European parliament working paper

The calls for proposals under budget lines B3-1006 and B3-1000

Download 1.21 Mb. Page 7/42 Date 31.03.2018 Size 1.21 Mb. #43902

Navigate this page:

• 2.2.2. Languages targeted
• 2.2.3. Applicants
• 2.2.4. Number of applications
• 2.2.5. Quality of applications
• 2.2.6. Level of funding
• 2.2.7. Selection priorities

2.2. The calls for proposals under budget lines B3-1006 and B3-1000 2.2.1. Objectives and scope: The main objective of the Community Action in this field was to reinforce the European dimension of activities for promoting and safeguarding regional and minority languages and cultures. As a general strategy, during the first period (under budget line B3-1006) the Action supported as many suitable initiatives as possible. As a result, the budget was allocated to a high number of relatively small projects (except for the three Mercator Centres and EBLUL). The later procedure under budget line B3-1000 considerably reduced the number of funded projects. The Action stimulated cooperation between regional and minority language groups. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, activities with political or statutory aims were excluded. Applicants from both EU and EEA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) were eligible, though the latter two have no minority language groups. 2.2.2. Languages targeted: No comprehensive or closed list of eligible languages was established, but targeted languages had to be living, autochthonous languages traditionally spoken by part of the population of an eligible country. Dialects, immigrants’ languages and artificially created languages were ruled out. EU languages eligible in other Community programmes (Socrates actions), such as Romany, were often re-directed towards those programmes. Similarly, official EU languages spoken by a minority in a given state (e.g. Finnish in Sweden, and German in Belgium, Italy, France or Denmark) were eligible, though in educational projects they had low priority because they are also eligible for Lingua actions. 2.2.3. Applicants: Until 1998, legal persons were eligible to apply. Afterwards, applications had to come from organisations registered in accordance with the laws of an EU Member State or an EEA country. Commercial companies were not admissible. Given the special situation of minority languages, about 40% of applicants were public bodies (regional and local authorities), universities and research centres. The rest were extremely diversified, although most were cultural associations, foundations, centres and heritage trusts, often based on voluntary work. Their activity was mainly at the local level even though projects with a regional or international focus increased in later years. 2.2.4. Number of applications: The abundance of responses to each Call for Proposals, which increased yearly, is a crucial element to be considered as it can be a justification in itself of the need for such an Action, as well as the growing interest of organisations in working at the European level. From 1994 to 1998, nearly 850 of the more than 2,000 proposals received support. Under the B3-1000 budget line, the budgets of the 233 proposals received in 2000 totalled €56·56 million, and grants requests totalled €26·66 million. 2.2.5. Quality of applications: The general quality of the applications improved for several reasons: (a) the introduction of guidelines for the application form on the DG web site; (b) the setting up of a permanent guidance service by the DG and EBLUL; (c) the publication of How to promote regional or minority languages with the help of the European Union. A friendly guide to budget line B3-1006 by EBLUL, and a revised edition for budget line B3-1000 after 1999; and (d) the significant improvements made to the application form itself, specially since the recent distribution of the Vademecum for Grant Management, for applicants and beneficiaries74, which has set more demanding standards. These changes helped to improve the selection procedure, but the budget did not increase, so selection had to be more stringent, given the growing proportion of well-presented applications. Moreover, the aim for 1999-2000 was to support a smaller number of large scale projects which (a) could ensure a higher impact on the minority languages targeted and (b) would make monitoring and follow-up more feasible. However, this made the exclusion of excellent but modest initiatives from the more needy language communities more likely. 2.2.6. Level of funding: EU funding, under budget line B3-1006, could not exceed 50% of the eligible expenditure of each project. It was usually 15-35%, though contributions ranged from 5% for very large projects to 50% for high-priority areas. Average grants were €20-30 thousand, as the DG preferred small projects. However, budget line B3-1000 (1999-2000) was aimed at more ambitious projects; the EU contribution was to be €50-150 thousand, and two year projects could be funded. Projects of high quality and Community interest could be granted over 50% if they: a) targeted language communities with a very low language production or reproduction capacity; and/or b) involved many States or language groups. 2.2.7. Selection priorities: The following fields were eligible: a) Language resources: lexicography, terminology and grammar, archives, corpora, linguistic research; b) Language skills: language teaching, teacher training, learning tools, teaching methods, promoting bilingualism/multilingualism; c) Direct language promotion: awareness-raising, information and promotional campaigns, visual presence of the language, language planning; d) Social and economic aspects of language: the language in economic and social life, language and economic development, language and technology; e) Media and New Technologies: press, radio and TV, websites, software; f) Culture: cultural events and live arts, and literary, theatrical, musical and audio-visual production and distribution. Projects containing European dimension features were prioritised: (a) exchanges of experience, (b) creating networks of key players, (c) developing joint solutions, (d) transfer of expertise, (e) co-ordinated programmes. Five sets of basic selection criteria were applied; (a) strengthening the European dimension, (b) relevance; (c) scope; (d) innovative approaches; and (e) quality of application. Finally, priority was given to projects which aimed to raise the number of speakers of a language and/or their level of proficiency, improve their attitude to the language, and broaden opportunities for using and/or consuming the language. Directory: RegData -> etudes -> document travail document travail -> Working paper a single market in financial services RegData -> European commission brussels, XXX RegData -> The european commission RegData -> Provisional agreement resulting from interinstitutional negotiations Download 1.21 Mb. Share with your friends: