hence, the Agency would act as a catalyst for developing, collecting, analysing and
disseminating information and knowledge that contributes to linguistic diversity as well as more
widespread and improved language learning in Europe.
Scope
The Agency should pursue an inclusive approach towards languages, respecting the diversity of
all the languages used in the Union, whether national ‘official’ languages, regional or immigrant
languages, other lesser-used languages or sign languages. It would thus raise awareness about
the broad spectrum of languages in the Union, and encourage the learning of languages in
general.
As regards support for policy-making, the Agency should focus on providing and co-ordinating
the collection of information, serving as an input for policy makers and thus complementing the
work done by the Council of Europe on the setting and monitoring of legal standards, as well as
on policy development and implementation.
Target groups
Institutional level:
European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, other EU bodies, the EU
Member States, International Organisations
General public:
All experts and practitioners working in the area of languages, NGOs, the research community,
education, the media, and the public at large
Structure
As regards its structure, the Agency should remain small and flexible in terms of human
resources, but be influential through its status.
The staff should include language specialists with different backgrounds as well as
administrators.
The Agency could have a three (or four) pillar structure, consisting of :
• a Director and his/her staff. The Director would be responsible for everyday administration,
as well as for the preparation and implementation of the Agency’s work programme. The
staff should include experts in the different areas of the mandate (such as an expert on legal
status of languages, on data gathering and disseminating, on liaising with other Institutions
such as the ECML on language learning etc.).
18
This is the monitoring of the ‘mainstreaming approach’, in the terminology of the European
Commission.
41
Final report
•
A Management Board would ensure that the Agency carries out its missions and tasks, by
adopting its annual work programme and financial regulation. The structure of the
Management Board would be light with representatives appointed by the Commission and
by the Council, and representatives of stakeholders. In addition, a certain number of seats
could be reserved for representatives of international organisations such as the Council of
Europe. This Board would be intended to provide supervision of the activities of the Agency
and at the same time ensure coherence with Community policies and coordination with
initiatives from the part of the Commission and from Member States.
•
an Advisory Forum in which competent national/regional bodies, different stakeholder
groups, as well as international organisations can be represented. The Advisory Forum
would be a mechanism for exchanging information and pooling knowledge, as well as for
monitoring the activities of the Agency.
In addition, the Agency could have a network of ‘Focal Points’ (or ‘antennae’) at national /
regional level. Such ‘antennae’ could contribute to an important extent to the work of the
Agency, for example by :
• being responsible for the organisation and co-ordination of the national networks;
• being involved in the preparation and implementation of the Agency’s work programme;
• contributing to any relevant Agency publications;
• being in charge of translation of certain documents.
They would ensure the proper functioning of a two-way flow of information between the
Agency and the national / regional levels.
5.3.7. Human resources, infrastructures and overall costs required to set up the Agency
The Agency would be funded from the Community budget, based on a proposal from the
Commission and approved by the Budgetary Authority.
On the basis of the mandate for an Agency as described above, the total annual costs in the
beginning of its operation would probably be around 11 Mio euro. This is an estimate budgeting,
which in any case would need to be recalculated once a detailed task description for an Agency
is defined. A rise of the budget for the following years, once an Agency is fully operational, will
have to be foreseen.
The proposed budget is a realistic minimum, and should less resources be provided to an
Agency, the scope of its responsibilities must be reduced.
For comparison, one can refer to the overview of the budgets of the year 2002 of the existing
fifteen Community Agencies, as provided in the ‘Meta-Evaluation’ of the Commission19, as well
as to the calculations made in preparation of other Community Agencies (e.g. the European
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control)20.
Keeping in mind the scope of its responsibilites and mandate, it seems appropriate to foresee for
the Agency a minimum of 20 to 25 statutory staff members, spread over different professional
levels. It is important for these staff members to dispose of previous professional experience in
the field of linguistic diversity and language learning.
19
European Commission, Meta-Evaluation on the Community Agency System, 15 September 2003, p.
13.
20
European Commission, Establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control,
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, COM(2003) 441 final of
08/08/2003.
42
Final report
On top of that number, it is highly recommendable to provide also for experts serving at the
Agency for a limited period as ‘rotating staff’, being selected on the basis of their expertise in
specific areas in relation with the themes the Agency focuses on (as defined in its work
programme). Their number can vary, but 5 to 10 experts would be a realistic number.
Furthermore, in order to ensure a certain continuity in the work of the Agency while at the same
time providing for adaptability to current issues, it is advisable for experts to serve for a period
of minimum three and maximum five years.
It was not part of the scope of this feasibility study to perform an economic cost-benefit analysis
of the possible creation of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning.
In any case, due to the nature of its activities, it would be difficult to quantify the economic
benefits of establishing an Agency and the economic value of (increased) multilingualism in the
European Union.
However, it is possible to point out the main considerations in this respect :
¾ On the one hand, there will be a significant fixed cost to operate an Agency. This cost is
estimated, based on prior experience with Community agencies, to be in the order of 11
million Euro per year. This cost includes partly the ‘cost of autonomy’ : each individual
institution entails a basic fixed cost which would not be incurred without its existence.
¾ Economic benefits of the creation of such Agency can be expected. In particular with regard
to ‘co-ordination’, it must be emphasised that such efforts from the part of an Agency will
allow to benefit to a much larger extent than what is possible now from existing knowledge
(e.g. at Member State level) which presently is under-used due to lack of awareness of its
existence. At the same time, duplication of investments and efforts in the creation of
knowledge will be avoided – thus allowing for considerable savings.
¾ From an economic point of view, one can ask what is the potential alternative use of these
funds : “if and when a budget of this magnitude needs to be invested in this policy domain,
are there alternative uses for these funds that can yield a higher impact ?” This important
question should be considered in the decision-making.
Budget calculation tables
Table 16 : Budget summary table (all costs are mentioned in euro)
1. Personnel costs
2. Administrative expenditure
sub-total
2 520 513
3 024 616
5 545 129
3. Operating expenses
3.1 Forum meetings
3.2 Focal Point Network
3.3 Workshops and seminars
3.4 Publications
3.5 Information and awareness raising
3.6 Translations
3.7 Specific expertise
sub-total
600000
1 225 000
1 200 000
900 000
600 000
750 000
200 000
5 475 000
Grand Total
11 020 129
43
Final report
The tables below provide the assumptions and justification for the budget headings in the above
table. Again, all costs are mentioned in euro.
Personnel costs :
Table 17 : Personnel costs (costs in Euro)
No.
A-level
B-level
C-level
D-level
contract
Total
cost
128693
84265
68957
61456
128693
6
9
6
1
5
27
total
772 158
758 385
413 742
61 456
514 772
2 520 513
Assumptions :
• The staff number used as basis is 27, including both statutary as staff with fixed term
contracts.
• ‘Contract’ staff are experts which serving at the Institute for a limited period as
‘rotating staff’. Their salaries are calculated as A-level salaries.
• Salary levels used as basis for the calculation are average salary levels for the
different staff categories provided by the DG Budget for the year 2004.
• Translation staff is not foreseen, as the assumption is made that translations are
outsourced. These costs are hence included under the operating expenses.
Administrative expenditure :
The administrative expenditure is calculated as 90 % of the personnel costs.
It covers all overhead costs linked to the staff and the infrastructure of the Institute
(buildings, I.T., communication costs, office supplies, …), translations of administrative
documents, as well as board meetings.
Operating expenses :
Table 18 : Operating expenses (costs in Euro)
3. Operating expenses
3.1 Forum meetings
3.2 Focal Point Network
3 meetings/year
functioning of network
3.3 workshops / seminars
3.4 Publications
3.5 Information and awareness raising
3.6 Translations
3.7 Specific expertise
TOTAL
units/year
1
cost/unit
600000
3
25
24
200000
25000
50000
Assumptions :
Number of Advisory forum meetings / year
Number of Focal Point Network meetings / year
•
•
44
600 000
600 000
625 000
1 200 000
900 000
600 000
750 000
200 000
5 475 000
1
3
Final report
•
•
•
Number of Focal Points
25
‘Specific expertise’ is for data analysis, monitoring of indicators and tools
development
Translation costs are calculated on the basis of the total budgets foreseen for
publications, information and awareneness-raising activities (a ratio of 50 % is
assumed)
45
Final report
5.4. A European network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’
5.4.1. Background to the idea of a European network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’
Although the suggestion to build a new network or to develop existing networks as a solution to
the perceived needs was perceived as the most adequate option by only 16 % of the respondents
(12 out of 75) during the consultations, the average ranking obtained for this option is
nevertheless the nearest to the first option (being an autonomous Agency). The network option
can therefore be considered as the most valid alternative to an autonomous Agency.
While the respondents overall agreed there is no existing network of actors in the field that is
able to take on the required roles to adequately cover all the needs identified, the conclusion has
been that an adequate network would need to be built.
The study team has looked into existing examples at the European Commission of the successful
creation of networks that are useful in their domains. The concept described below has been
inspired by a concept applied already by the European Commission in another policy domain21.
involved in linguistic diversity and language learning. It is presented here as an alternative model
to the creation of an Agency as proposed in the European Parliament Resolution.
However, although the mission and objectives are similar to the Agency scenario, this can still
result in significantly different impacts due to the difference in approach.
5.4.2. Scenario for a European network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’
Mission
The European Network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’ would be established with the aim to
promote and strenghten linguistic diversity in Europe. It should give visibility to (all)
language communities in the EU as well as to the actors in the field of linguistic diversity and
language learning, building on expertise and pursuing a long-term focus.
Mandate
1. To raise broad awareness at all levels and throughout Europe of the importance of linguistic
diversity and language learning and of the necessity to foster and respect that diversity;
2. To be a ‘virtual’ knowledge centre, at the service of all actors in the field of linguistic
diversity and language learning, by creating mechanisms to match offer and demand for
information, knowledge and expertise;
21
The “Euro Info Centres” network, initiated in 1987. This network is co-ordinated by the DG
Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission. Today, more than 300 different organisations in
45 countries are members of the EIC network. For general information about the network, please look
at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/networks/eic/eic.html
The EIC network is currently financed from the MAP (Multiannual Programme for Enterprise and
Entrepreneurship) and has been evaluated in the framework of the MAP evaluation (2001-2005). The
last evaluation has been made in September 2004 by Infyde and provides a good picture of the current
situation of the network as well as the strengths and weaknesses. It is available under
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/enterprise/pdf/map_final_report.pdf.
46
Final report
3. To stimulate and support the collection of objective, timely, reliable and comparable data at
national and European level in order to help policy makers and others take measures or to
formulate courses of action within their respective domains of competence;
4. To stimulate and support organisations working in the field of linguistic diversity and
language learning, encouraging networking and co-ordination among them, while pursuing
an inclusive approach on languages;
5. To be a platform for exchange between experts and practitioners, including policy makers,
who are working in the different areas of language so that they can take stock of the
developments at the international level and relate these to national contexts.
Scope
The network would pursue an inclusive approach towards languages, respecting the diversity of
all the languages used in the Union, whether national ‘official’ languages, regional or immigrant
languages, other lesser-used languages or sign languages. It would thus raise awareness about
the broad spectrum of languages in the Union, and encourage the learning of languages in
general.
Target groups
European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, other EU bodies, the EU
Member States, International Organisations
General public:
All experts and practitioners working in the area of languages, NGOs, the research community,
education, the media, and the public at large
Structure
The concept includes three levels with different roles :
European Commission
•
•
•
•
Executive Agency
•
•
European Language Diversity
Centres (ELDC)
•
•
•
•
•
Role
Overall management and steering
Strategy
Selection of Network members
Mainstreaming: integration of the aims of ‘linguistic
diversity and language learning’ in the respective EU
policy domains and programmes
Provide services to the Network members
Manage the information flow between Network
members, from EC to Network and from Network to
EC
Evaluate performance of Network members
Implement an action plan according to the objectives in
the respective region
Active participation in networking activities
Give feedback to the Commission
Implement Europe-wide campaigns
47
Final report
What is meant with ‘Executive Agency’:
The Executive Agency is an external group of people recruited to manage the central services
linked to the network on behalf of the European Commission. It can be considered as a
‘technical assistance office’ as they were used in the past. In practice, this role could be part of
the activities of the Executive Agency the DG EAC has decided to set-up to assist the
management of its programmes.
European Language Diversity Centres (ELDC):
Organizations active in the field (various profiles possible – see below) would apply to host an
ELDC. The ELDC would be integrated in the host structure and could be a department or a
specific team. The Commission would launch at regular intervals calls for proposals for
interested organizations. When organisations are selected, the support they receive to implement
the action plan would be in the form of information, training for their staff, tools, network
activities, and financial support.
Organisations could become a network member, even if they concentrate only on part of the
objectives.
The network approach allows :
• to integrate all existing institutions that are active in related fields
• to create a “network of networks” covering all domains, languages and communities
• to give specific roles to ‘expertise centres’, e.g. the ECML for language learning, the
host organizations of the Mercator networks for RML
• to cover all ‘levels’ from supranational organizations to local community organizations
• to give a regional view to the European topics of linguistic diversity and language
learning and to anchor these topics in the regions.
Specific criteria should be developed to select organisations that can host such a centre. In any
case these organisations should be not-for-profit, and have their main activity linked to linguistic
diversity and language learning. Concretely, they could be NGOs whose main role is to act as a
lobby - e.g. for a specific language community; they could be academic or public sector
institutions, they could concentrate on one language or be active in related fields like the
multicultural society.
5.4.3. Some specific aspects of this model in comparison to an Agency
•
•
•
•
•
22
A network model is extremely flexible: its impact can be increased or decreased
depending on specific priorities and /or available funding.
No permanent structure is created, although the Commission can access expertise through
the Executive Agency.
This is a performance-based model, whereby actors in the field lose their status as an
ELDC if they fail to perform according to agreed targets. The evaluators can produce on a
regular basis (e.g. every semester22) a scoring for each ELDC : a negative score for two
consecutive periods can then lead to exclusion from the network and a new call to
recruit/select a replacement.
The variety and number of centres (covering all regions in the EU) involved in the
network creates a de facto stakeholder involvement, reducing the need for complex
structures.
The Executive Agency would be situated near the Commission (in Brussels).
As comparison : in the Euro Info Centres network, every single EIC is audited by the Audit Team
every six months. These audit reports are not public.
48
Final report
•
The network cannot perform all (potential) tasks related to its mandate. It can however be
extremely effective in collecting and disseminating information, managing promotion
campaigns, etc. but is e.g. less suitable for a mainstreaming function.
Some of these ‘weaknesses’ can be compensated by giving specific roles to specific
network members (expertise or resource centres having a special status in the network –
e.g. Mercator).
This model provides intensive two-way communications (from the European Commission
to regions/stakeholders, from regions/stakeholders/public to the European Commission). A
well organized reporting and screening mechanism can provide direct feedback from all
over Europe to the EU level policy makers.
The network can easily be mobilised for large thematic campaigns all over Europe.
•
•
•
5.4.3. Advantages and disadvantages
Centres’ as they were perceived through the study (from the interviews, the ‘think tank’
discussion and the Internet discussion) are presented below.
Advantages

23
Disadvantages
serving the network
it acts as ‘permanent conference’
the flexibility allows one to adapt to changing
needs in the dynamic context of languages
cost-effectiveness (‘value for money’)
‘steering groups’ within the network can help to
develop coherent policies in the field
permanent action takes place all over Europe

requires effective co-ordination
limited visibility
no authority
Commission
‘weaker’ language groups could
benefit less from a network : the
performance-based approach
implies well-functioning
(representative) organisations23
Notably the category of immigrant languages risks underrepresentation in this option. As set out in
section 3.3 of this report, less organisations exist which represent these language communities.
49
Final report
5.5. Opinions expressed in the Internet discussion forum
As mentioned earlier, 20 persons from a variety of countries and organisations have contributed
to the discussion forum. It is important to note that in the case of staff members of international
organisations, public bodies and federations, several participants in the discussion specified that
the opinions and positions expressed were their personal points of view, and do not necessarily
reflect the position of their organisation.
Looking at the different techniques used in the course of the study to ask stakeholders’ opinions
(interviews, think tank meeting, Internet discussion forum), the outcome of the Internet forum is
most balanced with regard to preferences for the different options proposed, while the results
from the other activities point much stronger in the direction of an autonomous Agency.
Indeed, the participants of the discussion forum seem to more divided as to which is the most
appropriate direction to take.
While some contributors are strongly in favour of the establishment of a European Agency for
Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning, others are concerned this might result in the
creation of ‘just another bureaucracy’ with a top-heavy structure and little or no effective ties
with the field itself. For these reasons, these contributors expressed a stronger preference for a
network approach which they believe offers more opportunities for ‘real action’, a stronger
integration of all actors, and a higher ‘value for money’, while at the same time being closer to
the citizens than an Agency.
