EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL
MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION MEETING
Brussels, 12-13 November 2003
PRESENT
Virginia ALBERT, Education International, Chief Regional Coordinator Caribbean
Antonia ARBONA, Education International, Professional Assistant, Brussels
Tore ASMUSSEN, Danish Union of Teachers (DLF), Denmark
Linda ASPER, Education International Deputy General Secretary, Brussels
Margareta AXELL, Lärarbörbundet (LĂRARF), Sweden
Tom BEDAIKO, Education International, Chief Regional Coordinator Africa
Katrine BLYVERKET, Union of Education Norway (UEN), Norway
Agnès BREDA, UNSA-Education, France
Morton BRYNSKOV, Danish National Federation of Early Childhood Teachers (BUPL), Denmark
Jesús Ramón COPA NOVA, FETE/UGT, Spain
André DUMONT, Algemene Onderwijsbond (Aob), The Netherlands
Joanne EIDE, National Education Association (NEA), USA
Petra GWYN-JONES, Education International, Professional Assistant, Brussels
Cassandra HALLET, Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), Canada
Christophe HEISE, Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (GEW), Germany
Susan HOPGOOD, Australian Education Union (AEU), Australia
Richard LANGLOIS, Centrale des Syndicats du Québec (CSQ), Canada
Ann-Christin LARSSON, Lärarbörbundet (LĂRARF), Sweden
Jörgen LINDHOLM, Lärarbörbundet (LĂRARF), Sweden
Barbara MacDONALD, Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), Canada
Aloysius MATHEWS, Education International, Chief Regional Coordinator Asia Pacific
Véronique MICCOLIS, Education International, Professional Assistant, Brussels
Emiko MIYAGI, Japan Teachers Union (JTU), Japan
Assibi NAPOE, Education International Africa (EIRAF), Togo
Berit OSTERENG, Union of Education Norway (UEN), Norway
Marisol PARDO, Federación de Enseñanza (FE.CC.OO), Spain
Nicole PATENAUDE, Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), Canada
Jefferson PESSI, Education International, Regional Coordinator Latin America
Nicolás RICHARDS, Education International, Development Cooperation Coordinator, Brussels
Combertty RODRIGUEZ, Education International, Chief Regional Coordinator Latin America
Marta SCARPATO, Education International. Equality Coordinator, Brussels
Ritva SEMI, Opetusalan Ammattijärjestö (OAJ), Finland
Rebeca SEVILLA, Education International Equality Coordinator, Brussels
Helen TOTH, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), USA
Wouter VAN DER SCHAAF, Education International, EFA and HIV Coordinator, Brussels
Fred VAN LEEUWEN, Education International General Secretary, Brussels
1. 1. WELCOME
Linda Asper welcomed participants to the meeting and gave a brief overview of the proposed agenda[1]. Participants then introduced themselves.
Minutes of the last meeting were reviewed. Nicolás Richards noted that the recommendations made had not all been implemented, specifically – Points 1 & 2. Not all reports had yet been included on the EI website as the website is an ongoing project. The other recommendations had been implemented, including the regional meeting for Africa to be held on January 23-24 2004 in Lome. The bilateral meetings were held on 11th November, 2003. The agenda was adopted.
2. 2. OBJECTIVES
Nicolás Richards stressed the impact of development cooperation work in all regions of the world and the need to continue supporting teachers and education world-wide.
Teachers unions gain strength because of the work carried out by EI and cooperating organisations. As part of the dialogue between EI and cooperating organisations, the objectives of the meeting were:
a) to open discussions on the topics proposed on the agenda and determine a set of recommendations to be used as criteria to determine whether cooperating organisations feel that EI’s work is being met, and
b) to clearly identify the areas where there might be a need for improvement and propose possible plans of action.
3. 3. Presentation by Fred van Leeuwen, EI General secretary
Fred van Leeuwen welcomed all participants, stressed the importance of the meeting and reminded the participants of how much EI’s approach to development cooperation programmes had changed since 1995, now favouring more bi-lateral programmes. FvL expressed his appreciation to all participants for sharing their plans and ideas and for the political choices they made with regard to areas that require extra attention.
