Leading Service: DG Education and Culture (EAC)

Other involved services: DGs Communication (COMM), Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (EMPL), Enterprise (ENTR), Eurostat (ESTAT), Information society (INFSO), Home Affairs (HOME), Research (RTD), Legal Service (SJ), Secretariat-General (SG), Cedefop.

WP reference: COM(2011)009

Version: 16 7 2012

Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Procedural issues, consultation of interested parties. 4

1.1........ Organisation and timing. 4

1.2........ Integration of the Impact Assessment Board' recommendations. 4

1.3........ Consultation and other sources of evidence. 5

2........... Problem definition. 6

2.1........ Providing some context: changes in the labour market and the benefits of validating non-formal and informal learning. 6

2.2........ Problems to be addressed by the initiative. 8

2.2.1..... Validation opportunities are limited in some and underused in the majority of Member States. 8

2.2.2..... A lack of comparability and coherence between the validation approaches of Member States 10

2.2.3..... Problem drivers. 10

2.3........ Existing policies and instruments on the European level relating to the validation of non-formal and informal learning 11

2.4........ Who else is affected?. 14

2.5........ EU added value. 14

2.6........ EU right to act and subsidiarity. 15

2.7........ How the problem would evolve without additional EU intervention (baseline scenario) 15

3........... Section 3: Objectives. 16

3.1........ General objectives. 16

3.2........ Specific and operational objectives. 16

3.2.1..... Specific objectives. 16

3.2.2..... Operational objectives. 17

3.3........ Consistency of objectives with other EU policies and strategic objectives. 18

3.3.1..... Consistency with the EU 2020 strategic objectives. 18

3.3.2..... Consistency with other policies, tools and instruments in the field of education, training and youth 19

3.3.3..... Consistency with employment policy and other policies. 20

4........... Section 4: Policy options. 20

4.1........ Option 1 (baseline scenario): 20

4.2........ Option 2 (Council Recommendation on the implementation of validation): 21

4.3........ Option 3: A new process based on a new Open Method of Coordination devoted to validation aimed at the development of a European Quality Charter on validation. 23

5........... Analysis of impacts. 24

5.1........ Economic impacts. 25

5.2........ Social impacts. 28

5.3........ Other impacts. 31

5.4........ Risks and uncertainties. 32

5.4.1..... Risks. 32

5.4.2..... Uncertainties. 33

6........... Comparing the options. 34

6.1........ Efficiency/cost-effectiveness, effectiveness and coherence with EU policy objectives. 34

6.2........ Comparison between the options: synthesis. 37

6.3........ Conclusion. 38

7........... Monitoring and evaluation. 39

7.1........ Tools and instruments for monitoring and evaluation. 39

7.2........ Indicators for monitoring and evaluation. 40

8........... Annexes. 42

8.1........ Annex 1: Results from the EU-wide public consultation. 43

8.2........ Annex 2: Consultation of the EQF Advisory Group and outcomes of Peer Learning Activities 57

8.3........ Annex 3: Country sheets on the situation of validation of non-formal and informal learning in the Member States 59

8.4........ Annex 4: Cost/benefit analysis. 119

Definitions

Formal learning takes place in an organised and structured environment, specifically dedicated to learning, and typically leads to the award of a qualification, usually in the form of a certificate or a diploma. This includes the systems of general education, initial vocational training and higher education.

Non-formal learning concerns learning that takes place through planned activities (in terms of learning objectives, learning time) where some form of learning support is present (e.g. student-teacher relationships). It may cover programmes to impart work-skills, adult literacy and basic education for early school leavers. Very common cases of non-formal learning include in-company training, through which companies update and improve the skills of their workers such as ICT skills, structured online learning (e.g. by making use of open educational resources), and courses organised by civil society organisations for their members, their target group or the general public.

Informal learning is learning resulting from daily activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not organised or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support. Informal learning may be unintentional from the learner’s perspective. Examples of learning outcomes acquired through informal learning are skills acquired through life and work experiences. Examples are project management skills or ICT skills acquired at work; languages learned and intercultural skills acquired during a stay in another country; ICT skills acquired outside work, skills acquired through volunteering, cultural activities, sports, youth work and through activities at home (e.g. taking care of a child).