Those in favour of an autonomous Agency emphasised the strong need for a long-term
commitment and safeguarding of means, as well as for real autonomy in order to protect the
efforts being undertaken from too easily changing political preferences. A network approach is
in their opinion too weak a structure, lacking visibility, and requiring very effective coordination – a task which they are sceptical the Commission or even a technical assistance office
can fulfil satisfactorily (based on knowledge of past experiences).
Overall, the participants in the discussion forum confirmed the importance of involving the
stakeholders in the efforts undertaken. In the Agency option, this involvement is possible in the
Advisory Forum. It was further suggested that it can be considered to select a limited number
from among the members of the Advisory Board to be part of the Management Board of the
Agency. Other contributors to the discussion believed that in the scenario of a network approach,
stakeholder involvement could be more ‘active’ as network member.
There was very broad consensus among the participants in the discussion forum that the Council
of Europe, with its European Centre for Modern Languages, does very important work and has a
proven track record of realisations in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning. They
agreed that this should not be ignored and that whatever option is taken, the European
Commission should look for complementarity and synergies with the efforts undertaken by the
Council of Europe.
Some participants even went further and suggested to look into the possible creation of a more
original institutional set-up in the form of a joint initiative by the European Commission and the
Council of Europe, or alternatively an extension of the mandate of the European Centre for
Modern Languages. Others, however, while acknowledging the importance of the role of the
Council of Europe, recognised at the same time its weaknesses and limitations, and rejected the
idea of ‘building upon the ECML’.
50
Final report
A separate discussion paper in the online forum was devoted to what should be the working
languages of an Agency active in the field of linguistic diversity. Participants in this discussion
recognised the challenge and apparent contradiction (being for diversity, but working with a
limited number of language for cost and efficiency reasons), and were nearly unanimous in their
rejection of accepting English as a de facto ‘lingua franca’. It was pointed out that it is necessary
to take a decision, taking into account a longer term perspective, in order to avoid that day to day
reality makes English indeed the sole working language.
The suggestion was made to distinguish between internal working languages and languages used
in relations with the public, for which other rules can be defined.
The five working papers, together with the contributions made by the participants in the forum
discussions, are included in annex 4 of this report.
51
Final report
6.
Autonomous Community Bodies : a unique organisational model
While the analysis performed so far has been based on the opinions of the stakeholders and
policy-makers in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning, the purpose of the
present chapter is to look at the option of creating an autonomous Community Agency against
the institutional background.
The sections below look into the conditions that were put forward by the European Commission
as justifying the creation of autonomous agencies, as well as into the legal and political
framework of Agencies, in order to verify the political validity of the option to create a
‘European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning’.
6.1. Why create an autonomous institution ?
A Community agency is a body governed by European public law. It is distinct from the
Community Institutions (Council, Parliament, Commission, etc.) and has its own legal
personality. It is set up by an act of secondary legislation in order to accomplish a very specific
technical, scientific or managerial task which is specified in the relevant Community act.24
Models of different types of Agencies exist. So far, sixteen Agencies have been created under
the first pillar of the EU Treaty, one Agency was created under the Euratom Treaty, and four
under the second and third pillars of the EU. The decision to create a new autonomous
Community body obviously needs a strong argumentation. The Community, facing the need of
institutional reform, has defined the rationale for the creation of autonomous agencies, recourse
to which is argued to be justified under certain conditions.
The preparatory work for the White Paper on European Governance has included the issue of the
Agencies. In ‘Governance in the European Union’25, and ‘European Governance, Preparatory
Work for the White Paper’26, a number of arguments are set out justifying the recourse to
autonomous Community agencies27 as unavoidable in the ongoing process of modernisation of
administrations to cope with complexity, uncertainty and an increasing need for participation and
involvement of stakeholders.
Below is a selection of arguments developed in this context :
• In the light of the growing politicisation of EC policy-making, the creation of an
Agency is justified to ensure policy continuity.
• An autonomous Agency allows for better identification of the impact of public
action, thus reinforcing the policy credibility.
24
http://www.europa.eu.int/agencies/index_en.htm
25
Majone, G., and Everson, M., ‘Institutional reform : independent agencies, oversight, coordination
and procedural control’, in European Commission, Governance in the European Union, ‘Cahiers’ of
the Forward Studies Unit, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg, 2001, p. 129-168.
European Commission, ‘Report of the Working Group “Establishing a framework for decisionmaking regulatory agencies” Working Group 3A, in European Governance, Preparatory Work for the
White Paper, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002, 133-162.
These documents focus on those Agencies whose mission corresponds to ‘regulatory’ tasks of the
Community, i.e. Agencies with decision-making powers responsible for implementing rules and
regulations. Following existing Agencies would fall under this category : EMEA, OHIM, CPVO,
EASA, EFSA and EMSA.
26
27
52
Final report
•
•
•
The need in some fields to mobilise special expertise which the existing structures
are unable to guarantee on a consistent and continuous basis due to their inherent
infrastructural and statutory characteristics.
The desire for visibility of public action and of whom within the machinery is
given responsibility at a time when public demand for more direct and identifiable
accountability of public decision-makers is becoming more and more insistent.
The need to preserve the credibility of public action and of the integration process,
given the fact that regulatory expertise and management skills vary too much
across the Member States – and even more since the enlargement of the Union –
to justify exclusive reliance on traditional modes of decentralised enforcement.
The conclusion formulated by Majone and Everson reads as follows :
“For all these reasons, the question is no longer whether European agencies are needed, but
rather how they should be designed so that their accountability may be secured and so that their
(…) responsibilities can be coordinated with broader horizontal concerns.” 28
The White Paper on European Governance itself contained a section entitled “better application
of EU rules through regulatory agencies”.29 In this section, it is stated that ‘the creation of further
autonomous EU regulatory agencies in clearly defined areas will improve the way rules are
applied and enforced across the Union’. Still according to the White Paper, ‘the advantage of
Agencies is often their ability to draw on highly technical, sectoral know-how, the increased
visibility they give for the sectors concerned (and sometimes the public) and the cost-savings
that they offer to business. For the Commission, the creation of agencies is also a useful way of
ensuring it focuses resources on core tasks’.
The ‘meta-evaluation on the Community Agency System’ performed by the DG Budget of the
European Commission confirms these views. It underlines that ‘the overall appreciation made by
evaluators (of the individual agencies) is fairly positive. The Agencies concerned have generally
been considered to have made an important contribution in their respective areas, and to have
reached their set objectives to a reasonable extent.’30
6.2. The political and legal framework for Community Agencies
In designing a legal framework for Community Agencies, the Commission seems to have taken a
more ‘conservative’ position. In its Communication on ‘the operating framework for the
European Regulatory Agencies’31, adopted by the Commission in December 2002, only two
types of Agencies are identified : “executive agencies” and “regulatory agencies”32.
•
28
29
30
31
32
33
“Executive agencies” are defined as ‘responsible for purely managerial tasks, i.e.
assisting the Commission in implementing the Community’s financial support
programmes and are subject to strict supervision by it’. On 19 December 2002,
their statute was adopted by the Council (‘Statute for executive agencies to be
entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes’).33
Majone and Everson, p. 129.
COM(2001) 428 final of 25/07/2001, page 23-24 :
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/governance/white_paper/index_en.htm
European Commission, Meta-Evaluation on the Community Agency System, 15 September 2003, p.72.
COM(2002) 718 final of 11/12/2002.
COM(2002) 718 final of 11/12/2002, p.3-4.
Council Regulation N° 58/2003 of 19 December 2002, OJ L 11 of 16/01/2003.
53
Final report
•
“Regulatory agencies” are ‘required to be actively involved in the executive
function by enacting instruments which help to regulate a specific sector’. Their
statute is defined in the mentioned Communication.
An overview table with the political and legal framework for Community Agencies, together
with the applicable financial rules and regulations per type of Agency is given in the final report
of the meta-evaluation of the Community Agency system 34.
On the Europa website, the existing autonomous Community Agencies are split into four subgroups, depending on their activities35 :
• Agencies facilitating the operation of the internal market : these agencies exercise
regulatory functions and render services to industrial sectors allowing them to generate
income and thus guarantee their own resources (e.g. the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market);
• Monitoring Centres : these agencies exist for the same reasons but function in different
fields. Their principal task is to gather and disseminate information thanks to a network
of partners that they have to set up and to manage on a daily basis (e.g. the European
Environment Agency);
• Agencies aiming to promote social dialogue at a European level : these agencies are
characterised by a quadripartite administrative / management board: representatives of
employers and trade unions as well as Member States and the Commission
representatives (e.g. the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work);
• Agencies which execute programmes and tasks for the European Union within their
respective fields of expertise (e.g. the European Agency for Reconstruction).
One may conclude that the framework for Community Agencies is still evolving. The creation of
Community Agencies appears to remain the object of a learning process in EU policy
development as the setting up of new agencies seems to be resulting from the pressure of crises
(BSE, SARS) at least as much as from agreed doctrine.
6.3. The case of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language
Learning
In what follows, it is argued that the conditions that can justify the entrusting of specific tasks to
an autonomous Community agency can be considered to be fulfilled for the case of a European
Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning.
1. Clear needs and gaps are identified by the actors and stakeholders in the domain of
‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ in Europe.
The European Commission, the main executive body at EU level, may have realised
important achievements in the field, but is not in a position to provide solutions to all of
these needs and gaps. Neither can it ensure the required continuous efforts in all policy
domains to implement the Treaty provisions, due to the way it is structured. This is
confirmed through the study.
• Existing resources for ‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ are insufficient to
cope with the many issues and challenges that need to be addressed while the need for a
continuously available support structure disposing of the necessary technical expertise
persists.
34
35
European Commission, Meta-Evaluation on the Community Agency System, 15 September 2003, p.20.
http://www.europa.eu.int/agencies/activities_en.htm
54
Final report
•
•
•
•
Achievements from the past risk to be lost when existing structures are dismantled or
when their continued financing cannot be guaranteed.
While dedicated EU funded programmes such as Lingua are going to disappear in 2007,
following the ‘mainstreaming’ approach chosen by the Commission, there are no
adequate structures in place to monitor this ‘mainstreaming’.
There are signs of incoherence between the stated EU policy in favour of linguistic
diversity and multilingualism and the de facto running of the work and funding of
related operations.
There are signs of incoherence between EU supra-national policy and individual
member states’ policies and/or practices.
2. Europe is experiencing a period of institutional change and a politicisation of hitherto largely
administrative bodies. As a general rule in western democracies, an increased politicisation
entails what is called ‘a commitment problem’ because the political executives tend to have
shorter time-horizons and lack the ability credibly to commit themselves to a course of
action.
Although Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines
the commitment to respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, a long-term
perspective, a broad horizontal concern and continuity in the pursuit of the long-term
objectives, are currently not guaranteed by the present structures.
By entrusting a number of the important tasks related with ‘linguistic diversity and language
learning’ to an autonomous agency, the continuity and therefore also the credibility of the
public action can be safeguarded.
An autonomous Community agency, providing for a mechanism for co-opting stakeholder
groups into the decision-making process, offers the possibility to ensure democratic
representation while at the same time shielding the domain from politicisation.
3. In this context of institutional change, a clearer assignment of individual responsibilities is
needed for achieving policy objectives.
It is clear that specialised technical expertise is needed in the field of ‘linguistic diversity
and language learning’ for translating the commitments into action. The professional and
statutory framework of a central administration is less suited to mobilise all the required
expertise. An autonomous Agency is considered to be better suited to mobilise the expertise
and competences which have been developed at the level of the Member States, regions in
Europe, or by local authorities.
4. The assignment of specific responsibilities to an autonomous Agency ensures the
mobilisation of all the knowledge relevant to public decision-making. This reinforces the
ability for the EU to understand and act on the basis of this knowledge. Indeed, whereas
it is stated by stakeholders that too many policies are now defined ‘blindfolded’ (in the
absence of knowledge), an Agency could contribute to remedy this problem.
5. An autonomous Agency has the capacity and credibility to be an independent and
recognised reference centre for policy-makers and the public at large because of its unique
focus on ‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ and its ability to mobilise the necessary
expertise. This ensures the visibility of the public action.
An autonomous European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning will be fully
effective only if it is established as complementary to the existing actors in the field in Europe,
including the Commission. The Commission must indeed continue to assume its responsibilities
in all relevant policy domains. An Agency is not expected to take over this responsibility from
55
Final report
the Commission. Rather, it will support the Commission in better integrating the pursued aims in
its policies.
56
Final report
7.
Conclusions and recommendations
This chapter summarizes the findings of the study, covering the different elements on which the
Commission expected the Contractor ‘to provide technical analysis and advice to the
Commission departments’36.
Three main points are developed in this chapter:
1. The case for setting up an autonomous EU Agency in the broad domain of lingusistic
diversity and language learning is strong.
¾ There exist clear needs and gaps in the field that are not (yet) addressed by existing
actors, and for which an Agency could offer a solution.
¾ When checking the case of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and
Language Learning against the conditions that were put forward by the Commission
for the creation of autonomous Community Agencies, the analysis learns that these
conditions do appear fulfilled.
¾ Furthermore, an Agency is the option that is most preferred by the stakeholders and
experts.
2. Setting up an autonomous Agency is not the only potential solution to help cover the gaps
and needs. The most valid alternative solution would be a networking model that could
federate and enhance efforts of various types of organisations active in the field.
This solution seems adequate for a mandate that concentrates on the promotion of linguistic
diversity, multilingualism and language learning. It is less adequate for a mandate that would
cover a larger set of needs identified.
3. Independently of the solution chosen, any initiatives taken should build on existing
structures and avoid duplication of efforts. The importance of the work done by the Council
of Europe in this field is widely recognised. Any solution has to be linked in an adequate
way to the initiatives of the Council of Europe, both for reasons of efficiency and credibility.
7.1. Needs assessment
One of the main conclusions from the study is that there exist clear needs in the broad domain of
linguistic diversity and language learning. In this respect, the findings from the study confirm the
views and concerns expressed by the European Parliament.
For the definition of the potential mandate and scope of work for an Agency or alternative
options, it has to be determined on which of the identified needs the focus should be.
This section presents the main needs which could be solved by more support or substantial
action at the EU level, and for which no adequate solution exists at present.
7.1.1. Needs as perceived by the stakeholders
Primarily on the basis of opinions expressed by the various types of stakeholders, needs are
identified that can be solved by interventions at the EU-level: either by filling in gaps or by more
efficiently responding to needs through the offering of solutions at the EU-level.
36
‘Expected outputs of the study’, as set out in the terms of referenece for the study, and listed in
section 1.4 of this report.
57
Final report
However, not all identified needs are necessarily best tackled by EU-level actions. Indeed, an
adequate decision as to which needs can and should be addressed by the EU has to take into
account a number of criteria : consistency with the EU policy objectives, the level of agreement
among the various stakeholders as to which are the most stringent needs to address, the potential
to create European Added Value, respect of the subsidiarity principle, the aim to avoid
duplication, optimisation in terms of cost-effectiveness, equal treatment of the various target and
stakeholder groups (respecting the inclusive approach).
Below are the main needs for which it makes most sense to tackle them by action at the EUlevel.
¾ There is a clear and widely recognised need for support to policy-makers at all levels. This
need is highest in terms of the provision of basic information and awareness raising for the
issue. Too often, policy makers are taking decisions without access to basic knowledge or
data.
¾ Knowledge:
Rather than to create new knowledge, the needs are highest in terms of:
1. the dissemination of the existing knowledge to the right target groups
2. the collection and centralization of information and knowledge
3. comparative (cross-national) research
4. new research, mainly in the new Member States
¾ Awareness raising and the promotion of ‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ among
all target groups, with a particular emphasis on the policy makers (see above) and the public
at large.
¾ An important ‘gap’ exists in terms of monitoring and supporting the ‘mainstreaming’ of
linguistic diversity within EU-policy domains by the responsible EU institutions and their
respective departments, in particular the European Commission. The domain of linguistic
diversity is a horizontal domain cross-cutting many policy areas. The EU therefore adopted a
specific approach that is called ‘mainstreaming’37. This mainstreaming is considered by most
privileged observers as not yet or insufficiently existing. This gap undermines the credibility
of the EU policy.
Although more financial support for concrete actions is considered as very important by the
stakeholders, the management of programmes does not necessarily have to be the responsibility
of an Agency or an EU-wide network. The potential role of an Agency would probably be better
in line with its aims and the horizontal nature of the domain to be covered through the ‘expert =
knowledge centre’ function and the ‘mainstreaming’ function at the service of the various
programmes the European Commission is managing and where linguistic diversity, multilingualism and language learning are or could be covered.