Budget 2005 – 2007: FvL reported on the decisions taken by the Executive Board with regard to the development of a programme and budget for the period 2005 – 2007. He explained that the principal aims will remain unchanged but the strategic objectives which underline the current budget will be slightly amended. Under these strategic objectives, EI will develop a number of activities to be discussed by the Executive Board in March 2004. He invited all participants to make suggestions for such activities with regard to development cooperation.
Membership fees increase: FvL notified the meeting of EI’s plan to propose a modest increase in the ceiling rate of the membership fee. The increase will represent 7% in 2005 with compensation for inflation in 2006 and 2007. Reviewing the different levels of fees currently in place: ceiling, floor rates and a “per capita” rate calculated according to the GNP, FvL concluded that only the ceiling rate will be increased, hence diminishing the differences between low income countries and the others (OECD countries). He pointed out to participants that their input regarding the fairness of the system in place would be most welcome and discussions on this topic will be covered during the next World Congress.
Participation to EI’s World Congress: He also reminded the group about EI’s World Congress to take place in Porto Alegre from 22-26 July 2004. FvL underlined EI’s concern about ensuring a large participation of organisations from low-income countries at the next World Congress. EI currently provides grants to member organisations unable to finance their participation on the basis of their countries’ GNP. He stressed the importance of raising awareness on this issue among participants as they might be approached by member organisations for assistance with regard to their participation in the World Congress. In order to avoid duplication of grant payments to member organisations, FvL emphasised the need for cooperation between all participants and EI in coordinating and keeping each other informed on who receives what. FvL confirmed that only one union per country would be entitled to grants.
4. 4. COOPERATING ORGANISATIONS’ ACTIVITIES
Cooperating organisations’ representatives were invited to highlight the activities undertaken by their organisations during the year. Details of the activities implemented can be referred to in the Survey of EI activities (Attached).
Additional information on specific programmes and projects can also be obtained by directly contacting the cooperating organisations involved.
5. a) AFT (Helen Toth):
HT commented on the cooperation work carried out by AFT in refugee camps and villages in Burma. AFT provides assistance on how to build a union and helps unions prepare for democracy and to learn about human rights. AFT is also helping unions to preserve their own members in countries affected by HIV/AIDS.
6. b) GEW (Christophe Heisse):
GEW does not have a special cooperation development unit due to the German system not allowing state funds to be used for such purposes. As a result, GEW relies on solidarity and fundraising campaigns from its members. GEW also allocates a special fund to colleagues who are victims of trade union and/or political repression. GEW is strongly committed to cooperation activities, more specifically in giving support to individuals via their unions for specific projects rather than developing their own projects. GEW highlighted their strong connection with the FES foundation – that is also closely working with EI - and through which GEW takes part in various projects.
7. c) NEA (Joanne Eide):
As well as developing its own projects, NEA acts as a funding organisation in joint projects. JE pointed out the exciting involvement of NEA in international cooperation work this year but also underlined that this work was sometimes made difficult by the reduced number of staff available to work in connection with unions. NEA’s funding policy implies that no outside funds-whether governmental or from other organisations- can be used for cooperation purposes. As a result, NEA has been using its reserves and is hoping for a stronger US dollar.
8. d) CTF (Barbara MacDonald):
The full outline of CTF's cooperation programmes is available on CTF’s website[2] and in its annual report. The cooperation work carried out with EI’s regional offices as well as with other organisations aims to respond to teachers’ welfare needs and professional needs. CTF’s cooperation activities depend on the funding and involvement of their member organisations across Canada. However, some funds have been made available by the Federal Government from the Canadian International Development Agency and 6% of CTF dues are being used for development cooperation.
9. e) UEN (Katrine Blyverket/ Berit Ostereng):
UEN is currently preparing for its 1st international congress during which decisions will be made on the future development of their international work. Globalisation has been identified as having an influence on the challenges faced by trade unions in the world. In the light of this, KB stressed that established teachers’ trade unions are now faced with more complex issues than defending teachers’ rights and working conditions. As a result, the support provided by UEN to sister unions, particularly those in countries in the south, encompasses assisting them in their strife to make their voices heard in education reform processes taking place in their country.