A qualification means a formal outcome of an assessment and validation process which is obtained when a competent body determines that an individual has achieved learning outcomes to given standards.

Learning outcomes means statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on completion of a learning process, which are defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competences.

A national qualification framework is a coherent and comprehensive description of qualification levels based on learning outcomes.

Validation is a process of confirmation by an authorised body that an individual has acquired learning outcomes measured against a relevant standard. It consists of four distinct phases: (1) identification through dialogue of particular experiences of an individual, (2) documentation – to make visible the individual's experiences – (3) a formal assessment of these experiences and (4) recognition leading to a certification for example a partial or full qualification.

1. Procedural issues, consultation of interested parties

1.1. Organisation and timing

The Recommendation on validation of non-formal and informal learning is included in the Commission's work programme under the reference 2011/EAC/009. It is foreseen to launch the inter-service consultation in March 2012 and to adopt the proposal for a Recommendation in June 2012.

The work on the impact assessment started in July 2010. A group of Commission Directorates General and Services was set up, supported by Cedefop, to monitor the work on the impact assessment (IA) and to comment on the draft IA report. Apart from DG EAC and Cedefop the following Directorates General participated in the group: COMM, EMPL, ENTR, ESTAT, INFSO, HOME, RTD, SJ and SG. A first meeting of this Steering group was convened on 13 July 2010 and two further meetings were held on 10 November 2010 and on 9 September 2011.

A first draft of this Impact Assessment was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 21 September 2011 and discussed during its meeting of 19 October 2011.

1.2. Integration of the Impact Assessment Board' recommendations

Following the first opinion and recommendations of the Impact Assessment Board the following main changes have been made to the report:

- The report contains more information on the situation of validation in the Member States, including the underlying causes explaining validation situations; the information has been provided both in the text and in Annex 3 which contains detailed country overviews on validation;

- The problems to be addressed and their EU dimension have been better explained and described;

- The objectives have been fine tuned, in particular by highlighting how the proposed initiative builds upon the implementation of the Recommendation on the European Qualification Framework and the use of existing European instruments such as Europass, as well as stakeholders' instruments;

- The baseline scenario has been further detailed;

- Option 3 on a separate Open Method of Coordination on validation has been further detailed, and is now closely related to the development of a European Quality Charter on validation;

- The sections on the assessment of impacts and on the comparison between the options have been adapted to the strengthened intervention logic;

- The analysis of cost and benefits has been strengthened (in the main text, in the country tables of Annex 3 and in a separate Annex 4);

- More information has been provided on the consultation process and its results, which are better reflected throughout the text.

Following the second opinion of the Impact Assessment Board in addition the following main changes have been made to the report:

- Section 2 concerning the problem definition has been revised to give it a clearer structure;

- The problem drivers are presented in a more structured way;

- The role of European instruments and stakeholder instruments has been further detailed.

1.3. Consultation and other sources of evidence

Consultation has taken the following forms:

– An open consultation, through an online survey open from December 2010 to February 2011. Invitations to participate in the online survey and to submit a position paper had been sent to members of the most relevant groups and other stakeholders in the areas of education and training, employment, youth, sport[1].

– Discussion within meetings of policy bodies, in particular the Advisory Group for the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) ;

– Specialist meetings and peer learning activities organised by the Learning Outcomes Group operating under the EQF Advisory Group ;

– Peer learning activities in the fields of higher education, vocational education and training and adult learning.

The minimum standards of consultation have been met.

The social partners, both employers and trade union representatives, have been consulted on a regular basis through their participation in the EQF Advisory Group and through their participation in several peer learning activities. They have also been consulted through a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training. The European sectoral social dialogue committees have not been consulted and the first European Sector Skills Council was only set up in December 2011[2].

The online survey resulted in 469 responses to the closed and open questions, complemented by 24 position papers. Responses were fairly evenly balanced between individuals (53%) and organisations (47%).