As regards the concepts of ‘linguistic diversity’ and ‘language learning’, both are linked in the
foreseen title for the Agency, as well ad in the terms of reference for the present feasibility study.
Still, the actual linking of both concepts was questioned during the study.
37
This choice for ‘mainstreaming’ entails the will and commitment to integrate the concern and
attention for linguistic diversity and language learning in all aspects of policy-making in all policy
domains : from the conception and definition of policies and policy instruments, throughout their
implementation, as well as in their evaluation.
58
Final report
When looking at the needs and gaps identified – and notably those that can be solved at the EU
level – one could conclude that ‘linguistic diversity’ appears to be more important that ‘language
learning’. The conclusion of the study is however that both subjects are interlinked and whatever
action is undertaken has to cover both domains. Indeed, achieving and maintaining linguistic
diversity in Europe is impossible without people actually learning languages.
7.1.2. State of the art in relation to the needs as perceived by the European Parliament 38
The European Parliament, in its Resolution in which it calls upon the Commission to present a
proposal for a legal act, setting up a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language
Learning, and in order to tackle a number of needs as perceived by the European Parliament,
proposes tasks for such Agency :
•
•
•
•
to keep constant track of developments in the area of linguistic diversity and language
learning and the implementation of the action plan;
to help promote a multilingual Europe and a language-friendly environment;
to develop a network to promote linguistic diversity, with the inclusion of regional and
minority languages;
to collect and collate data on the situation of the minority languages in an enlarged EU.
Overall, one can conclude from the study that the needs as they were seen by the European
Parliament are indeed real, although the study demonstrates that the needs are broader.
In the terms of reference for this feasibility study, the European Commission asked to look in
particular into the following needs :
¾ State of progress at European level of the collection and collation of data on the situation of
regional and minority languages in an enlarged European Union :
As mentioned above, the study learnt us that the need in terms of knowledge-building is
broader than what was indicated by the European Parliament : the centralisation at the
European level of data on the situation of ‘languages’ in general, and the wide dissemination
of information is required, next to new knowledge building.
As regards the state of knowledge on the situation of regional and minority languages in the
enlarged EU, one must recognise the work that is done by the Mercator Centres in particular,
as well as what has been built up by EBLUL. However, despite these actors’ efforts, needs
persist, as demonstrated through the study.
¾ A network to promote linguistic diversity and language learning taking into account
European regional and minority languages :
There is no existing network available and operational that can adequately promote linguistic
diversity and language learning in Europe while taking an inclusive approach to languages :
the field covered is too broad, both in terms of the wide range of different actors from the
different language groups, and in terms of geographic coverage. The following observations
underline this fact :
o there are no structures in place to interconnect existing formal or informal networks
(of language boards, lobby groups for RML, academic networks, etc.)
o the numbers of formal organisations working as actors in the field vary to an
important extent according to language groups and / or geographic region in Europe.
38
Resolution of September 2003, with recommendations to the Commission on European regional and
lesser-used languages – the languages of minorities in the EU – in the context of enlargement and
cultural diversity (2003/2057 (INI).
59
Final report
The conclusion has therefore been that an adequate network would need to be built, not
excluding the possibility for such network to include and / or build upon existing networks.
7.2. Analysis of the options
7.2.1. A European Agency for linguistic diversity and language learning
Not only is the creation of an autonomous Agency as an independent body of the European
Union, which would be established with the aim to promote and strengthen linguistic diversity in
Europe, the option that is most preferred by the stakeholders and experts, also when checking the
case of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning against the
conditions that can justify the creation of autonomous Community Agencies as they were put
forward by the Commission, the analysis learns that these conditions can be considered fulfilled
(as set out in chapter 6 of this report).
Some important arguments in this respect are the following :
¾ Europe is experiencing a period of institutional change and a politicisation of hitherto largely
administrative bodies in a drive for increased legitimacy of the public action.
By entrusting a number of the important tasks related with ‘linguistic diversity and language
learning’ to an autonomous Agency, the continuity and therefore also the credibility of the
public action can be safeguarded.
An autonomous Community Agency, providing for a mechanism for co-opting stakeholder
groups into the decision-making process, offers the possibility to ensure democratic
representation while at the same time shielding the domain from politicisation.
¾ Specialised technical expertise is needed in the field of ‘linguistic diversity and language
learning’ for translating the commitments into action. An autonomous Agency is considered
to be well suited to mobilise the expertise and competencies which have been developed at
the level of the Member States, regions in Europe, or by local authorities.
¾ An autonomous Agency has the capacity and authority to be an independent and recognised
reference centre for policy-makers and the public at large because of its unique focus on
‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ and its ability to mobilise the necessary
expertise. This ensures the visibility of the public action.
Below are the advantages and disadvantages of the creation of an autonomous Agency as they
were identified through the study :
60
Final report
Advantages

Disadvantages

the permanent infrastructure provides
safeguards for the subject
than language)

perceived as threat for existing structures
that receive funding
for money’?)
process)
a concern that an Agency would be
‘another bureaucracy’
The creation of an Agency would be a strong statement and an expression of long term
commitment from the part of the EU in favour of linguistic diversity and language learning.
Evidently, these are arguments in favour of an Agency that are much liked by the stakeholders.
An Agency could be a specialised EU expertise centre, acting as a catalyst for developing,
collecting, analysing and disseminating information and knowledge that contributes to linguistic
diversity as well as more widespread and improved language learning in Europe.
However, despite the advantages that an Agency can offer, some institutional actors in the field
are also concerned about the creation of an Agency. Depending on the mission and mandate that
an Agency might get, overlaps or duplication of work is feared which eventually can threaten the
existing structures. Another clear concern is that an Agency would add another layer to the EU
bureaucracy, and hence not be cost-effective.
For these reasons, it is important to emphasise a number of conditions that must be fulfilled to
ensure the success of an autonomous Agency :
• an Agency needs a clear mandate, whereby duplication of activities and responsibilities is
avoided, and should have sufficient resources in order to be effective;
• Agency staff needs to be competent, have expertise in the field and should be multi-lingual;
• stakeholder involvement and networking are crucial : the Agency needs to have close
relations with ‘the ground’ and antennas or representative offices in the different Member
States;
• sufficient political will from the part of the EU institutions and the EU Member States is
required (for the provision of resources, for input in terms of data, …);
• an Agency needs to be politically independent (ensuring its ‘autonomy’), which will
underpin its position as a neutral advisor.;
• an inclusive approach will support its credibility and neutrality, in the interest of all
languages;
61
Final report
7.2.2. Alternative option : a European network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’
The network option can be considered as the most valid alternative to an autonomous Agency.
As there is no existing network that can be given the required roles to solve the needs as they
appeared through the study, an adequate network would have to be built.
involved in linguistic diversity and language learning. It is presented here as an alternative model
to the creation of an Agency as proposed in the European Parliament Resolution.
However, although the mission and objectives are similar to the Agency scenario, the network’s
mandate would be more limited due to some ‘weaknesses’ inherent to the network approach.
Centres’ are presented below.

Advantages
serving the network
the flexibility allows one to adapt to changing
needs in the dynamic context of languages
‘steering groups’ within the network can help to
develop coherent policies in the field

Disadvantages
limited visibility
no authority
Commission
‘weaker’ language groups could
benefit less from a network : the
performance-based approach
implies well-functioning
(representative) organisations39
The proposed network model should be performance-based, whereby actors commit themselves
to agreed targets. An important characteristic of the network option in comparison to an Agency
is its flexibility. A network’s membership can be reviewed, either based on changing needs or
based on low performance levels of the respective member(s).
A clear advantage of a network lies in its ability to involve the broad variety of stakeholders,
including existing structures established with EU support (like EBLUL and Mercator). At the
same time, it offers the opportunity for intensive two-way communications (from the European
Commission to regions/stakeholders and vice versa), whereby mechanisms can be put in place to
ensure direct feedback from all over Europe to the EU policy makers.
However, an important disadvantage of this option in the view of most of the stakeholders is that
it does not entail a long term commitment from the part of the EU : it is not a permanent
39
Notably the category of immigrant languages risks underrepresentation in this option. As set out in
section 3.3 of this report, less organisations exist which represent these language communities.
62
Final report
infrastructure and the availability of resources is much more subject to political will which can
be withdrawn.
Indeed, whereas an Agency is an independent legal entity created on the basis of a basic act that
cannot so easily be repealed40, a network would remain dependent on the European Commission.
Furthermore, due to the nature of a network, its mandate should be more limited in scope than
what an Agency’s mandate could be. It cannot effectively take on the responsibility to monitor
the policies and practices with regard to the integration of the aims of linguistic diversity and
language learning in the respective EU policy domains and programmes at the EU level. Neither
can a network constitute for its audiences a real (physical) ‘knowledge center’ where expertise,
information and knowledge (a.o. in the form of databases and publications) is easily accessible.
Some of these weaknesses can however be compensated by giving specific roles to designated
network members (expertise or resource centres having a special status in the network – e.g.
Mercator).
7.2.3. The no-action scenario is not an option
When considering the creation of an autonomous Community Agency, it must first of all be
verified whether there exist indeed needs and gaps in the area justifying (additional) actions at
the EU level..
The present feasibility study has confirmed that this is the case, and underlines the need for
action from the part of the EU, whether under the form of an Agency or an alternative model:
Clear needs and gaps are indeed identified by the actors and stakeholders in the domain of
‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ in Europe which cannot adequately be solved by the
existing actors.
The European Commission, the main executive body at EU level, and the Council of Europe
may have realised important achievements in the field, but are not in a position to provide
solutions to all of these needs and gaps.
¾ Existing resources for ‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ are insufficient to cope
with the many issues and challenges that need to be addressed.
¾ Achievements from the past risk to be lost when existing structures are dismantled or when
their continued financing cannot be guaranteed.
Various trends in the European unification process increase the need for action. While the
perception of these trends and their consequences can be different depending on the stakeholder
groups (national official language versus RML, ministry official versus NGO, etc.), there is a
common drive, challenge and overall recognition of their importance.
Trends that play a role in this respect have been partly brought to the political limelight because
of the European Constitution, and include : language as an element of identity and citizenship,
the integration of migrants, the role of multilingualism in a unified Europe, the cost of having
twenty official EU languages, the defense of linguistic diversity as a heritage, etc.
40
This is set out in the Commission’s Draft Interinstitutional Agreement on the Operating Framework
for the European Regulatory Agencies (COM(2005)59 final of 25.02.2005). Only if the Commission
would judge that the very existence of the agency is no longer justified with regard to the objectives
assigned to it, it may propose that the act in question is repealed, following which the European
Parliament and the Council should decide.
63
Final report
The importance of the subject as well as the fact that expectations have been created among the
stakeholders have made a no-action scenario impossible, as this would seriously undermine the
credibility of the EU in this field.
64
Final report
7.3. Overall cost of options
The overall cost of either option proposed would logically depend on the mandate.
For an autonomous Community Agency, and for the mandate as proposed in this report, the
yearly overall cost would probably be in the order of 11 million Euro per year. This calculation
is based on the following assumptions :
¾ staff would combine a fixed team of statutory personnel and rotating experts;
¾ the total size of the team in this estimate is between 25 and 30 staff members;
¾ in its activities, the Agency concentrates on three functions : the promotion of linguistic
diversity, being a ‘knowledge centre’ and the monitoring of the mainstreaming function
within EU policies;
¾ the scope of the Agency does not include programme management : any financial support on
this domain is channelled through existing and future programmes run by the European
Commission. The Agency plays its role through the mainstreaming function.
The proposed budget is a realistic minimum, and should less resources be provided to an
Agency, the scope of its responsibilities must be reduced.
For the network solution, the overall yearly cost corresponding to the mandate as proposed
would be at least 6 million Euro per year. The mandate is however significantly less ambitious as
for the Agency option :
¾ concentrating primarily on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning;
¾ the ‘knowledge centre’ function would receive a much less ambitious content (as
organised through networking techniques, and not really conceived as a ‘service’);
¾ the ‘mainstreaming’ function would have to be covered through another solution (inside
the European Commission’s structure).
Approximately one half of the cost would be linked to the management of the network, the other
half would be used to finance activities by network members.
Making a purely economic cost-benefit analysis and subsequent comparison of both options is
not possible because the value of the impacts to be realised is largely immaterial and intangible
in nature. Indeed, to make such analysis one should compare expected (differences in) impacts
of both options. But can economic benefits and the economic value of (increased)
multilingualism in the European Unioin be quantified ? And, likewise, what would be the
economic cost of the loss of linguistic diversity in the EU?
Nevertheless, from an economic point of view, an important question to be considered in the
decision-making is what could be the potential alternative use of these funds : “if and when a
budget of this magnitude needs to be invested in this policy domain, are there alternative uses for
these funds that can yield a higher impact ?”
65
Final report
7.4. Recommendations
Which option ?
The final choice between the two main options proposed will eventually be a political decision.
Both options are valid alternatives even if they cover the needs in a different way. The no action
scenario is clearly not an option: there exist important needs and expectations for action have
been created among the stakeholders.
The chart on the next page positions both options in comparison to each other. The basis of this
comparison is the potential mandate of the option. The theoretical maximum is based on the
structure used for the needs analysis in the study. It has been ‘restricted’ to concentrate on the
main items and to make a graphical presentation feasible.
As can be expected, the mandate of the Agency is the widest, as this would also be the most
expensive of both options. This mandate could however be narrowed down, in an even more
focused approach.
The strength of the Agency option lies in its function as a knowledge centre and in its support
and monitoring of the mainstreaming approach within EU-policies. The strength of the
networking option lies in the promotion and networking functions, which could be covered
equally well in terms of impact by this second option, with possibly a better value for money
ratio.
Theoretical potential mandate to be covered at the EU-level
Policy
support
basic
centralise
data
Knowledge
disseminate comparative
research
Promotion
new
research
all publics
Mainstreaming
support
within EUpolicies
Networking
across all
domains and
regions
Financial
support
programme
management
Mandate proposed as a minimum and useful mandate for an autonomous Agency
Policy
Knowledge
support
basic
centralise disseminate
comparative
data
research
Promotion
new
research
all publics
Mainstreaming
support
within EUpolicies
Networking
across all
domains and
regions
Financial
support
programme
management
Mandate proposed as a minimum and useful mandate for a network of ELDC
Policy
Knowledge
support
basic
centralise disseminate
comparative
data
research
Promotion
new
research
all publics
Mainstreaming
support
within EUpolicies
66
Networking
across all
domains and
regions
Financial
support
programme
management
Final report
Creating an autonomous Agency
If the option of creating an autonomous Agency is chosen, the key recommendations would be:

Ensure active stakeholder involvement through their representation in advisory and
management organs of the Agency.
Create a light and service-oriented structure. An important added value of the autonomy
should be a non-bureaucratic culture.
This principle should be valid also for the management board: board members should be
specialists in the domain rather than representatives of bureaucracies. The European
Council (the representative institution for the Member States), the European
Commission and stakeholders should be represented through a maximum of two
members each.
Make sure the resources given to the Agency are in balance with its mandate. A too
large mandate with insufficient resources will lead to failure and loss of credibility for
EU initiatives.
Even if this option does not carry the name ‘network’, this agency should rely heavily on
the networking technique to create an impact. This networking function should cover all
types of organizations active in the broad field covered. In the model proposed, the
Agency would work through focal points who act as two-way communication channels
with national / regional networks.
Creating a network of European Language Diversity Centres
For this option the key recommendations are:

One of the advantages of this option is that it can be started up faster. Our
recommendation would be to concentrate in a first stage on promotion-related activities,
building up other parts gradually (networking function and knowledge centralization /
dissemination).
Impact maximization can only be achieved through the creation of a very large network
covering all domains within the language field and reaching the regional level.
Performance should be the main criterion to continued membership. Network members
who do not perform according to mimimum standards should be replaced.
The main role of the central management organisation should be to provide operational
instruments and support through access to expertise, rather than providing financial
support for the actions undertaken.
Whatever option is chosen, there are overall recommendations:
•
•
The inclusive approach to languages is the only way forward: there is a strong support for
this approach which is already adopted by the European Commission and by the Council of
Europe.
To complement existing structures and avoid duplication: the scope of what still needs to be
done is so significant that any loss of efficiency has to be avoided. The work of the Council
of Europe and particularly of the Language Policy Division and the ECML should be
complemented and certainly not competed with. The proposed mandate and scope for both
options are taking this into account.
67
Final report
ANNEX 1.