KB presented an intergovernmental evaluation report highlighting the fact that, despite funding being available, some reforms are not always successful simply because the teachers are not involved in the processes. UEN’s objective is therefore to support its sister trade unions to participate in the education reform debates taking place, give their opinion on the development of national curriculum, and to defend working conditions and salaries. KB also stressed the importance of sharing information and knowledge with partners, in order to ensure that they can take part in debates with their government with the same background information as their ministries. KB emphasised UEN’s shift from traditional training programmes to a more capacity building and international approach in activities. It was pointed out that cooperation work does not only consist of helping partner organisations in other countries but also requires questioning the policy of the government in the country where the work is being initiated.
10. f) UNSA Education (Agnès Breda):
AB commented on UNSA work in countries where democracy is being established. The work encompasses seminars to train colleagues in bargaining and social dialogue and to improve trade unionism. The aim of the work carried out both with national and regional leaders is to make trade unions play an essential role in dialogue with governments by giving them the necessary tools to defend their views and claims. As part of cooperation work, UNSA is emphasising the role of women and the need for trade unions to collect dues in order to be totally independent and autonomous.
11. g) Opetusalan Ammattijärjesto - OAJ (Ritva Semi) :
RS emphasised that the main OAJ aim is to help build strong unions in the various countries where OAJ works. Also OAJ lobbies its government in order to obtain greater allowances for education, to work with other NGOs to influence its government towards this aim, and to obtain more funds for cooperation development.
12. h) AOb (André Dumont) :
AOb works mainly to support trade unions in the South countries as well as Central and Eastern Europe in order to build their capacity to function as modern, independent unions. AOb also supports unions in developing strategies to play a role in negotiations with government and other education institutions. Furthermore, the work carried out aims at raising awareness with members, teachers and children about the role of trade unions in civil society.
13. i) JTU (Emiko Miyagi) :
Support has been given to teachers in Iraq, Algeria and Indonesia. Funds came from voluntary payments made to JTU by members. Japan will soon see a revision of the fundamental educational law which JTU is trying to stop as it would prevent trade unions from being active. Recent attacks- including bomb scares - on the Japanese union buildings did not weaken JTU’s determination to continue protecting their education system and fighting for teachers’ rights.
14. j) DLF (Tore Asmussen):
DLF’s work focuses on providing unions with long-term assistance for capacity building for their members. This gives unions the possibility to take part in social dialogue with government beyond the scope of education, namely human rights and democracy. It was reported that part of the membership dues are being used for development cooperation. DLF implemented one of the Jomtien resolutions by which unions from OECD countries put aside 0.7% of their dues for development cooperation.
TA also stressed the role DLF plays by lobbying with the Danish government to make sure that emphasis is put on EFA. The government’s budget for next year has been cut which implies that DLF will have to rely on other resources such as the Danish embassies in the countries where the work is carried out, dues and possibly EU funding. TA asked the assembly whether EI or any other member organisation represented would have any experience in asking and receiving EU funding. He pointed out that it might be easier to receive EU funding if at least two European unions jointly asked for it. TA highlighted the role that Regional Offices should play in identifying the unions in their region to whom assistance should be directed.
15. k) BUPL (Morten Brynskov):
MB stated that globalisation has to be taken into account in daily union work. As BUPL and EI take part in WSF[3] and other similar forums, MB suggested the possibility of drawing a recommendation on joining forces to play a more active and vital role in this type of work.
16. l) Lärarförbundet (Jörgen Lindholm/ Margareta Axell):
JL explained that there is a new unit within the union dealing with development cooperation and all international issues working alongside EI, ETUCE and dealing with relations with other unions, local branches as well as the government. JL expressed his concerns regarding the position taken by the Swedish government with regard to funds made available for development cooperation.
MA presented the long-term objectives for development cooperation, including the following:
17. Assist trade unions in setting up operations;
18. Strengthen existing teachers’ unions and help them become independent and democratic;
19. Provide training skills to teachers’ unions in order to facilitate negotiations with governments.
MA also pointed out that Lärarförbundet is currently involved in projects in over 20 countries.
Linda Asper congratulated Margareta Axell for the Yearly Award she recently received from the Swedish Forum for Development Cooperation.
20. m) FETE-UGT (Jesús Ramón Copa Novo):