Among the organisations, around half of the responses came from public sector organisations (e.g. ministries, implementation bodies, employment services), and a third from the third sector (e.g. NGO/volunteer organisations). The private sector (employers, employer organisations, and private employment services) was less represented, with a sixth of the replies. The education/training perspective was better represented than the labour market perspective. Regarding the individuals who replied, almost two thirds of the contributors were female and the provider perspective (teachers/trainers) was better represented than the user perspective.

More than half of the replies came from 6 countries: Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The largest country participation concerned Portugal, which can be explained by the comprehensive system on validation of non-formal and informal learning that was set up as part of the policy to increase the general education level of the population. The high participation of Belgian respondents relates to the high number of European/international bodies replying to the questionnaire that reside in Belgium.

The results showed a lack of overall coherent approaches towards validation within and between Member States, as well as a large number of constraints for the effective implementation of validation in practice. Responses showed overwhelming consensus on the importance of making the skills gained through life and work experience visible. They showed broad support for a European initiative in order to enhance validation policy and practice in the EU Member States. More detailed results can be found in Annex 1 and on http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/consult/vnfil/report_en.pdf.

The consultation of the EQF Advisory Group and the different peer learning activities also generated positive support for a European initiative on the validation (for more details, see Annex 2).

In addition to the consultation, the European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning was the main source of information on validation practices in EU countries. It was for the first time published in 2004[3] and updated in 2005[4], 2007[5] and 2010[6].

There exists no external evaluation of EU action in the field of validation of non-formal and informal learning.

2. Problem definition

2.1. Providing some context: changes in the labour market and the benefits of validating non-formal and informal learning

The level of qualifications required to succeed on the labour market is increasing. According to a Cedefop report the demand for highly-qualified people is projected to rise by almost 16 million by 2020. The demand for people with medium-level qualifications is projected to rise by more than 3.5 million by the same year.[7]

Rapid economic and technological changes make it more likely for individuals to have several job transitions during their working life, with the following challenges:

- Employers are increasingly looking for such competences as problem-solving and analytical skills, self-management and communication skills, linguistic skills and more generally “non-routine” skills[8];

- In a situation of a higher number of job transitions during a career, individuals have to demonstrate and transfer their skills to new settings and organisations, thus establishing their value on the labour market.

Initial education and training of young people is consequently no longer enough to cope with labour market requirements. People need steady upskilling and re-skilling and this cannot be the exclusive responsibility of education and training institutions through formal learning. Other learning experiences, such as the workplace, or volunteer work are crucial for skills development and renewal.

In this context education, training and qualifications systems need to recognise the full range of learning experiences (formal, non-formal, informal) under a learning outcomes approach. This can be done through the validation of non-formal and informal learning. This principle was adopted by the Recommendation on the European Qualifications Framework of 2008 to which this initiative is complementary.

Validation of learning outcomes resulting from non-formal and informal learning has multiple benefits:

Benefits of validation for individuals[9]:

- Economic benefits: e.g. enhanced employability, enhanced career prospects, increased wages;

- Educational /personal benefits: e.g. second chances for dropouts, improved access to formal education and training, higher motivation to learn, increased self-confidence;

Benefits of validation for the economy :

- A better skilled population and a better skills match both on the labour market at large and in individual companies (allowing better decisions on recruitment, on staff allocation and on skills development needs), leading to a better use of human capital;

- Transferability of skills, aiding the movement between companies and sectors (e.g. in the case of restructuring);

- Facilitation of mobility on the European labour market offering more opportunities for job seekers;

- Overall a more competitive European economy resulting in higher economic growth[10];

Benefits of validation for the society at large:

- A better qualified population and workforce, a better access to further learning for disadvantaged groups, a more inclusive labour market, more active citizenship and civic values.

Europe is also facing important demographic changes: its population will grow very slowly until 2025 and will then start to decrease[11]. For the purpose of economic growth policies focusing on getting people into jobs, the full potential of the skills of Europe’s ageing population needs to be known and developed. Demographic developments will also increase the pressure on labour migration from outside Europe in order to cope with labour shortages. Migrants often come with skills that are not usually valued and therefore not put to good use. Validation of informal and non-formal learning provides an opportunity to recognise migrants' learning experiences.