Questionnaire used for the consultations with stakeholders
68
Final report
P430-23nov04
Questionnaire for stakeholders
Name of respondent :
Organisation :
Contact details:
Title and position:
Introduction
Our consortium has been awarded a contract by the European Commission’s Directorate
General for Education and Culture to perform a ‘feasibility study on the setting up of a European
Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning’.
The objectives of the study are:
to assess the need for setting up a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language
Learning, taking into account the existing organisations in the field of linguistic diversity and
language learning and the policies set out in the Commission’s Action Plan41;
to make a preliminary assessment of the likely positive and negative impacts of the setting
up of such Agency, as well as to study alternative scenarios.
The type of ‘Agency’ under consideration would be an autonomous Community body, as there
exist already a number of them : e.g. Cedefop (the European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training) in Thessaloniki; or EUMC (the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia) in Vienna.
A wide variety of actors is working in this broad field of ‘linguistic diversity and language
learning’.
We consult stakeholders and policy-makers, both at European, international, national and
regional levels to learn their opinions and views on what it is like to work in this field, and what
the European public level can further contribute.
Thank you to prepare your answers on the questions below, and to return the questionnaire to
us. During our interview, we will explore your opinions and answers.
Questions
1. Considering the broad field of ‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ and the wide variety
and important number of actors in this field, do you think there is a need for more substantial
action or greater support at a European level ?
Yes, this
would be
very
useful
Yes, this
can be
useful
Not useful /
adequate
provisions
exist
Not relevant
to us / I don’t
know
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Policy advice
• towards EU level decision-makers
• towards national level decision-makers
• towards institutions in general
Research
• comparative (cross-national) metaresearch based upon existing research
results
41
COM(2003) 449 final :
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdf
69
Final report
Yes, this
would be
very
useful
Yes, this
can be
useful
Not useful /
adequate
provisions
exist
Not relevant
to us / I don’t
know
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
New empirical research: collect
statistical and other data
• To develop and test methodologies
Financial support for concrete actions:
in e.g. research, awareness raising,
promotion
Cooperation and networking: support
and develop networking among various
actors, and at different levels (regional,
national, EU, international)
Co-ordination of activities undertaken by
various actors
Centralisation of information and
knowledge at EU level
Dissemination of information
Promotion of multi-lingualism and
language learning
Defence and representation of minority
languages / lesser-used languages
communities
Please specify any other field(s) where
you perceive needs :
………………………………
………………………………………………….
2. How can the needs which you have identified ideally be solved at the EU level ? Below are
different alternatives. Can you please rank them according to how adequate you consider
them to tackle the needs (whereby 1=most adequate, and 7=least adequate) ?
Ranking
(1-7)
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Option
To extend the tasks of an existing institution : (please specify which institution you see apt)
………………………
To create a an autonomous (new) agency
No action
Other : ………………………………………
3. If an autonomous new Agency were created, what should be the scope of its work (note :
several of the below suggested elements can be ticked)
The promotion of the asset of a multi-lingual society, focussing on :
• lifelong language learning for all
• better language teaching
• cultural activities and media (involving ‘language’)
The rights of language communities in the EU
• information
• promotion / representation
70
Yes
No
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Final report
Research and knowledge-building
• centralisation of information
• comparative (cross-national) meta-research
• new research
Covering which languages ?
If an agency were created, do you believe that it should cover all
languages ?
If you do not think it should cover ‘all’ languages : which are the
languages it should cover then ? (more than one category can be ticked)
EU official languages
National official languages
Regional official languages
Regional / minority languages
Immigrant languages
Other languages
Yes
No
O
O
O
O
O
O
Yes
No
O
O Æ please
continute
below
O
O
O
O
O
O
4. In your own words, which do you consider should be the 3 main objectives of such an
Agency ?
1)
2)
3)
5. If an agency were created, what should in your opinion be its roles ? Please tick how
important you think the following roles are :
Provide advice to policy makers
(supporting role)
Do independent new research
Co-ordinate existing (research & other)
activities
Compile and disseminate already
existing information (knowledge centre)
Be a network building agency
Promote linguistic diversity and the multilingual society (awareness-raising)
Represent RM language communities
Represent immigrant / other language
communities
Other : (please specify)
…………………………..
Very
important
Important
No
opinion
Not
important
Preferably
not
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
71
Final report
6. In your opinion, which should be the main target groups of an Agency for Linguistic Diversity
and Language Learning, if it were created ?
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EU policy makers and institutions
National or regional policy-makers and institutions
The academic community
Professionals in the field of language training
NGOs
Language communities
The general public
Other (please specify) : …………………………………………………………………
7. All in all, do you think that the Commission should establish an autonomous Agency ?
O yes
O no
O I have no opinion
8. If no: why do you consider such an agency should not be established ?
…
9. If yes, how do you consider a future agency could provide a significant contribution to the
work of your own organisation ?
…
10. How do you consider that your own organization could provide input for the work of the
Agency ?
…
11. Which would be the added value of such an agency ?
…
12. What are the conditions you think need to be fulfilled for the success of an autonomous
Agency ?
…
72
Final report
ANNEX 2.
List of interview respondents
73
Final report
Target group &
number of interviews
Stakeholders at EU
level (in principle all fto-f)
Stakeholder groups
EC Directorates-General
& Services
Names
1
2
3
M.E.P.s
4
5
6
Other relevant
Community Bodies
7
8
‘Other’ EU stakeholders
9
10
11
DG EAC, Unit C4
Ms Teresa Condeço
Mr Gérald Colleaux
DG EAC, Unit C4
Mr Paul Holdsworth
DG EAC
Mr Luca Tomasi
Michl Ebner
Tel : +32/2/284.54.60
mebner@europarl.eu.int
Christa Prets
Tel : +32/2/284.55.91
cprets@europarl.eu.int
Eluned Morgan
Tel : +32/2/284.54.57
emorgan@europarl.eu.int
Committee of the Regions
EDUC Commission
Mr. Aldo Iskra (member of the Committee)
Councillor, Malmö City Council
Tel : +46/703.152520
e-mail : aldo.Iskra@kristdemokraterna.se
Committee of the Regions
Mr Seamus Murray
President of the Commission for Culture and Education
Member of Mid-East Regional Authority and Meath County Council
e-mail: smurray@members.meathcoco.ie
Tel: +353/4695/551 89
EBLUL – The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages
Mr. Jean-Luc Fauconnier, Vice-President
Tel : +32/2/41.32.548
jean.luc.Fauconnier@skynet.be
EBLUL – The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages
Mr. B. Brezigar, Chairman
Trieste, Italy
Mercator Media
Ms Elin Jones
74
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
12
13
14
International
organisations /
networks
International institutions
1
Aberystwyth, UK
00 44 1970 622533 esj@aber.ac.uk
Fryske Akademy - Mercator Education
Prof. Dr. Durk Gorter
Doelstrjitte 8, Ljouwert, The Netherlands
Tel. 0031-58-2131414
Fax: 0031-58-2131409
dgorter@fa.knaw.nl
Ciemen (Mercator Legislation)
Bernat Pujadas / Alexia Bos
Rocafort 242 bis, E-08029 Barcelona, Spain
Tel : +34 93 444 3800
cdoc@ciemen.org, mercator@ciemen.org
Eurydice
Maria Luisa Garcia
Avenue Louise 240, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel : 02/600.53.53
Council of Europe
Directorate General IV – Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport
Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education
Mr. Gabriele Mazza, Director
Tel : +33/3/88.41.26.29
gabriele.mazza@coe.int
Language Policy division
Head of the Language Policy Division – Head of the Department of Language
Education and Policy
Mr. Joseph Sheils
Tel : +33/3/88.41.20.79
Joseph.sheils@coe.int
Language Policy division
Ms Johanna Panthier, Administrator
Tel : +33/3/88.41.23.84
Johanna.panthier@coe.int
75
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
2
3
4
5
6
7 EU
network
European Centre for Modern Languages, Graz
Mr. Adrian Butler, Executive Director
Tel : +43/316.323.554
adrian.butler@ecml.at
Council of Europe
Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities
Directorate General of Human Rights
Ms. Stephanie Marsal
Tel : +33/3/90.21.43.28
stephanie.marsal@coe.int
Council of Europe
Secretariat of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
Directorate of co-operation for local and regional democracy
Mr. Philip Blair, Director
Tel : +33/3/88.41.20.60
philip.blair@coe.int
Hasan Bermek, Administrative Assistant
Tel : +33/3/88.41.52.77
Hasan.bermek@coe.int
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP, France
Ms Linda King
Tel : +33 1 45 68 10 00
l.king@unesco.org
European Centre for Minority Issues
Dr. Francois Grin
Schiffbrücke 12
D-24939 Flensburg, Deutschland
Telephone: ++49-461-141490
Fax: ++49-461-1414919
grin@ecmi.de
http://www.ecmi.de/doc/about.html
Eaquals
Mr. Peter Brown (Chairman)
Trieste, Italy
76
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
National stakeholders
Austria
Names
1 NGO
2 gov /
research
3 gov
Belgium
4 gov
5 ac
6 gov
Association Internationale d’Etudes Occitanes
C/o University of Vienna
Institute for Romanistik
Prof. Dr. Kremnitz
Garnisongasse 13, Hof 8
1090 Vienna, Austria
+(43) 1 4277 42641
G.kremnitz@univie.ac.at
aieowien.romanistik@univie.ac.at
Österreichisches Sprachen-Kompetenz-Zentrum
Dr. Dagmar Heindler
Hans-Sachs-Gasse 3/I
A-8010 Graz, Austria
++43-316-82 41 50 17
heindler@sprachen.ac.at
Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur
Hanspeter Huber
Minoritenplatz 5, A -1014 Wien, Austria
Tel: ++43 1 531202297
Hanspeter.huber@bmbwk.gv.at
Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Onderwijs
Nicole Raes
Koning Albert II-laan 15/Toren B, 2de verd., 1210 Brussel
Tel : +32/2/553.88.26
Nicole.raes@ond.vlaanderen.be
Mr. Piet Van Avermaet
Centrum voor Taal en Migratie, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Blijde Inkomststraat 7, 3000 Leuven
Tel : +32 16 325513
Piet.vanavermaet@arts.kuleuven.ac.be
Direction des Relations internationales du Ministère de la Communauté
française
Mr Gilbert De Samblanc, Inspecteur
Bld Léopold II, 44 - B-1080 Bruxelles
Tel : + 32 (0)2 413 40 11 (gen. 413 2311)
gilbert.desamblanc@cfwb.be
77
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
7 NGO
Bulgaria
8 ac
9 gov
Cyprus
10 ac
Czech Republic
11 gov
Denmark
12 ac
13 gov
Estonia
14 gov
15
research
Alliance Française de Bruxelles-Europe
Mr. Michel Lefranc
Rue de la Loi 26, 1040 Bruxelles, Belgique
Tel : +32/2/732.1592
michel.lefranc@alliancfr.be
Prof. Dr. Dimitar Vesselonov Dimitrov
Sofia University
Tel: +359 2 930 8474
dimitar@fcml.uni-sofia.bg
Ms Vesselina Popova
Ministry of Education and Science
Boul. Dondukou 2 A - BG-1303 Sofia
Tel : + 359 29 87 59 62
Fax : + 359 29 88 24 85
v.popova@minedu.government.bg
University of Cyprus
Mr Pavlos Pavlou
Tel: +357 22 89 21 07
ppavlou@ucy.ac.cy
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
Irena Maskova
Karmelitská 7, 118 12 Praha 1
tel : +42 02 57 193397
maskova@msmt.cz
Robert Phillipson
Roskilde University, Department of Languages and Culture
Tel : +45 59.26.44.12
rp.eng@cbs.dk
Ministry of Education
Ms Anne-Marie Schaeffer
Tel. +45 3392 5358
anne-marie.schaeffer@uvm.dk
Mr. Tonu Tender
Tel : +372.7.350.223
tonu.tender@hm.ee
The Võru Institute
Ms Kadri Koreinik
78
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Finland
Names
16 NGO
17 ac.
France
18 gov
19 ac
20 ac
21
Germany
22 ac
Tartu 48, 6509 Võru, Estonia
Tel : +372/78.21960
wi@wi.werro.ee
Swedish Assembly of Finland (Folktinget)
Mr. Christian Brandt
Tel : +358 50 555 7132
cbrandt@folktinget.fi
Helsinki Univversity (Ugrian – Saami Dept.)
Ms Irja Seurujarvi-Kari
Tel. +368 9 191 4022 (gen. 191-1)
Irja.seurujarvi-kari@helsinki.fi
Mr Francis Goullier
Inspecteur Général de l'éducation nationale
Ministère de la Jeunesse, de l'éducation et de la recherche
107, Rue de Grenelle - F- 75700 Paris
Tel : + 33 01 55 55 31 45
Mobile: + 33 06 08 34 88 64
francis.goullier@education.gouv.fr
Inalco – Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales
Prof. (Ms) Dominique Caubet
Tel. +33 1 49 26 42 00
dominique.caubet@club-internet.fr
Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle-Paris III
Prof. Jean-Claude Beacco
Tel: +33 1 40 46 29 25
46 Rue Saint-Jacques, 75230, Paris Cedex, France
jean-claude-beacco@univ-paris3.fr
Flarep – Fédération pour les Langues Régionales dans l’Enseignement Public
Monsieur Delobel, Président
64502 St Jean-de-Luz
Tel. +33 5 59 26 60 60
thierry.delobel@wanadoo.fr
Freie Universität Berlin
Language Centre
Dr. Elizabeth J. Erling
Habelschwerdterallee 45, 14195 Berlin, Germany
0049 30-8385-5676
berling@zedat.fu-berlin.de
79
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
23
ac (EC
working
group)
24
research
25 NGO
26 NGO
27 gov
28 ac
Univeristy of Tübingen
Institute for school pedagogic
Prof. Hartmut Ebke
Mathildenstr. 32, 72072 Tübingen, Germany
Telephone:0049 7071/919100
Fax: 0040 707 919188
ebke@semgym.uni-tuebingen.de
www.semgym.uni-tuebingen.de
The Nordfriisk Institute
Nordfriisk Instituut
Prof. Dr. Thomas Steensen
Süderstr. 30, D-25821 Brräist / Bredsted
Tel. 0049 4671 60120
info@nordfriiskinstituut.de
Federal Union of European Nationalities (FUEN)
Garry Hicks
C/o FUEN-Generalsekretariat
Schiffbrücke 41, D - 24939 Flensburg
tel : +49 –461-128 55
E-mail: info@fuen.org
Website: www.fuen.org
Goethe-Institut
Jutta Gehrig
Dachauer Str. 122, 80637 München, Germany
Tel. 0049 089/15921-318
Fax: 0049 / 089/15921-265
gehrig@goethe.de
www.goethe.de
Landesinstitut für Schule NRW
The State Institute for School of North Rhine-Westphalia
Jagoda Illner
Paradieser Weg 64, D-59494 Soest, Germany
Telephone: 0049 2921 683 280
Fax: 0049 2921 683 326
jagoda.illner@mail.lfs.nrw.de
http://www.lfs.nrw.de/
University of Hamburg
Institute of international and intercultural comparative educational science
80
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
29 ac
30
research
31 NGO
Greece
32 ac /
gov
Hungary
33 ac
Prof. Dr. Ingrid Gogolin
Tel. 0049 40 42838 2127
Fax 049 40 42838 4298
gogolin@erzwiss.unu-hamburg.de
www.uni-hamburg.de
Universität Duisburg-Essen Campus Duisburg
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Ammon
Germanistik,
D-47048 Duisburg
Telephone: 0049 379 2410
Fax: 0049 203-3739-2410
ammon@uni-duisburg.de
www.Uni-Duisburg-Essen.de
Sorbisches Institut / Serbski Institut
Prof. Dr. Dietrich Scholze
Bahnhofsstr. 6
D-02625 Bautzen
Tel. 0049 3591 4972-0
Fax: 0049 3591 4972-4
ds@serbski-institut.de
www.serbski-institut.de
Sydlesvigsk Forening
Jens A. Christiansen
Norderstr. 76, D-24239 Flensburg
Tel. 0049 461 14408 -110
Fax. –130
jac@sysso.de
www.sydslesvigsk-forening.de
Ms. Bessie Dendrinos
University of Athens, School of Philosophy,
Panepistimioupoli Zographou,
Tel : +210 7277804
vdendrin@enl.uoa.gr
University of Veszprém, Faculty of Teacher Training, Department of English
Language and Literature
Mr. Poór Zoltán
Veszprém, Egyetem u. 10., 8200, Hungary
Tel : +36-88-624729
81
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
34 NGO
35 gov
Ireland
36
research
poorz@almos.vein.hu
Magyarországi Németek Országos Önkormányzata / Landesselbstverwaltung
der Ungarndeutschen (National Self-Government of the German Minority in
Hungary)
Albert Koncsek
1026 Budapest, Júlia u. 9, Hungary
Telephone: +36/1/2129151
Fax: +36/1/2129153
ldu@ldu.hu
www.ldu.hu
Office for National and Ethnic Minorities (Nemzeti és Etnikai Kisebbségi
Hivatal)
Judit Solymosi
1085 Budapest, Baross utca 22-26, Hungary
tel : +36/1.266.6343
fax : +36/1.266.1225
solymosij@mail.datanet.hu
Dr. Pádraig Ó Riagáin, Research Professor
The Linguistics Institute of Ireland
31 Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel: +353-1-6099111 (direct)
37
Italy
38 NGO
Fax: +353-1-6610004
poriagain@ite.ie
Donall O’ Riagáin
Independent consultant, Former President and Secretary General of EBLUL
Ard Oscair, Bóthar Ráth Oscair,
An Nás, Co. Chill Dara,
Irlande /Ireland.
