Keywords

1 Introduction

The international project The best is yet to come. Youth create tomorrow’s rural reality from a village to a wider Europe was carried out in 2019 by the Latvian Lauku Forum in response to depopulation in many rural areas in Europe, which diminishes the potential of these areas (European Commission 2022). Its main objective was to engage and empower rural youth; to connect them with local-, national- and European-level decision-makers; and also to raise the awareness of stakeholders concerning the importance of youth involvement in rural development processes. The organisers became motivated to develop and to seek participants for this particular project when the European Commission advertised the European Rural Youth Parliament (ERYP), a Pan-European event for discussions about rural development.Footnote 1 As the forum is generally working on projects aiming at rural areas, its members knew about the necessity for reaching out to young people and getting them involved into development questions and capacity building.

The Lauku Forum is a national network based in Riga, the capital of Latvia. The forum is an umbrella organisation leading and coordinating 35 local action groups, as well as 50 associated members working to engage people into rural development projects, which strengthen city associations and enhance the practice of EU citizenship. The aim is to make rural areas more attractive and liveable. While young people had not been a prior target group of the forum so far, its structure allowed the forum to reach especially young people in more rural and remote areas of the country.

The goals of the Lauku Forum are closely connected to the second pillar of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which is to support rural areas in economic, environmental and societal issues by funding national and local projects to improve the status quo. While the activities in the project were mainly concentrated on Latvia, cooperation with organisations in other European countries and at the EU level underlined a strong European approach.

2 The General Local and Regional Environment in Latvia

Although situated in the Baltic region, the context conditions of the project in Latvia were quite similar to those in East Central European countries. The foreign project partners came from rural areas in eight countries, among them two East Central European countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia), four Balkan states (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo) and two older EU member states (Belgium, Spain). From the very beginning the project organisers stressed the similarity of the challenges rural areas across Europe have to face, especially depopulation. Young people often do not believe that their civic activities can influence rural development and that their voice counts at the European, national and even at the local level.

According to the project organisers, young people also in Latvia hardly engage in politics because they expect that they cannot make a difference for European, national or local politics. Jonāne et al. report that “Only one-fourth of youth participate actively in diverse social activities, for example, in sports and volunteer work” (see p. 157 in Jonāne et al. 2022 and Graudiņa 2022). Especially young and highly educated people do not see chances in rural areas and therefore move to larger cities or abroad to study or due to other reasons. Many young people never come back, and, as a result, there is a substantial brain drain.Footnote 2 The Covid-19 pandemic might have brought some change to this. The option to work remotely made many people come back to Latvia, which is generally a “quiet, nice place to spend a life”, as Katrīna Idū from the project team put it. The economic situation is probably worse than elsewhere in Europe, but due to the lack of young people, companies and businesses are not that hierarchic and career options are better.

Most young people in Latvia—similar to the society and most political parties—have sympathy for the EU (Auers 2020). They are more in favour of the EU than older people and happy to be a part of it, which might be due to exchange programs and the possibility to travel throughout Europe. While, on average, the Russian war against Ukraine enhanced this positive stance towards Europe, there are regional differences. In the territory close to the Russian border, many inhabitants are ethnic RussiansFootnote 3 who do not feel attached to the EU.Footnote 4 This fact goes hand in hand with the way people are consuming information.

Information regarding the EU and EU-related projects is provided by a national agency in Riga, coordinating Erasmus+ work. Due to this direct linkage to the European level, applying for European fundings is easy for actors in Riga and nearby. However, in rural areas, especially those close to Russia, such facilities are missing. According to Katrīna Idū, the organisations in these regions are not able to acquire an equal share of EU project funding. Especially in remote rural areas, it is more complicated to get information or access to EU-related projects. Some NGOs are working at a local level but without EU funding. In sum, the regional actors often lack the capacity to speak for themselves on EU issues.

3 The Project: Strengthening the Pan-European Network and National Activities

The project The best is yet to come was the second of its kind organised by the Latvian Lauku Forum. It was initiated prior to the European Rural Youth Parliament (ERYP), which took place in November 2019 in Spain. The main goal of the project was to strengthen the Lauku Forum’s youth activities and to support the partner organisations which are part of the national network the forum is coordinating. Furthermore, it planned to create a network that would enable young people to get involved in the rural development of Europe and make their voices, standpoints and ideas heard at the European level. For that end, the project aimed at initiating events and capacity building processes for young people, giving them the opportunities to engage with each other and to deepen their knowledge about rural development and to develop ideas that were then disseminated to the European level.

The forum used its existing contacts with partners and organisations all over Europe, including the Balkan countries, and also sought to expand them. The organisations involved are mainly engaged within and also funded by the EU development approach LEADER.

When developing the project, members of the Lauku Forum directly applied for Erasmus+ funding as they already knew about this funding possibility. As they report, the website of the Agency for International Programs for Youth in Latvia provided helpful information about the timing and details of the application process. The project proposal was written and elaborated by a youth representative at the forum with some support by the national agency. The funding was mainly used to cover mobility costs, including costs to travel to Spain where the ERYP took place, as well as management fees resulting from the strategic partnership character of the project.