2.2. Problems to be addressed by the initiative

2.2.1. Validation opportunities are limited and underused in the majority of Member States

The 2010 Update of the European Inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning revealed that throughout Europe there is now recognition of the role validation has to play, but that "the overall take up rate of validation, meaning its implementation on the ground, remains on the whole relatively small in scale with the exception of a small number of countries and initiatives"[12]. Progress in validation has thus been uneven, irregular and slow at times where a lack of skills is becoming a bottleneck for economic growth and job creation.

Only four EU Member States have a high level of development in validation (Finland, France, the Netherlands and Portugal), while further seven (Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) have either a national system in its initial phase or a well-established, but partial, system of validation in one or more sectors[13].

The countries with a well-developed system have a mainstreamed approach on validation within their lifelong learning system (e.g. legally anchored), an infrastructure supportive to validation, a strong involvement of stakeholders (in particular social partners) and accessibility of validation for applicants in financial terms. Situations in individual countries are further specified in the next paragraphs.[14]

In France the national approach called "validation des acquis de l'expérience" has its legal base in both the labour and education codes. In Portugal validation is part of a national strategy, called the New Opportunities initiative, for education and training aiming at raising the general qualification level of the population. Also in Finland validation is legally backed: education laws have created individual rights to validation of prior experiences in many education fields (upper secondary education, VET and higher education) and people can be directly admitted to the matriculation exam.

The French and Portuguese validation systems are linked to the national qualification system. In France all qualifications, except regulated professions, can also be obtained on the basis of validation of non-formal and informal learning.

In Portugal a specific infrastructure for validation was set up, namely the New Opportunities Centres (454 in total) where people could apply for validation and receive guidance and the National Agency for Qualifications (in 2007) as the responsible body responsible for both the coordination of the national validation system and for vocational training reform. The New Opportunity Initiative has had an important outreach: more than one million low qualified adults were encouraged to improve their educational attainment[15].

In France individuals can apply for validation by submitting a portfolio of experiences including detailed descriptions of skills and competences to the ministry responsible for awarding qualifications. An established jury appointed by the responsible ministry decides upon the award of a full or partial qualification based on the application.

Under the Dutch system of validation, individuals can apply for validation of experiences by submitting a portfolio of experiences to a recognised provider of "experience certificates". Assessors within these providers can deliver an experience certificate to be used either for job search or for official recognition by an examination board of a formal education and training provider. The Dutch validation system is further supported by an expertise centre which set up a quality code for validation that has to be respected by the providers of experience certificates. In 2009 the government provided funding for validation as a means to cope with collective redundancies, allowing dismissed employees to obtain an experience certificate facilitating their recruitment by other employers.

A comprehensive evaluation study on the Dutch experiences, in which more than one thousand individuals, stakeholders and employers participated, made it clear that the Dutch system of validation has been successful as instrument for enhancing the qualification level of individuals. The same study showed that the impact of the validation system for invidual career development is more mixed, but that validation of non-formal and informal learning is an important catalyst in situations where individuals invest in the management of their own career and where employers invest in the careers of their staff[16].

In a large number of countries social partners play an active role in setting up national validation systems and in defining standards as is the case in e.g. Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, France and Luxembourg. In Germany chambers of industry and commerce play an important role in awarding VET qualifications.

The characteristics of the most developed countries in validation do not exist in countries with a lower level of development where validation is not mainstreamed.

In Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia validation systems exist in one or more but not in all sectors. E.g. in Belgium (Flanders) and Slovenia it is mainly related to VET qualifications.

Some of the countries falling within the group of the lowest level of development have recently taken validation initiatives as part of the development of a national qualification framework (e.g. Bulgaria, Latvia, Malta and Poland), but the validation system itself is still in its initial stage. Yet in some other countries, e.g. Cyprus, Greece and Hungary, hardly any possibilities for validating non-formal and informal learning exist.