T + F: 00.353.45.883595
donall@oriagain.org
Istitut Cultural Ladin “Majon di Fascegn” – Ladin Cultural Institute, Istituto
Culturale Ladino,
Sabrina Rasom
strada de la Pieif, 7
38039 Vigo di Fassa (TN).
tel.0039 0462/764267
fax 0039 0462/764909
82
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
39 gov
40 NGO
41 ac
Latvia
42
ac/gov
Lithuania
43 gov
Luxembourg
44 gov
Malta
45 ac
lengaz@istladin.net
Direzione Generale per gli Affair Internazionali dell’ Istruzione Scolastica
Minestero dell’Istruzine, dell’Università e della Ricerca
Francesca Brotto
V.le Trastevere, 00153 Roma,Italia
Tel.: 003906 58330355
Fax: -584 93923
Francesca.brotto@istruzione.it
Institut Ladin
Dr. Leander Moroder “Micura de Ru”,
Zinter 13, 39030 S. Martin de Tor – Val Bodie /BZ), Italy
Tel: 0039 04 745231- 10
Fax: - 39
E-mail: leander.micura@ladinia.net
www.micura.it
Centro Internazionale sur Plurilinguismo, Università degli Studi di Udine
Dr. Barbara Villalta
Via Mazzini 3, 33100 Udine, Italy
Tel : +39/0432.556460
Fax : +39/0432.55.64.69
pluriling@uniud.it
www.uniud.it/cip/
Academy of Languages + Member of Parliament
Ms Ina Druviete
ina.druviete@saeima.lv
Ms Stase Skapiene
Tel. +370 5 2 743146 (gen. 743125)
s.skapien@smm.lt
Ms Gaby Kunsch
Tel. +352 4785 269
gaby.kunsch@len.lu
University of Malta
Department of Arts and Languages in Education
Antoinette Camilleri Grima
Tel : +356/21.57.83.35
e-mail : antoinette.camilleri-grima@um.edu.mt
83
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
Netherlands
46 ac
Norway
47 ac
Poland
48 ac
Romania
49 NGO
Slovakia
50 ac
Slovenia
51 gov
Spain
52 gov
53 gov
Babylon, University of Tilburg
Prof. Guus Extra (Director)
Tel : +31/13.521.75.70
guus.extra@kub.nl
University of Trondheim
Mr Per Ramberg
Tel. +47 7359 1988 and 9265 9170
per.ramberg@plu.ntnu.no
Warsaw University, Institute of English
Prof. Hanna Komorowska
Wawozowa 25 / 43, 02-796 Warsaw, Poland
tel : +(48) 22 648 48 52
e-mail : hannakomo@data.pl
Siebenbürgenforum
Irina Gema Ilisanu
Sibiu, G-ral Magheru 1-3, Romania
Telephone: 0040/269/214026
gemairina@yahoo.com
Comenius University, Faculty of Pedagogy
Anna Butasová
Racianska 59, 81334 Bratislava, Slovakia
00421-243 4211 24
butasova@fedu.uniba.sk
Ministry of Education, Science and Sport
Education Development Unit
Mrs. Bronka Straus
Trg OF 13, 1000 Ljublijana Slovenia
Tel.: 00386 1 478-4747
Fax: 4254760
Bronka.straus@gov.si
www.mszs.si
Concello de Vigo, Servizo de normalización lingüística
Marta Souto González
Praza do Rei s/n, 36202 Vigo / Galiza, Spain
0034-986 810281
ofi@normalizacion@vigo.org
Concello de Pontevedra, Departamento de Lingua Galega
Concepción Cochón Rodriguez
84
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
54 ac
Sweden
55 ac
56 NGO
Turkey
United Kingdom
57 ac
58 NGO
59 gov
60 ac
61 gov
Praza do Campo do Boi, s/n
36701 Pontevedra / Galiza, Spain
0034-986 863157
normalizacionlinguistica@concellopontevedra.es
Universidad del País Vasco
Felix Etxeberria Balerdi
Avda. De Tolosa 70, E-20018 San Sebastián
+34 943 018 250
fetxeberria@sc.ehu.es
Centre for Multiethnic Research, Uppsala University
Dr. Leena Huss
Tel : +46/18.471.23.61
leena.Huss@multietn.uu.se
SWEBLUL
Dr. Birger Winsa, President
Tel : +46/8.162359
birger.winsa@finska.su.se
Prof. Dr. Özcan Demirel
Hacettepe University, Faculty of Education
Tel. +90 312 297 85 50
GSM: +90 532 361 93 18
demirel@hacettepe.edu.tr
Ulster-Scots Language Society
Mr. John McIntyre
Tel : +44/2890 644964 (home) or +44/2890 317390 (office)
john.mcintyre6@btinternet.com
CILT, The National Centre for Languages
Mrs Isabella Moore, Directror
Tel. +44 / 20 7273 5750
isabella.moore@cilt.org.uk
University of Wales
Prof. Marilyn Martin-Jones
Tel : +44 1970 626769
mqm@aber.ac.uk
Department for Education
Dr Lid King, National Director for Languages
Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London
lid.king@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
85
Final report
Target group &
Stakeholder groups
Names
62 gov
63 ac
64 ac
Tel. +44 / éà 7925 6367
Welsh Language Board
Meirion Prys Jones
Market Chambers, 5/7 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF10 1AT, United Kingdom
Tel: +44/29 2087 8000
elliw.iwan@welsh-language-board.org.uk
The Institute of Education
Dr David Block
2à Bedford Way, London WC1
Tel : +44 207 612 6711
d.block@ioe.ac.uk
University of Bristol
Dr. Gabrielle Hogan-Brun
7, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TB, UK
tel : +44 117 928 8189
g.hogan-brun@bristol.ac.uk
86
Final report
ANNEX 3.
List of participants in the ‘think tank’ meeting of 1 December 2004
Dr. Antoinette Camilleri Grima (*)
Department of Arts and Languages in Education, University of Malta
Tel : +356/21.57.83.35
e-mail : antoinette.camilleri-grima@um.edu.mt
Prof. Dominique Caubet
Inalco – Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris, France
Tel. +33 1 49 26 42 00
dominique.caubet@club-internet.fr
Ms Teresa Condeço
European Commission
Directorate-General Education and Culture
Teresa.condeco@cec.eu.int
Prof. Guus Extra (*)
Babylon, Centre for Studies of the Multicultural Society, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Tel : +31/13.521.75.70
guus.extra@kub.nl
Dr. Gabrielle Hogan-Brun
University of Bristol, UK
Tel: +44(0)117. 928 8189
Fax: +44(0)117. 928 8806
E-mail: g.hogan-brun@bristol.ac.uk
Mr. Michel Lefranc
Alliance Française de Bruxelles-Europe
Brussels, Belgium
Tel : +32/2/732.1592
michel.lefranc@alliancefr.be
Donall O’ Riagáin
Independent consultant, Former President and Secretary General of EBLUL
Ireland
T + F: 00.353.45.883595
donall@oriagain.org
Mr. Piet Van Avermaet
Centre for Intercultural Education, University of Ghent
Tel : +32 (0)9 2647047
piet.vanavermaet@ugent.be
(*)
Dr. Camilleri Grima and Prof. Guus Extra acted as ‘external experts’ for the evaluation team
throughout the study.
87
Final report
ANNEX 4.
Working documents from the Internet Discussion Forum
88
Final report
Discussion theme 1
Possible scenario for a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning
Introduction
The idea to create a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning was taken up by
the European Parliament, and in July 2003 the European Parliament adopted a Resolution (FINAL A50271/2003) calling on the Commission to present a proposal for a legal act setting up a European Agency
for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning.
The Commission decided to study that possibility by commissioning a feasibility study on the possible
setting up of such an Agency.
This present document has been drafted in the context of this study and presents a possible scenario for a
future European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning. The purpose of this document is
to serve as a tool for discussion, to trigger feedback and reactions from different stakeholder groups.
The potential role and tasks to be attributed to a future European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and
Language Learning, as laid out in this document, are essentially based on the results of the consultations
done in a previous phase of the study. Over 80 interviews were conducted with a variety of stakeholders at
international, European, national and regional levels in 31 countries.
The proposed structure for such an Agency is based on the ‘typical’ structure of a Community Agency, as
this is the legal form intended by the European Parliament for a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity
and Language Learning 42.
Mission
The European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning would be an independent body of
the European Union, which would be established with the aim to promote and help realise true
linguistic diversity in Europe. It would give visibility to (all) language communities in the EU as well as
to the actors in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning, building on expertise and pursueing
a long-term focus.
The founding regulation of the Agency should stipulate that membership includes all EU and Candidate
Countries, but should be open to countries that do not (yet) belong to the EU but share its concern for a
multi-lingual and language-friendly society in a multi-cultural environment. Also, it should stipulate that
the Agency should co-operate closely and co-ordinate its activities with other International Organisations,
thus avoiding overlap or duplication.
Mandate
The Agency should have a clear mandate. The mandate of the Agency could be the following:
42
‘A Community agency is a body governed by European public law; it is distinct from the Community
Institutions (Council, Parliament, Commission, etc.) and has its own legal personality. It is set up by an act of
secondary legislation in order to accomplish a very specific technical, scientific or managerial task which is
specified in the relevant Community act. (…) Although the agencies are very different, both in terms of size and
purpose, as a general rule, they have a common basic structure and similar ways of operating.’ Source:
http://www.europa.eu.int/agencies/index_en.htm
89
Final report
1. To raise broad awareness at all levels and throughout Europe of the importance of linguistic
diversity and language learning and of the necessity to foster and respect that diversity;
2. To be a ‘knowledge centre’, at the service of all actors in the field of linguistic diversity and
language learning : establishing databases, collecting and disseminating information and
knowledge in relation to languages in Europe, research about them, programmes and publications,
best practices, legislation, etc.
3. To stimulate and support the collection of objective, timely, reliable and comparable data at
national and European level in order to help policy makers and others take measures or to
formulate courses of action within their respective domains of competence;
4. To stimulate and support organisations working in the field of linguistic diversity and language
learning, encouraging networking and co-ordination among them, while pursuing an inclusive
approach on languages;
5. To monitor EU policies and practices with regard to the integration of the aims of ‘linguistic
diversity and language learning’ in the respective EU policy domains and programmes;
6. To be a platform for exchange, on a regular basis, between experts and practitioners, including
policy makers, who are working in the different areas of language so that they can take stock of
the situation at the international level, compare it to national contexts, and make plans for the
future.
Hence, the Agency would act as a catalyst for developing, collecting, analysing and disseminating
information and knowledge that contributes to linguistic diversity as well as more and improved language
learning in Europe.
Scope
The Agency would pursue an inclusive approach towards languages, respecting the diversity of all the
languages used in the Union, whether national ‘official’ languages, regional or immigrant languages, other
lesser-used languages or sign languages. It would thus raise awareness about the broad spectrum of
languages in the Union, and encourage the learning of languages in general.
As regards support for policy-making, the Agency would focus on providing ‘status’ information, serving
as an input for policy makers and thus complementing the work done by the Council of Europe.
Target groups
European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, other EU bodies, the EU Member States,
International Organisations
General public:
All experts and practicioners working in the area of languages, NGOs, the research community, education,
the media, and the public at large
90
Final report
Structure
As regards its structure, the Agency should remain small and flexible in terms of human resources, but be
influential through its structure.
The staff should include language specialists with different backgrounds as well as administrators.
The Institute should have a three (or four) pillar structure, consisting of :
• a Director and his/her staff. The Director would be responsible for everyday administration, as well as
for the preparation and implementation of the Agency’s work programme.
•
A Management Board would ensure that the Agency carries out its missions and tasks, by adopting its
annual work programme and financial regulation. The structure of the Management Board would be
light with representatives appointed by the Commission, by the European Parliament, by the Council,
and representatives of stakeholders. In addition, a certain number of seats could be reserved for
representatives of international organisations such as the Council of Europe. This Board would be
intended to provide supervision of the activities of the Agency and at the same time ensure coherence
with Community policies and coordination with initiatives from the part of the Commission and from
Member States.
•
an Advisory Forum representing competent national/regional bodies and different stakeholder groups.
The Advisory Forum would be a mechanism for exchanging information and pooling knowledge, as
well as monitoring the activities of the Agency.
In addition, the Agency could have a network of ‘Focal Points’ (or ‘antennae’) at national / regional level.
Such ‘antennae’ could be responsible for the organisation and co-ordination of the national networks and
be involved in the preparation and implementation of the Agency’s work programme. The antennae could
contribute to any relevant Agency publications, and could possibly be in charge of translation of certain
documents.
They would ensure the proper functioning of a two-way flow of information between the Agency and the
national / regional levels.
Please also look at the other scenario: the “Network” scenario and the comparison between the Network
scenario and the Agency scenario as well as the documents on working languages and stakeholder
involvement.
Participating in the discussion:
• Read the document (you can download a word version)
• Send an e-mail to survey@yellowwindow.com with your comments in the body or in
attachment to the mail
• Specify clearly to which discussion you participate (this is discussion 1 – Agency)
• Send separate e-mails for different discussions
• Please clearly indicate who you are (name, organisation, country)
• Bookmark the page and visit the site again next calendar week to check on the update and
review of comments received.
91
Final report
Questions
All reflections in relation to the text are welcome, but please use the subtitles of the text to link your
thoughts and comments with the respective parts of the text.
Below are the questions on which we welcome your reactions, together with (a selection of) the
contributions received so far. Between brackets, the category of the respondent’s institution is mentioned.
General comments on the proposed option :
•
La question fondamentale à ce point de la réflexion, n'est pas tant celle du mode d'organisation de
cette nouvelle entité E.U que son mandat et ses finalités exactes et donc celle de son champ d'action,
qui me paraissent encore très peu définis et qui sont placés au second plan par rapport à des questions
d'organisation (univ)
•
The division into Mission, Mandate, and Scope is clumsy. The text is also frequently unclear. The
document is doubtless cautious because of not wishing to provoke in a politically sensitive area, but
the result is so vacuous that it might serve to undermine the case that it otherwise is pleading. The
document also runs the risk of playing into the hands of forces in the Commission that are confident
that the management of multilingualism in EU institutional affairs is a purely technical affair, and that
present-day arrangements guarantee equality between speakers of different languages, which is simply
not the case. (univ)
•
Great risk of being an inefficient and costly body. If this is avoided then this is a good option. (NGO)
¾ I fully agree with the comment given by the NGO. (gov)
•
La création d’une agence européenne pour la diversité linguistique et l’apprentissage des langues me
parait une fausse bonne idée. Elle risque de devenir «une usine à gaz» très onéreuse. (NGO)
•
We share the concern already expressed by other commentators that the new body will be inefficient
and expensive. Without a European network consisting of language institutions responsible for or
directly involved in the language policy of their region / country it will not guarantee sufficiently that
the national / regional and European policy levels link and try to establish common policy goals.
There is in other words the risk of a top-down approach. This could be seen as a threat to national and
regional sovereignty by the responsible bodies of the member states. (staff member of a Eur.
Federation)
•
There is a big risk for duplication with the European Centre for Modern Languages in Graz. The only
significant difference is the legal status the Agency would have. Would it not be more sensible to
make an arrangement with the ECML and give them the responsibility ? (gov)
•
Comment from Yellow Window team, and additional question
This last comment corresponds to a third option: “to extend the responsibilities of an existing
institution” in casu, the ECML in Graz. The comment also underlines a concern that is very present
among all stakeholders: the Council of Europe’s initiatives in the language field have a high impact
and are much appreciated. Whatever is done should complement the work of the Council of Europe
and be done in coordination.