One of the first and most important steps of the project was to reach out to young people. All the partner organisations contacted the young people in their respective countries. The Lauku Forum chose to prepare a call for participants and disseminate it throughout Latvia via its other partner organisations. The call invited all young people irrespective of their prior contacts with one of the organisations, and it did not require experience in a specific field but just a general interest in the field of rural development. Nevertheless, most participants came from the partner organisations.

An indirect, but substantial, requirement, however, was to be able to communicate in English because—due to the transnational character of the ERYP—parts of the project needed to be conducted in English. The participating young people had to be able to present themselves in English and to sufficiently understand the discussions. In practice, this turned out to be an obstacle to attracting participants, especially in the Balkan countries.

In preparing the European Rural Youth Parliament, the organisers intended to transfer the ideas of the project participants to a European level, and they also invited European decision-makers. The young people first discussed issues of rural development with each other, and in the next step representatives of the European Rural Youth Parliament went to Brussels to exchange with the decision-makers the results of their work. They met members of the European Parliament from Italy, Latvia and Germany, for example. Another connection to the European level was the European National Rural Development Network, which works for the European Commission as a networking organisation. The project team presented the results and the final declaration there. In sum, the connection with the EU-level actors and EU decision-makers was perceived as very good.

In the implementation phase, the project was substantially in line with what the organisers had promised and expected in the original plan. However, there were minor deviations concerning the timing. For example, some preparatory activities took longer than planned, and meeting the people at the EU level that the participants wanted to see required some flexibility in scheduling.

4 Outcomes: A European Rural Youth Declaration and the Dissemination of Ideas

The short-term achievements of the projects were manifold. As planned, many partners participated in networking, and young people were reached and involved in discussions about policy. Especially, the preparation of the Youth Opinion on rural development at the European Rural Parliament was an achievement. Also, the European Youth Declaration that the participants fixedFootnote 5 was essential to keep this position and to present it at further occasions. At the final session, when the young people presented the declaration, they surprised the audience with their elaborated ideas, which was seen as a big success. The transfer to the European level succeeded in that the project team met with decision-makers, and the results and the final declaration of the Conference were presented to the European National Rural Development Network. The young people could express their views about rural development and necessary changes vocally and on a prominent stage.

Another more indirect outcome was that the participants brought their experiences from the discussions in Spain and Brussels back to their own country. This might help to spread ideas, arguments and insights for rural development and possibly also to change minds regarding rural and European issues.

According to the organisation, the long-term effects are also promising. After the termination of the project, many participants started asking for the new activities of the youth network. The lasting strength of the network also became apparent when the ELARD organisation published a new call for projects. Many people from the original project The best is yet to come were also involved in the following one and the activities related to the European Rural Youth Parliament. Moreover, the dissemination of the ideas of the young people had a lasting effect. Even after the project, the team was still invited to events to present their network. This contributed to keeping the network of young people active for quite a long time and even for the preparation of the next project proposal. The young people were very enthusiastic about everything that happened, so they were also willing to volunteer for the next planned project and to keep in contact. The proposal for the next project, however, was not approved.

5 What Made the Project Successful

According to the project organisers, it was not just one particular component that made the project a success but a combination of different factors.

In the case of the European Rural Youth Parliament, the ERP had already been a well-functioning issue. They added a focus on young people to create the new project The best is yet to come. For the Latvian part, it was also very important that the Erasmus+ programme, which provided financial support, matched the ideas of the people involved. For the funding application and project implementation, being part of an already existing network inside Latvia and also beyond the borders was beneficial, as was a good connection to the EU decision-makers that were invited.

Another success factor was the commitment of young interested people. The project had to attract their interest and involve them. As usual, the expectations varied. For some young people, the main incentive was the opportunity to meet people of the same age and to build friendships. For others, the opportunity of traveling throughout Europe, and perhaps even leaving the own country for the first time in their life, was very important. Through organised field trips, they learned more about new and innovative approaches to local development in other countries. These were welcome experiences that they brought back to their home countries and towns to share, to learn from and to improve their own development strategies. For those young people already engaged in EU issues, projects like the one described are a chance to present themselves, to show their own ideas and capacities and to connect with people with expert knowledge. They are more interested in speaking to members of the European Parliament or to young people in other countries who are involved in European-level work to learn about their strategies and achievements.

The project organisers found it important to build a connection to the “real world”. According to them, young people feel more inspired to engage in EU-focused projects if they are involved not only in the implementation but also in the planning and other stages of such projects. In this way, young people are given a feeling of responsibility and ownership. Help from more experienced people is necessary but more in the sense of guidance that supports the ideas and thoughts of the young people by offering and giving them advice if needed. For people more interested in talking to EU decision-makers, the ability to express their own thoughts and ideas in another language than their mother tongue is important. Such language skills are less relevant when connecting with other young people horizontally or in planning the project.