Although the option of extending the responsibilities of Graz seems attractive, the option has up to
now not been developed by us. The main reasons were the opinions of stakeholders during our
consultations, but also the difficulties to find an institutional framework under which two very
different institutions like the EU and the CofE could ‘merge’ or coordinate their efforts. This was
92
Final report
considered as a barrier making the option not realistic. The point raised by a participant to the
discussion on this ‘third option’, leads us to add a new question to the discussion:
0. Would you agree that the option of extending role and responsibilities of the ECML in Graz to
become an institution serving both EU and CofE should be considered as an alternative to both
options proposed ? Please motivate your answer, and if your answer is positive, all ideas on the
institutional set-up are welcome.
•
The ECML does, no doubt, a lot of good work, but it has not been created for this – to promote and
help realise true linguistic diversity in Europe – and should not be the sole base of a new structure;
instead I think a certain cooperation could be established with the ECML so as to diminish the risk of
duplication, but nothing else. (univ)
•
A clearer view is needed of the ways to tap the benefits of the Council of Europe's work on language
policy. Just guaranteeing the CoE representation on the Management Board does not protect against
overlap or necessarily constitute the basis for synergy. I do not think the ECML's role and
responsibilities should be "beefed up" as a solution, although it should definitely be an important
player in either scenario. (gov)
•
A good option would be to work together with ECML in Graz indeed or start from what this centre is
doing and expand. So I say yes to your new question (0). It is always better to work together or start
from what exists instead of fully inventing the wheel again. Also because the ECML works well.
(gov)
•
Le plus simple, en effet , serait d'étendre le rôle du Centre européen des langues vivantes de Graz, en
sachant qu'il dispose aujourd'hui d'une reconnaissance unanime des Etats membres qui y ont adhéré.
Les Etats ne voudront pas payer une structure parallèle aux fonctions quelque peu semblables. La
Commission et le Conseil de l'Europe, dans le passé, se sont regardés avec méfiance. L'Année
européenne des langues a été un premier pas vers un travail en commun. Il conviendrait pour cette
hypothèse que les responsables de l'Union européenne et du Conseil de l'Europe se rencontrent au plus
haut niveau pour donner une véritable chance à un projet commun.Tous les Etats membres se
féliciteront de cette initiative s'ils sont sûrs que les deux organes y trouvent leur compte. L'un a le
savoir-faire, l'autre a le financement. L'Agence pourrait rester à Graz, intégrer le CELV de Graz.
(NGO)
•
Since duplication doesn't make any sense and since the part which has been missing at the ECML in
the past (knowledge centre, collection of information, etc) is being addressed with such a new agency,
a merger would make plain sense AND it would be politically wise - ie member states would
appreciate it, on the condition that the new agency's mission and scope clearly goes beyond EU
member states or candidates. (staff member of Int. Org.)
1. In relation to the ‘mission’ : any thoughts related to the Agency being open to countries that do not
(yet) belong to the EU ?
•
It is absolutely crucial to be open to all European countries, whether EU member or not. (gov)
•
I do not envisage any problems if the Agency is also open to countries that do not yet belong to the
EU but who have applied or somehow willing to start negotiations for entry – but they should
definitely have a different status from member states. (univ)
93
Final report
•
You should clarify which countries are eligible. Only applicant countries? Council of Europe member
states? Israel? Switzerland? A policy which is restrictive about membership in the first instance is
more likely to produce an effective Agency. (univ)
•
Les pays qui ne sont pas encore dans l’U.E. ne pourraient qu’apporter un plus et contribuer à fortifier
l’idée d’une Europe riche en points de vue différents. Ils pourraient permettre de réfléchir àune autre
manière ou à une manière plus étendue à la situation et à l’avenir des langues, cela grâce à des experts
qui n’ont pas toujours été formés de la même manière aux langues que ceux des pays actuels de
l’Union. (NGO)
2. In relation to the structure : might it be a good idea to foresee ‘rotating staff’ working as experts at the
Agency for a period of three or four years, seconded to the Agency by their national governments, and
coming from academic institutions or NGOs ?
•
Rotating staff is a good idea. Individuals from institutions could be nominated by national NGOs who
know which persons are devoted to this. Institutional nominations lead sometimes to wrong persons.
(NGO)
•
Both permanent and rotating staff should work at such Agency. Continuity in the work is extremely
important ! At the same time, the institution must be able to build up knowledge. (gov)
•
Certainly not chosen by their governments. This is a big problem. I think there should be a small
number of permanent staff and some other rotating staff chosen on the basis of competence coming
from academic institutions or NGO’ s or simply for their individual experience and/or expertise.
Ideally we should recommend spaces for all these type of people. The governments should simply
come into the picture to make sure that the chosen person will be allowed to go back to their job at the
end of the term at the Agency. (univ)
•
The idea that you raise of staff being seconded every few years ‘by their national governments’ is a
recipe for disaster and bureaucratic insensitivity that the EU already has a well-deserved bad
reputation for. The idea that many EU member states employ in their civil service (or in their cultural
diplomacy services like the British Council) employees who are professionally competent and
insightful on matters of language diversity and language learning is a non-starter, and there is masses
of counter-evidence (as the beginning efforts to implement the DG Education and Culture’s Activity
Plan indicate). Catalonia is perhaps the only exception to this rule, for good historical reasons, along
with isolated individuals elsewhere. Competent people are likely to be found in the academic and
professional worlds, or in centres that support language teachers (like CILT), NGOs, and minority
language groups. This is a tricky issue, since language policy is politically sensitive, but to ensure that
the Academy will be credible and independent, and retain the respect of politicians and language
professionals is vital. (univ)
•
Je crois qu’il serait bon d’avoir un directeur administratif ayant déjà une bonne connaissance du
monde des langues et parlant plusieurs langues. Avec lui un directeur spécialiste de pédagogie, très au
fait des politiques des langues dans les différents pays, capable de coordonner une équipe de
chercheurs changeant tous les quatre ans, plus un expert présent pendant six mois durant la présidence
de son pays à l’Union européenne. Il est préférable, d’après expérience , que ces experts soient choisis
comme véritables experts par un consortium d’universités ou ONG mais envoyés par leur Etat pour
couvrir une partie de leurs frais. (NGO)
•
Possible, mais il faudrait des rotations longues pour que les responsables soient autre chose que des
administrateurs sans compétence sur le fond. (univ)
94
Final report
•
•
No, as far as choice through member states governments is concerned – it would defeat its purpose.
Yes, for a stable permanent staff to keep the competencies and knowledge in the house. Yes for a
smaller part of rotating staff or similar arrangements. (staff member of Int. Org.)
In both the central agency and its national/regional extensions, the risk of "political" appointments to
positions (rather than ones based on acclaimed expertise) may be high. (gov)
3. In relation to the structure : any thoughts related to the idea to foresee seats in the board to the Council
of Europe, in order to ‘institutionalise’ the link between them and the Agency?
•
(YW) All comments received are strongly in favour of the idea.
•
Yes, this is important, but there should be concrete possibilities / obligations for both sides to cooperate – otherwise it is just an alibi. (gov)
•
Pour ce qui est de la relation possible entre le Conseil de l’Europe et l’Agence. Plusieurs pistes. Que
cette Agence soit une agence bicéphale qui démontrera le partenariat possible entre les deux
structures, avec un directeur administratif payé éventuellement par l’Union européenne et le directeur
pédagogique par le Conseil de l’Europe. Le choix des experts se ferait en commun ainsi que les
suggestions pour les orientations à venir. De toute façon il conviendrait de trouver un accord durable
de façon à ce que cette Agence soit l’instrument de tous, un accord qui montrerait la complémentarité
avec ce qui existe déjà et notamment au Conseil de l’Europe. (NGO)
•
Absoluement indispensable pour éviter les doubles emplois. (univ)
•
While the Management Board should be kept relatively small I would make a case for the Council of
Europe (and arguably UNESCO) being given (a) permanent seat(s) of the Management Board.
(independent consultant)
4. In relation to the structure : any reflections on the idea to have ‘antennas’ at national / regional level as
a ‘fourth pillar’ in the structure of the Agency ? What type of organisations could fulfil this role ?
How could these appointments / nominations be organised ? Criteria to which organisations should
correspond in order to be considered as ‘antenna’ ?
•
In order for mandate items 2 and 6 to work in the agency scenario, effective national/regional
"antennae" are vital as "data collectors", "knowledge reservoirs", "relays", "multipliers" and
"catalizers". Your agency is going to be only as good as its "antennae" are, and the antennae only as
effective as the central agency and regional/national support allow/want them to be. Weak antennae
make for a half-blind and lame agency. (gov)
•
Antennas in the member states is important. Perhaps decentralisation through these links. Important to
have a strong decentralised profile of the institution. (NGO)
•
Criteria : to dispose of infrastructure for dissemination and to have a clear responsibility for change
management at local, regional and / or national level. (gov)
•
La question des antennes dans les différents pays est importante tout en étant délicate. Il devrait y
avoir un comité d’experts dans chaque pays, désigné pour 4 ans comme les précédents, qui se réunirait
tous les 6 mois/ou tous les ans pour faire le point de l’avancée des travaux de recherches,
d’informations et de diffusion de l’Agence. Ce comité aura pour tâches de participer aux programmes
de recherches de l’Agence, d’en évaluer, de trouver les adresses courriel et autres afin que l’Agence
puisse diffuser du mieux possible les résultats. En effet le succès de cette Agence dépend en grande
partie de sa capacité à diffuser, à démocratiser l’information. (NGO)
95
Final report
•
C’est une solution très couteuse. (univ)
•
Presently, the ECML members finance the Centre as a Partial Agreement of the Coe - so with extra
money. They would certainly appreciate if the financing of a new, merged entity would come (partly
or totally) from the EU, at least for the 25 EU member states. PLUS: they could invest their current
ECML contribution into setting up national networks for collection and disssemination; there is
already a network of ECML related dissemination centres in its member states (with a terrible lack of
financing) and a growing realisation by member states of the importance of the national network part
for successful action and impact. (staff member of Int. Org.)
Other comments made in relation to the structure :
o
The document makes it clear that there are risks in too top-heavy a management structure, which is all
to the good, but it does not specify what minimal size the agency must have in order to be effective.
My experience of the Council of Europe over many years (and rather similarly UNESCO) is that their
units promoting language matters are too small to be dynamic and lack professional expertise. There
are too many ‘administrators’ without specialist insight, because they are detached from ongoing
contact with research, grassroots, or classroom concerns. It is imperative that staff are respected
scholars, proficient in several languages, and with an unimpeachable commitment to linguistic
diversity. Junior staff should not be merely ‘administrators’ but support staff with a commitment to
the same goals. (univ)
o
The ideas in your document represent what I see as the tasks and functions for the agency. The only
thing that frightened me off, I had no alternative though, is the structure. I am dead scared of heavy
structures with staff and administration and other forums because I think it might make things proceed
slowly. So here I would have liked you to do more thinking in order to see if you can keep the
structure light. (gov)
o
Too many bodies make the structure top heavy; I just imagine how long any consensual decision
making process would take.... A Board meeting once a year and an executive Bureau of the Board to
monitor and to assist the work of the Secretariat would seem complex enough (staff member of Int.
Org.)
Comments made in relation to the mandate :
•
Des collectes de données et des enquêtes spécifiques peuvent être faites par Eurydice. Pour l'aspect
recherche, il n'est pas besoin de créer une Agence mais un réseau universitaire d'équipes de recherche,
avec des financements européens. Les seules actions vraiment envisageables par une agence au niveau
européen sont des actions vers le grand public, vers les médias, vers les citoyens européens pour
promouvoir le plurilinguisme. (univ)
•
I suggest that the following aim/objective might be added to the list : 'To conserve and develop
Europe's unique linguistic heritage, paying special attention to those autochthonous European
languages which are endangered'. My point is that while the Agency should support the teaching of
ALL languages and respect the linguistic rights of all people living in Europe, we as Europeans have
an obligation to safeguard our own distinct linguistic heritage, paying special attention to those
European languages which are in danger of becoming extinct, even in our own lifetime. (independent
consultant)
96
Final report
Discussion theme 2
Possible scenario for a European Network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’
Introduction
This present document has been drafted in the context of this study and presents an alternative scenario to
a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning. The purpose of this document is to
serve as a tool for discussion, to trigger feedback and reactions from different stakeholder groups.
The concept described below has been inspired by concepts applied already by the European Commission
in other policy domains.
The basis of the network concept is to create a formal network of independent organisations all involved
in linguistic diversity and language learning. It is presented here as an alternative model to the creation of
an Agency as proposed in the European Parliament Resolution. The mission and objectives are similar to
the Agency scenario, even if identical objectives can result in significant differences due to the difference
in approach.
Mission
The European Network of ‘Language Diversity Centres’ would be established with the aim to promote
and help realise true linguistic diversity in Europe. It would give visibility to (all) language
communities in the EU as well as to the actors in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning,
building on expertise and pursuing a long-term focus.
Mandate
1. To raise broad awareness at all levels and throughout Europe of the importance of linguistic diversity
and language learning and of the necessity to foster and respect that diversity;
2. To be a ‘knowledge centre’, at the service of all actors in the field of linguistic diversity and language
learning : establishing databases, collecting and disseminating information and knowledge in relation
to languages in Europe, research about them, programmes and publications, best practices, legislation,
etc.
3. To stimulate and support the collection of objective, timely, reliable and comparable data at national
and European level in order to help policy makers and others take measures or to formulate courses of
action within their respective domains of competence;
4. To stimulate and support organisations working in the field of linguistic diversity and language
learning, encouraging networking and co-ordination among them, while pursuing an inclusive
approach on languages;
97
Final report
5. To monitor EU policies and practices with regard to the integration of the aims of ‘linguistic diversity
and language learning’ in the respective EU policy domains and programmes (mainstreaming);
6. To be a platform for exchange, on a regular basis, between experts and practicioners, including policy
makers, who are working in the different areas of language so that they can take stock of the situation
at the international level, compare it to national contexts, and make plans for the future.
Scope
The network would pursue an inclusive approach towards languages, respecting the diversity of all the
languages used in the Union, whether national ‘official’ languages, regional or immigrant languages, other
lesser-used languages or sign languages. It would thus raise awareness about the broad spectrum of
languages in the Union, and encourage the learning of languages in general.
As regards support for policy-making, the network would focus on providing ‘status’ information, serving
as an input for policy makers and thus complementing the work done by the Council of Europe and other
bodies.
Target groups
European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, other EU bodies, the EU Member States,
International Organisations
General public:
All experts and practicioners working in the area of languages, NGOs, the research community, education,
the media, and the public at large
Structure
The concept includes three levels with different roles
European Commission
•
•
•
•
Technical Assistance Office
(TAO)
•
•
European Language Diversity
Centres (ELDC)
•
•
•
Role
Overall management and steering
Strategy
Selection of Network members
Mainstreaming: integration of the aims of
‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ in the
respective EU policy domains and programmes
Provide services to the Network members
Manage the information flow between Network
members, from EC to Network and from Network
to EC
Evaluate performance of Network members
Implement an action plan according to the
objectives in the respective region
Active participation in networking activities
98
Final report
•
•
Give feedback to the Commission
Implement Europe-wide campaigns
What is a TAO:
We use the concept of ‘Technical Assistance Office’ although the actual legal form could be different (e.g.
an Executive Agency). The TAO is an external group of people recruited to manage the central services
linked to the network on behalf of the European Commission.
European Language Diversity Centres:
Organizations active in the field (various profiles possible – see below) would apply to host an ELDC.
The ELDC would be integrated in the host structure and could be a department or a specific team. The
Commission would launch at regular intervals calls for proposals for interested organizations. When
organisations are selected, the support they receive to implement the action plan would be in the form of
information, training for their staff, tools, network activities, and financial support.
Organisations could become a network member, even if they concentrate only on part of the objectives.
The network approach allows one:
- to integrate all existing institutions that are active in related fields
- to create a “network of networks” covering all domains, languages and communities
- to give specific roles to ‘expertise centres’, e.g. the ECML for language learning, the host
organizations of the Mercator networks for RML
- to cover all ‘levels’ from supranational organizations to local community organizations
- to give a regional view to the European topics of linguistic diversity and language
learning and to anchor these topics in the regions.
Specific criteria should be developed to select organisations that can host such a centre. In any case these
organisations should be not-for-profit, and have their main activity linked to linguistic diversity and
language learning. Concretely, they could be NGOs whose main role is to act as a lobby - e.g. for a
specific language community; they could be academic or public sector institutions, they could concentrate
on one language or be active in related fields like the multicultural society.