The organisers also mentioned that the makeup of a project depends on a project’s aim. The best is yet to come wanted to disseminate the important topics and issues of rural development in certain areas to a wider audience in different institutions and to create a flowing exchange “from a village to a wider Europe”. Thus, it was all about connecting the local level with the national and also the European level. The organisers also underlined the value of this multi-level exchange, arguing that the actors themselves know best about the development issues in the areas they are living in. When addressing the problems and solutions of rural areas, just considering a European perspective would fail to induce the necessary changes. Complementing the vertical flow of knowledge, the organisers also stressed the value of the horizontal projects. These cross-border interactions have helped to get a better understanding of different cultures, different viewpoints and different approaches and strategies in dealing with similar issues and challenges.

6 Problems and Wishes

Based on their project experience, the forum identified some sensitive issues and problems for European youth work, including the peculiarities of the target group and financing.

A point that needs to be taken into account is the specifics of the target group. Working with young people, for example, implies practical difficulties to ensure that they buy tickets and really appear at the events. Although they want to be involved in the overall project, sometimes they are more interested in appealing aspects like traveling rather than in participating in the preparation process and discussions. Besides, interest in the topic, the personal environment or the resources in terms of time can change abruptly during the project. Nevertheless, the organisers stressed that young people want to be taken seriously and to be addressed on an equal footing and that this should be considered when managing such a project. They also mentioned that more time in terms of motivation, information and communication is needed than in working with adults. They advise to stand back and to observe how the young people are doing things and to provide help or motivation if necessary. In case of unexpected setbacks or failure, it would be important to be there for them and to try to understand them. The goal would be the creation of a kind of community feeling, where everybody knows they are supported when encountering difficulties.

According to the project organisers, another more serious problem is funding. In general, they would like to see more sustainable and comprehensive ways to support youth engagement across Europe at a regional and local level. Such funding would help to provide people information and explain EU structures and policies. With more reliable and continuous funding, there would be networking activities, online and on the ground, participation at different events and further opportunities to develop and spread ideas with many young people as part of the network. To date, most EU funding is project-based, and according to the forum, the limits of this approach in terms of sustainability are obvious. Many organisations want to work continuously, but they never know if their projects will be approved again or not. Experienced staff members are leaving for more secure jobs. Especially for supporting the establishment and ongoing work of Pan-European networks, the EU should offer capacities for long-term projects. As the organisers have underlined, this does not necessarily mean that this needs a lot of money, but long-term support to give the feeling that they are there for them even without having to communicate a lot.

Moreover, the project organisers criticise that EU funding is less flexible than other funding options and that sometimes adhering to established schemes and routines is given more weight than the results. Organisers feel obliged to fulfil certain requirements, even though they know it will not produce the desired results. However, there are also the possibilities of consulting EU actors or agencies on how to meet the formal requirements. Finally, the organisers suggest that there should be an option to link two or more projects together to ensure a more useful mixture of measures.

Last but not least, the organisers underline that it would be a potential problem to ignore the local level of EU citizenship. Activities in the regions would be necessary; otherwise, the EU would be limited in “a kind of superficial transnational cloud”. According to the forum, the crucial point lies in an adequate connection between all the local activities and the process of coordinating them at the EU level. The process of bringing the EU closer to people and asking them to express their ideas should have a high priority and is missing at the present stage. Initiatives to bridge the European and the regional level should not remain an empty slogan or be conducted by taking large surveys but be realised in a direct dialogue with the people on the ground. If the EU really has an interest in strengthening the local level and young people, this should be supported and continuously financed, the organisation argues.

7 Conclusion and Outlook

In summary, The best is yet to come illustrates both the chances and the obstacles of projects with young people in the context of EU citizenship. Due to the pan-European project structure and the connection to the European level, the project enabled direct exchange with EU decision-makers. In addition, it provided the infrastructure to prepare a written European Rural Youth Declaration, which turned out to be a suitable basis for presenting concerns regarding the development issues in rural areas. Nevertheless, the project met several obstacles, including administrative challenges during the funding process or in ensuring constant motivation among young people. The main lesson learned from the project is that—due to different reasons—young people in rural areas are generally interested in getting involved in EU-related topics and to practice their own EU citizenship within such a framework. This general interest, however, needs to be promoted through attractive, encouraging and sustainable projects. According to the organisers, it is primarily up to the EU to provide financial and organisational resources to ensure the sustainability of such activities.

While The best is yet to come can be considered a successful model, the Lauku Forum will probably not continue to carry out projects like this during the next 10 years. The European Rural Youth Parliament, mainly developed in the course of two projects (one of them described here), was no longer organised by the forum after two rounds. Instead, the European Leader Association for Rural Development took over the lead. This mirrors the evolution of this cooperation format from a format coordinated by the Latvian level to one coordinated at the European level. The Lauku Forum will continue to work on different rural development questions, but it is presently concentrating on bigger research projects at the European level and on its local work in Latvia.