Some specific aspects of this model in comparison to an Agency
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A network model is extremely flexible: impact can be increased or decreased depending on
specific priorities and /or available funding.
No permanent structure is created, although the Commission can access expertise through the
TAO.
This is a performance-based model, whereby actors in the field lose their status as an ELDC if
they fail to perform according to agreed targets. Every semester, the evaluators produce a scoring
for each ELDC : a negative score for two consecutive periods leads to exclusion from the network
and a new call to recruit/select a replacement.
The variety and number of centres (probably over 300 to cover all regions in the EU) involved in
the network creates a de facto stakeholder involvement, reducing the need for complex structures.
The TAO would be situated near the Commission (in Brussels).
The network cannot perform all (potential) tasks related to its mandate. It can however be
extremely effective in collecting and disseminating information, managing promotion campaigns,
etc. but is e.g. less suitable for a mainstreaming function.
Some of these ‘weaknesses’ can be compensated by giving specific roles to specific network
members (expertise or resource centres having a special status in the network – e.g. Mercator).
99
Final report
•
•
This model provides intensive two-way communications (from EC to regions/stakeholders, from
regions/stakeholders/public to the EC). A well organized reporting and screening mechanism can
provide direct feedback from all over Europe to the EU level policy makers.
The network can easily be mobilised for large thematic campaigns all over Europe.
Please also look at the scenario of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning,
the comparison between the Network scenario and the Agency scenario and the documents on working
languages and stakeholder involvement.
• Specify clearly to which discussion you participate (this is discussion 2 – Network)
Questions
All reflections in relation to the text are welcome, but please use the subtitles of the text to link your
thoughts and comments with the respective parts of the text.
•
A network of existing experienced bodies seems to me to be much more competent to tackle the issue
than a new unknown institution. A network is also closer to the grass-root-level. A network could
fulfill the proposed mandate much better. (gov)
•
The way Structure is presented makes it look as though the network is a tool of the European
Commission, which dictates ‘management, steering and strategy’ and apparently deprives the network
of all autonomy. It is arguable that the Commission could fulfil such functions effectively, but perhaps
unlikely, whereas an Agency could. (univ)
•
Je peux comprendre cette hypothèse mais je ne la partage pas car le travail sur les langues restera
profondément dispersé et surtout pas très visible, ce qui aura pour effet de minimiser le rôle des
langues. Un réseau affaiblira les volontés de faire passer des messages forts sur les langues. Quelque
part, ce serait suicidaire pour l'avenir des langues. (NGO)
•
Sur le fond , déléguer cette activité à une Agence ou à un réseau revient à la considérer celle-ci
comme une activité technique et non politique. Or ces questions de langues sont cruciales et devraient
être suivies, en permanence, au plus haut niveau politique par une Commission ad hoc ou au sein
d'une Commission existante du Parlement européen. (univ)
100
Final report
•
The network should be supported by a permanent structure and staff. Otherwise it will lack depth and
continuity. There should be a secretarial function with administrative and scientific staff; comparable
with the staff of the Agency. (staff member of Eur. Federation)
•
I can't imagine that the network solution alone can be of any great impact. It follows the modern
tendency but forgets that in order to make networks work you need a strong central, focal point; who
shall provide this? (staff member of Int. Org.)
•
This model is flawed in my opinion. The proposed Agency needs to have intellectual and
administrative autonomy if it is to function properly and win the respect of European citizens. I know
only too well that some member states might bring political pressure to bear on Commission officials
if some of the work of the Agency displeased them e.g. paying attention to RMLs when the official
policy of the member state government may be to kill them off. I am also aware that official policy on
TACs (of BATs in French) can change from year to year. (independent consultant)
•
I think this is the best option. (univ)
1. Which are the most attractive and which are the least attractive characteristics of this option ?
•
Most attractive : flexibility, in integrate all existing institutions, to give specific roles to ‘expertise
centres’, to cover all ‘levels’. Integration in host structures avoids overlaps. Non-profit organisations.
Providing for intensive two-way communication. Managing promotion campaigns. Task of
mainstreaming is with EC.
Least attractive : ‘network of networks’, risk of too much change = loss of continuity, ‘threat’ of
permanent evaluation resulting in “quickly produced results”. (gov)
•
I suppose the most attractive is that it is less costly and ‘sounds’ less threatening. The least attractive
is that it has no permanence etc. and could not be effective at all as there would be too much
networking and no clear responsibilities/control/etc. (univ)
•
Most attractive: broad scope of target-groups possible; higher ownership and responsibility of the
participants.
Least attractive: difficulties to steer a firm well organized but still flexible administration, due to the
widely distributed network participants. (gov)
•
Yes, I chose this option. 1. It is more cost-efficient. 2. It is more decentralised. 3. It is very flexible. 4.
The network approach can later on produce well structured and well anchored ideas on a more
autonomous agency. (NGO)
•
A network is more flexible and offers better opportunities to involve relevant existing regional,
national and international bodies and networks. It offers better opportunities for a bottom-up
approach, involving directly the relevant regional and national policy levels. This is very important for
any European language policy in order to be fully effective, since it should take subsidiarity as its
leading principle. (staff member of Eur. federation)
•
The greatest advantages of the network scenario appear to lie in its great flexibility, (virtual)
accessibility and (theoretical) range, but performance evaluations of the individual nodes will not
guarantee that the network will work as a whole or build capacity in its players and stakeholders.
There is also the risk of the sort of "network fatigue" that other contributors have highlighted. (gov)
•
The most attractive: decentralisation and flexibility, it is very important. But it requires very effective
co-ordination. (univ)
101
Final report
2. One can argue that a network approach is much more promising in terms of ‘value for
money’ than an Agency. Do you agree with this ? Why (not) ?
•
Network structure would strengthen and support existing work already done; use existing knowhow
and structures. (gov)
•
The EU-network could perhaps be divided into smaller units, e.g a Nordic/Baltic/Polish network for
minority
languages represents the region in some aspects.
Some
kind of
hierarchical/lingustic/sociolinguistic division. (NGO)
•
In the long run I think it’s not better value for money because I’m afraid we won’t see the results we
would really like to see. (univ)
3. A network model entails a more decentralised approach than an Agency, and is expected to
be closer to the citizens. How important is this ? To which target groups should the structure
to be set up be ‘closest’ ?
•
I consider this to be very important. This depends very much on the structures in the member states!
Closest to local, regional, national experts in change management and decision makers because they
know best what happens, where support and change is needed and how to go about it. (gov)
•
It is very important that it has little bureacracy, and is decentralised. It must develop good contact with
weak minority regions. Otherwise it is of no use for the weak minority regions. The target groups are
those groups who have little resources and weak civil societies, and can even in the future be conflict
regions if they feel themselves backward and lagging behind mainstream society. (NGO)
•
I don’t agree that this is necessarily so. I would not like to see any ‘priveleged’ groups in future as this
would simply be repeating the mistakes of past – only with a different set of groups. (univ)
•
It is very important that the citizen feels addressed by the network; no specific target groups needed;
the network should function as a bridge between the institutional level and general public. (gov)
•
It is important to be closer to the citizens. (univ)
4. Mainstreaming (item 5 of the mandate) would not be part of the role of the Network as such,
but would remain with the European Commission. Is this important ? Is it the Commission
who should take up this mainstreaming role ?
•
The mainstreaming should remain within the Commission; the Commission develops policies and
programmes based on the broad information it gets from the general public through the network. (gov)
•
Yes, mainstreaming should remain with the Commission. (gov) (univ)
•
Please make clear what you mean by ‘mainstreaming’. If it means what I think it means, then I do not
think that the Commission can take up this role at all. This, in my view, is one of the bigger
weaknesses of a network. (univ)
102
Final report
•
(note from Yellow Window : with ‘mainstreaming’ we mean “ensuring the integration of the aims of
‘linguistic diversity and language learning’ in the respective EU policy domains and programmes”)
103
Final report
Discussion theme 3
Comparison of options
Option
A European network of
‘language diversity
centres’
Advantages

the ability to embrace the broad variety of stakeholders, each
with different needs
it allows concrete action at the decentralised level, supported by
the EU
the possibility of integrating existing structures (EBLUL,
Mercator) which can be members serving the network
the flexibility allows one to adapt to changing needs in the
dynamic context of languages
‘steering groups’ within the network can help to develop
coherent policies in the field
Disadvantages

An autonomous
Agency
is not a permanent infrastructure (no guarantee of continuity)
limited visibility
no authority
Advantages

the permanent infrastructure provides safeguards for the subject
it can help to develop and implement a macro-level, coherent
policy in the field
it can have ‘normative power’ / power from its status and
through knowledge
it can support the mainstreaming approach (integration of the
issues related with the subject in other policy domains than
language)
it ensures visibility and underlines the importance of the issue
104
Final report
Disadvantages

concern for overlap / duplication
perceived as threat for existing structures that receive funding
important institutional cost (less ‘value for money’?)
time needed before autonomous body is operational (long
decision-making process)
concern that Agency would be ‘another bureaucracy’
concern that creation of an Agency would just be ‘window
dressing’, while not resulting in real action
Please also look at both scenarios: a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning,
the “Network” scenario as well as the documents on working languages and stakeholder involvement.
Questions
General comments :
¾ Important to achieve permanence and continuity in the form of an agency, while at the same time
allowing for an amount of flexibility by rotating part of staff! There are too many networks and
projects around, at least in my country, being quite successful at first but ending after a certain time
when there is no money left nor enthusiastic volunteers who would contribute in spite of an uncertain
future. Very often, the promising results, innovative solutions etc risk being wasted if there is no
permanent base somewhere. (univ)
¾ This is a sophisticated summary, which I fully endorse. […] I would like to see a stronger case being
made for a combination of an Academy and networks. I am not convinced that a system of networks
liaising with the Commission would have the clout that an Academy would have, and that European
languages need. (univ)
¾ I believe that neither of the 2 options would effectively respond to all the aspects of the mandate
described in Themes 1 and 2. Mandate items 1, 2 and 6 might be better met through the network
option, whereas items 3, 4 and 5 need the "authority" and leverage of an institution (the "agency"
option), especially in what concerns mainstreaming. The mandate seems to be too wide for a single
option. (gov)
¾ Sur le fond , déléguer cette activité à une Agence ou à un réseau revient à la considérer celle-ci
comme une activité technique et non politique. Or ces questions de langues sont cruciales et devraient
être suivies, en permanence, au plus haut niveau politique par une Commission ad hoc ou au sein
d'une Commission existante du Parlement européen. (univ)
¾ If there is to be new investment in this area, it would be better to develop a networking model than to
develop an autonomous agency. The disadvantages of an autonomous agency are well stated and the
105
Final report
advantages not convincing – for example, references to ‘authority’ and ‘normative power’ do not sit
well in a situation in which member states retain ‘competence’ in the education field. (gov)
1. If there are items with which you strongly disagree, please let us know, as well as why you
disagree.
•
I do not quite agree that an Agency would have any bigger potential for overlap of work etc. than a
network. In fact I think it will have a better opportunity to avoid this happening – depending, of
course, on the way it is set up and the way it functions in reality. (univ)
•
Une agence/un réseau de ce type n'aura sans doute aucune influence sur les décisions
politiques/éducatives qui se prennent au sein des Parlements nationaux. Elle ne pourra sans doute pas
agir sur les systèmes éducatifs et les enseignants (c'est déjà le rôle de Graz), étant une agence
extérieure. (univ)
2. Are there arguments that you consider as being the ‘most important’ in making a choice
between both options ?
•
I consider those listed as advantages for an autonomous agency to be most important. (univ)
•
It seems to me that what is at stake in language policy throughout Europe and in EU institutions is of
such major importance that there is a need to beef up the arguments in favour of Academy that could
be powerful enough to address the big, long-term issues. (univ)
•
Most of the perceived advantages of the second model could be achieved by the first one by serving
as a kind of 'Centre of centres' - cooperating closely with existing language centres in universities etc.
(independent consultant)
3. If you would like to add arguments pro or contra, please let us know.
•
I am a bit reluctant to accept the idea of a network because I am not convinced that this can work in
practice. I might perceive it in a better light if you give me a real-life example of something similar
that is also ‘that big’ and long-term. (univ)
•
The creation of a new agency would pose the risk of confusion, further fragmentation of activity as
well as diverting resources from priorities in the field of language education. (gov)
• An additional advantage of the network option is that we can involve relevant regional and national
policy bodies and build our European scale policies upon them.
Another additional advantage is that all aspects and domains of language policy, and the centres of
expertise which are active in these various domains, can be involved (e.g. language learning, didactic
expertise, language and speech technology, corpuses and tools, terminology etc…
An additional disadvantage of the Agency option is that it will tend to be too much top-down and
hence less efficient in making regional and national policies converge with each other and with
European objectives. The Agency can be seen as a threat for or interference in regional and national
affairs. (staff member of Eur. Federation)
106
Final report
Discussion theme 4
European Agency/Network for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning
An original solution for working languages
Introduction
This present document has been drafted in the context of this study. The purpose of this document is to
The issue:
On the one hand, English is de facto becoming a ‘lingua franca’; on the other hand, the number of official
languages in the EU is increasing significantly, leading to additional costs.
It can be argued that, if an Agency is created, it should play a role in finding solutions and a new
‘paradigm’ for languages in Europe.
This thesis has led to a discussion on what should be the working languages of an Agency active in
Linguistic Diversity. Two opposite opinions exist: a small number of working languages to be practical
and limit costs, or a (much) larger number of languages including RML.
The ambition is to find:
A way of contributing to a solution that could be valid for all EU institutions, so the Agency / network
could be used as a testing ground for new approaches. Some examples:
• Meetings where passive knowledge of working languages is expected (e.g. three languages can be
spoken, all participants are expected to at least understand these languages and be able to express
themselves in one of them)
• Meetings where nobody speaks their own mother tongue
• Rotating working languages
the “Network” scenario and the comparison between the Network scenario and the Agency scenario as
well as the document on stakeholder involvement.
107
Final report
•
•
•
•
Specify clearly to which discussion you participate (this is discussion 4 – working
languages)
Send separate e-mails for different discussions
Please clearly indicate who you are (name, organisation, country)
Bookmark the page and visit the site again next calendar week to check on the update and
Questions
General comments to the document :
•
This document is a simplistic misleading presentation of the challenges. […] The entire document
suffers from a lack of precision about what is being considered. […] I also feel that the idea that the
Academy itself can be a ‘testing ground’ for new approaches is naïve nonsense. (univ)
•
La question proposée dans le document sur les langues de travail de l'éventuelle future agence de la
diversité linguistique me pousse à donner un avis dans une autre langue que celle insidueusement
proposée - étant donné que je ne suis pas francophone et que le français représente ma troisième
langue en ordre d'apprentissage, ceci est un choix délibéré. (univ)
•
The Agency or secretarial unit of the Network cannot be a testing ground for language regimes within
the European institutions. The Agency or secretarial Unit will need a limited number of working
languages, possibly English and French. The European institutions as such offer better opportunities
for asymmetric solutions, i.e. language configurations which differ from one situation to another. For
mixed expert groups (consisting of national and European experts and civil servant) one could take
into account the specific composition of these groups and the linguistic needs of the participants..
Moreover, in some situations all official languages will continue to be necessary (e.g. plenary sessions
of European parliament; official meetings of the European Council etc…). In our view, comparable
situations will not occur within the structures of the Agency or the Network. Problems here are of a
different kind and allow a language regime of only a few languages. (staff member of Eur.
Federation)
•
The various comments on the web page do not propose any solution they only restate what we have
heard over the past 10 or more years in similar contexts : the advantages for the native speakers of the
more widely spread (and taught) languages; the costs and unwieldliness of using more languages and
the unpractibability of more than say 3 languages for any permanent staff; the apparent contradiction:
you are for diversity and you want to reduce the languages used in your work. (staff member of Int.
Organisation)
1. Should one accept that English is de facto the ‘lingua franca’ and minimize costs
•
No, I do not think we should accept that English is de facto the ‘lingua franca’ and minimize costs.
(univ)
•
English should be the only working language. (NGO)
108
Final report
•
(univ) The issue is presented in an over-simplifying way :
- Referring to English as a lingua franca uncritically obscures the fact that while it is perfectly
reasonable for EU employees to conduct their affairs in a limited number of working
languages, there are major problems when it comes to links between Brussels and
representatives of member states, in speech and writing.
- ‘Lingua franca’ also has the pernicious implication that everyone negotiates from a position of
equality, whereas in reality native speakers have a major advantage.
- Referring to costs uncritically also ignores matters of equality for people from different
language groups. Is a democratic right to use the mother tongue subordinate to an economic
rationale?
•
Il me semble inconcevable, et une contradiction flagrante avec l'esprit de l'établissement d'une agence
pour la sauvegarde de la diversité linguistique, de songer à utiliser une seule soi-disante "lingua
franca", en l'occurence l'anglais, comme langue de travail. Cette position va à l'encontre de toute la
politique européenne sur la question de la diversité linguistique (voir le Plan d'Action Langues). Je ne
peux que présumer que la question a été posée de façon délibéremment provocatrice, afin de susciter
des réactions telles que celle-ci. (univ)
•
English as the only working language is not a good option. Our personal experience shows that
English as only working language tends to favour the countries and representatives of the Northern
European region and tends to be a disadvantage for representatives of the Mediterranean area. For this
reason we are in favour of English and French as working language, thus realising a balance between
Germanic and Romance languages. Possibly one could consider adding German, this language having
a status as lingua franca in many of the new member states of the Union. A regime consisting of more
then one working language is also more coherent with the general aims of promoting linguistic
diversity. (staff member of Eur. Federation)
•
Dire que l’anglais devient de facto la lingua franca et donc peut servir de langue de travail de l’agence
est en contradiction avec la mission qu’elle se donne de promouvoir le multilinguisme. Il conviendrait
d’adopter la solution proposée où personne ne parle sa propre langue maternelle pour éviter toute
discrimination linguistique. (NGO)
•
People still seem unprepared to think in a medium or long term perspective - if no decision is taken
the decision will be taken by day to day reality. As it looks at the moment English WILL become the
accepted lingua franca. (staff member of Int. Org.)
•
English poses the single greatest threat to linguistic diversity in Europe so I am totally opposed to
making it the sole working language of the Agency. (independent consultant)
•
An agency/network for linguistic diversity should promote language diversity in reality by using
different languages. (gov)
2. Is the use of rotating working languages acceptable
•
Why would it not be acceptable ? (univ)
•
No rotating languages (NGO)
•
It sounds fascinating, but is it realistic ? (univ)
•
A rotation system for working languages is sheer nonsense. Just try to imagine the consequences for
the legibility and accessibility of the Agency’s archives. (staff member of Eur. Federation)
109
Final report
3. If rotating working languages are accepted, is it meaningful to include (major) RML languages among
the working languages
•
Yes, I think so. I also think that if (and there should be) there are any activities taking place in any
region where a small language is in use, this should be given a (possibly partial depending on
availability of interpreters and translators) major role in that activity, irrespective of what ‘size’ of
language it is. The idea of rotating working languages is workable but we should give a more precise
meaning to the term ‘rotating’ as – when, for what, by whom, etc. (univ)
4. Which examples of ‘good practice’ exist ? (elsewhere in the world, from other institutions, …)
•
I do not think that I can name any really! Why can’t we start doing it? (univ)
•
What would be needed is analysis of good practice in a range of existing EU bodies (which has never
been subjected to systematic scrutiny). The final question, good practice elsewhere, is obviously a
relevant task for the Agency to investigate (the use of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish in the Nordic
countries, sometimes as well as English, is a good case in point). The exemplification in three bullets
here is misleading, and confuses the more fundamental need, which is that any employee of the
Agency would need to be proficient minimally in English, French and at least one other language.
(univ)
Other comments :
•
Quite apart from the remoteness of the EU from the citizen: Commission websites set a bad example
of multilingualism, since all texts are there in English, most in French, and, with the exception of legal
acts, few in other languages. There are major tasks for an Academy in not only stimulating language
learning but also in monitoring the extent to which EU institutions live up to the ideals of equality and
maintaining linguistic diversity that the Constitution stipulates. (univ)
•
Pour promouvoir la diversité linguistique dans l’UE, il faut d’abord la mettre en place dans les
institutions et sur les murs des bâtiments des Institutions européennes à Bruxelles. (NGO)
•
Comprehension in 3 languages might be quite a task for some participants of the new member states
where additionally to their mother tongue many people speak Russian. That already makes
competences in 5 languages. To my mind Network could be more flexible for using more languages
than Agency. (gov)
•
I believe that the Agency should adopt an inclusive, yet pragmatic approach to working languages. A
distinction should be made between internal working languages and languages of service to the public.
For pragmatic reasons, I accept that most of the internal work would need to be done in the two main
de facto working languages of the EU, French and English + the national language(s) of the member
state in which the Agency will be located. These might be defined as the 'main working languages' not the only working languages. As far as is possible, every effort should be made to recruit staff that
would offer a wide range of linguistic skills. The Annual Report of the Agency should be produced in
at least French and English - never in English alone. As far as web-sites and publications are
concerned, the Agency should be willing to accept material in any European language. (independent
consultant)
•
(staff member of Int. Org.) People still seem unprepared to reflect on any neutral language to adopt as
a lingua franca (too daunting in its implications, to far off, etc.). So, what position to adopt - which
110
Final report
position might provide consensus? A division between language use in A) statutory and administrative
languages use on the one hand and B) language use for publicity, dissemination, information AND
activities on the other.
For A : English, French and German
For B :
- publicity, dissemination, information - this should be available in as many languages as possible
- activities: 2 or 3 working languages for each larger activity (meeting or event); one of which has
to be English, French or German (in practice that would mean using one widely spoken and learnt
language so that a maximum of people can be potential participants) and one lesser used language
to highlight diversity.
111
Final report
Discussion theme 5
European Agency/Network for Linguistic Diversity and Language Learning
How to organise stakeholder involvement
Introduction
This present document has been drafted in the context of this study. The purpose of this document is to
The dilemma when defining the structure and organs of a new legal entity (Agency) is to find the right
balance between:
• Ensuring that all interested parties are properly represented in the organs
• Strong and flexible management of the organisation
An Agency is created by the Member States (M.S.), and therefore, Member States expect to be
represented in the organisation’s organs. With 25 M.S., and more to join in the future or likely to
participate in the activities, a model by which each Member State has a seat in the board is not advisable.
The consequence would be a board that is extremely heavy with various potential consequences (power
effectively taken by the day-to-day management, impossible to make decisions, etc.).
Not only M.S. should be represented in the organs, but also the major stakeholder groups and the
European Commission.
Stakeholder involvement in the case of the creation of an Agency (or the alternative scenario of a
formalised network) is critical for the success of the project:
- it is necessary to guarantee legitimity,
- it is a technique to ensure bottom-up definition of work programmes
- an agency (and even more so a network) has to be embedded in the existing structures at
international, EU, national and regional levels
Two factors make the case of linguistic diversity and language learning even more complex:
- the existing structures at supranational level: particularly the Council of Europe, EBLUL and the
Mercator networks. Duplication has to be avoided and therefore coordination of activities has to
be ensured;
- the broad variety of stakeholder groups due to the horizontal nature of linguistic diversity and
language learning: all levels of the formal education system, private language education, monolingual education as well as pluri-lingual (like interpretation, translation), various types of
professions and academic specialisations, all languages (the inclusive approach meaning that
language communities with very different needs are covered).
In the paper on alternative 1 (Agency) a three (or four) pillar structure is proposed, consisting of :
112
Final report
•
a Director and his/her staff. The Director would be responsible for everyday administration, as well as
for the preparation and implementation of the Agency’s work programme.
•
A Management Board would ensure that the Agency carries out its missions and tasks, by adopting its
annual work programme and financial regulation. The structure of the Management Board would be
light with representatives appointed by the Commission, by the European Parliament, by the Council,
and representatives of stakeholders. In addition, a certain number of seats could be reserved for
representatives of international organisations such as the Council of Europe. This Board would be
intended to provide supervision of the activities of the Agency and at the same time ensure coherence
with Community policies and coordination with initiatives from the part of the Commission and from
Member States.
•
an Advisory Forum representing competent national/regional bodies and different stakeholder groups.
The Advisory Forum would be a mechanism for exchanging information and pooling knowledge, as
well as monitoring the activities of the Agency.
In addition, the Agency could have a network of ‘Focal Points’ (or ‘antennae’) at national / regional level.
Such ‘antennae’ could be responsible for the organisation and co-ordination of the national networks and
be involved in the preparation and implementation of the Agency’s work programme. The antennae could
contribute to any relevant Agency publications, and could possibly be in charge of translation of certain
documents.
They would ensure the proper functioning of a two-way flow of information between the Agency and the
national / regional levels.
In case of alternative 2 (network), the different European Centres would be hosted by existing
institutions with experience in the field of linguistic diversity. They would form a team within the host
structure and ineract with it, with regional, national and international actors as well as with the other
members of the network and the corresponding European institutions. The variety of host structures and
partners all over Europe would represent the different stakeholder groups. Thestructure would be different
as there is no need for a formal representation and management structure. An advisory forum however
could play a similar role as in the case of an Agency, although it would quite certainly consist mainly of
the members of the network, together with Commission and TAO representatives. The fourth pillar
proposed (focal points) would not be relevant as replaced by the formal network of ELDCs.
We propose to concentrate the discussion on the Advisory Forum, although all comments on the more
general theme of stakeholder involvement are most welcome.
The principles for an Advisory Forum could be as follows:
- a yearly general assembly where all members (organisations) are invited. During this meeting, the
past and future activities of the Agency / Network are reviewed;
- membership is structured according to stakeholder groups, and not by Member State;
- decision on membership is done by the board43 on the basis of objective criteria and ensuring a
balance between countries, language communities and different types of stakeholders.
the “Network” scenario and the comparison between the Network scenario and the Agency scenario as
well as the document on working languages.
43
In the case of the network, members of the advisory forum would be the members of the network. Additional
members could be appointed by the European Commission.
113
Final report
• Specify clearly to which discussion you participate (this is discussion 5 – stakeholder
involvement)
Questions
• Any structure which does not involve all member countries / languages is bound to fail, since countries
and languages which are not represented cannot be supposed to agree with policy options decided
within this framework and to converge towards them. (staff member of Eur. Federation)
• This is a very important issue and it is critical to get it right. (independent consultant)
1. Should such an Advisory Forum set a maximum number of members ? If yes, what is a
reasonable maximum number ?
•
2.
I do not think that a number of members should be specified because later on it would be very difficult
to change that. It would, however, I guess, be possible to specify it at a much later stage, if there are
any real problems in this regard. If it is advisable to specify the number right from the beginning, then
we need to really make sure that we are not leaving any potential members out just because of this.
(univ)
Which categories of ‘stakeholder groups’ should be defined ?
•
Both the national language boards as well as the smaller language boards (regional, immigrant etc.),
and other existing international (within the EU) language bodies. I would also like to see
international ‘groups’ represented such as AILA (International Association of Applied Linguists), and
preferably a represented from each national Applied Linguistics Association (such as BAAL – the
British Association of Applied Linguists) to make sure that the academic world is involved. (univ)
•
It seems critical that all languages and countries be represented. One could think of specific European
Centres that have to link with all relevant bodies in their countries. As an alternative one could also
think of a representation through language institutions which represent a bird’s eye point of view, i.e.
non-specialist institutions, preferably the ones which are directly involved in language planning and
language policy. It is up to them to organise networks that make them representative for their country.
(staff member of Eur. Federation)
114
Final report
3. Should membership of the Advisory Forum be based on ‘institutions’ ? The study
demonstrated that expertise is in most cases with ‘individuals’, whether working within an
institutional context or not. (For example, in the case of academic institutions : who to
appoint as ‘member’ ? The institution or individual experts ?) How can this issue be
approached ?
•
Besides institutions it would be useful to have space for 2-3 experts appointed independently as
individual experts relating to the various areas of expertise, e.g. legal, PR, language education, etc.
(univ)
•
I believe that no NGO or language/research centre should automatically be given recognition. The
importance and efficacy of such bodies can fluctuate from year to year and may be heavily dependent
on personalities. One possible way forward might be to publicise the fact that an Advisory Forum for
the Agency, consisting of X members, was being formed and invite interested persons and
organisations to propose suitable people for membership. The Commission, Council and Parliament
members of the Management Board might then select X people from among the list of candidates. The
Advisory Forum might in turn be invited to select two or three people from among themselves to be
members of the Management Board. The advantage of this system is that every interested
organisation, centre of even individual would be afforded an opportunity to propose members. The EU
institutions could then chose on the basis of merit, having regard to academic background, proven
skills and geographic distribution. (independent consultant)
115
Final report
ANNEX 5.
Bibliography
Beacco, J. C., and Byram, M., Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe.
From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education, Council of Europe: Language Policy Division,
Executive Version and Main Version, 2002.
Bultrini, A., Developments in the field of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages :
June 2002 – June 2003, Council of Europe.
Campbell, G., Compendium of the World’s Languages. London: Routledge, 1991.
Committee of the Regions, Proposal for a Council decision adopting a multiannual programme to
stimulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote the
linguistic diversity in the Information Society, COM (2000)323 final of 23/10/2000.
Committee of the Regions, Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Decision 1419/1999/EC establishing a Community action for the “European Capital of
Culture” event for the years 2005 to 2019, COM (2003) 700 final-2003/0274 (COD).
Council of Europe, Plurilingual Education in Europe. 50 Years of international co-operation, Strasbourg,
October 2004.
Council of Europe, A European Language Portfolio. From piloting to implementation (2001-2004).
Consolidated report – Final version, Strasbourg, DGIV/EDU/LANG(2004) 6 – Final, July 2004, 70 p.
Council of Europe, European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and explanatory report,
Convention opened for signature on 5 November 1992, European Treaty Series No.148.
Council of Europe, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages : Learning, Teaching,
Assessment. A guide for users.
Council of Europe, The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities. Fourth Activity Report covering the period from 1 June 2002 to 31 May 2004, Strasbourg,
ACFC/INF (2004) 1, 1 June 2004, 23 p.
European Commission, Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: an action plan 2004-2006,
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European parliament, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, COM(2003) 449 final, 24.07.2003
European Commission, Establishing a Community action programme to promote bodies active at
European level in the field of culture, Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision,
COM(2003)275 final, 27.5.2003
European Commission, Implementation of “education & training 2010” work programme, Progress
report of the Working Group ‘Improveing Foreign Languages Learning’, November 2003.
116
Final report
European Commission, European Governance. A White Paper, COM(2001) 428 final of 25/07/2001, 35
p.
European Commission, Meta-Evaluation on the Community Agency System, 15 September 2003, 77 p.
European Commission, Operating Framework for the European Regulatory Agencies, COM(2002) 718
final of 11/12/2002.
European Commission, Draft interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European
regulatory agencies, Brussels, COM(2005)59 final of 25.02.2005.
European Parliament, Report on European regional and lesser-used languages – the languages of
minorities in the EU- in the context of enlargement and cultural diversity (2003/2057(INI)), A50271/2003, 14 July 2003, 16 p.
European Parliament, Resolution on a Community Charter of Regional Languages and Cultures and on a
Charter of Rights of Ethnic Minorities, A1-965/80, 9 October 1981, 57 p.
European Parliament, Resolution on Measures in favor of Linguistic and Cultural Minorities, A1-1254/82,
14 March 1983, 103-104 p.
European Parliament, Resolution on the languages and cultures of regional and ethnic minorities in the
European Community, A2-0150/87, 30 November 1987, 160-164 p.
European Parliament, Resolution on the situation of languages of the Community and the Catalan
language, 28 January 1991, 42 p.
European Parliament, Resolution on linguistic minorities in the European Community, 28 February 1994,
110 p.
European Parliament, Resolution on regional and lesser-used European languages, 13 December 2001, 2
p.
Extra, G., and K. Yagmur (eds.), Urban Multilingualism in Europe. Immigrant Minority Languages at
Home and School. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2004, 428 p.
Extra, G., De omgang met taaldiversiteit in multicultureel Europa. Tilburg : Babylon, Centrum voor
Studies van de Multiculturele Samenleving, 26 september 2003, 12 p.
Grin, F., Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.
London: Palgrave McMillan, 2003.
Hogan-Brun G., and Wolff S., (eds.), Minority Languages in Europe. Frameworks, Status, Prospects.
London: Palgrave McMillan, 2003.
Interarts, Ex-post Evaluation of Activities in the Field of Regional and Minority Languages 1998-2002.
Final Report, Study done for the European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture,
2004, 135 p.
Morgan, E., Minority Languages in the European Union. Cardiff: Labour European Office, 56 p.
117
Final report
Skutnabb-Kangas T., Linguistic Genocide in Education-or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights?,
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
Usher, R., E., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier, 2003.
Unesco, L’éducation dans un monde multilingue, 2003, 34 p.
118
Final report
ANNEX 6.
List of actors in the field of linguistic diversity and language learning
119