In a large number of countries, even if some validation opportunities exist, their take up is lower than it could be. Underused validation possibilities also appear in countries with a more developed validation system such as Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The limited and underused validation opportunities make skills remain invisible and are not used to their full potential for the benefit of, the economy and the society at large.

2.2.2. A lack of comparability and coherence between the validation approaches of Member States

The current uneven availability national validation policies and practices as well as existing disparities between Member States reduce the comparability and transparency of validation systems. They make it difficult for citizens to combine learning outcomes acquired in different settings, on different levels and in different countries. They create the following obstacles for the transnational mobility of learners and workers at times where such mobility is needed for creating more economic growth:

For workers:

- If a worker can have his/her skills validated in his/her home country, he/she will be less inclined to move to another country if he/she faces less favourable working conditions because non-formal and informal learning is not recognised by that country;

- If a worker has developed skills in a country where these skills cannot be validated, when moving to another country he/she may face working conditions that are worse than what would normally be expected for his/her level of skills because they could not be validated in his/her home country;

For learners:

- If prior learning can be validated in country A to obtain formal credits, but country B does not accept such credits, learners risk not to move from country A to country B for this reason;

For learners and workers:

- If a country has not related its qualifications obtained on the basis of non-formal and informal learning to the EQF levels, people holding such qualifications will be hindered in their mobility to other countries.

2.2.3. Problem drivers

The problem drivers relate in particular to the first problem addressed by this initiative, namely limited validation opportunities in some and underused validation opportunities in the majority of Member States. The second problem, namely the lack of comparability and coherence between validation systems, is an important consequence of the first problem.

The drivers can be summarised as follows:

- a lack of trust in validation systems, processes and outcomes, which is also the concern of 74 % of respondents to the public consultation; low trust reflects the fact that qualifications obtained on the basis of non-formal and informal learning are not perceived as having the same currency value as qualifications on obtained after formal learning;

- low awareness of validation possibilities in countries where validation opportunities exist, in particular among disadvantaged groups, as revealed by the 2010 European Inventory on validation[17] and as confirmed by the results of the public consultation to which 77% of respondents replied that they lacked information on validation;

- cultural and attitudinal barriers towards validation of non-formal and informal learning (in e.g. Greece validation is not yet developed because formal educational attainment, especially at university level, is held in high esteem, while non-formal and informal learning are not valued); the last driver is not directly addressed in this initiative, but it is expected that the initiative's objectives and proposed actions will be conducive to create a more positive attitude to validation in all Member States.

2.3. Existing policies and instruments on the European level relating to the validation of non-formal and informal learning

The limited and uneven availability and use of opportunities for validation of non-formal and informal learning at Member State, as well as the lack of comparability and coherence of validation approaches between Member States exist despite the existence of European policies and instruments promoting the transparency and comparability of competences, qualifications and credits including the validation of non-formal and informal learning.

Validation of non-formal and informal learning has been part of the European policy agenda since 2001 when the Commission defined lifelong learning as "all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective"[18].

In 2004 Common European principles on validation were adopted. These relate to individual entitlements, obligations of stakeholders, confidence and trust and credibility and legitimacy[19].

Also in 2004 the Europass framework was established[20]. It includes the Europass CV and a portfolio of documents which citizens can use to better communicate and present their qualifications and competences throughout Europe. Under this framework the European Commission is currently preparing the Europass Experience Module to help individuals record and present the skills acquired throughout their life.[21] In addition the Youthpass is a European tool for participants in the Youth in Action Programme describing what they have done and showing what they have learnt[22].

In 2008 the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Recommendation on the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for lifelong learning. The EQF is a reference framework of qualification levels defined through learning outcomes[23]. To implement the EQF, all Member States are setting up their National Qualification Framework (NQF) based on learning outcomes and reference their qualifications to the European levels. Through this process qualifications will become better comparable and will be easier to understand for employers, educational establishments, workers and learners. By the end of 2011, 16 countries had adopted their National Qualification Framework and 12 countries had referenced their national qualifications to the European qualifications reference framework as defined by the EQF Recommendation. In 2012 another 13 countries are expected to conclude the referencing of national qualifications to European levels.[24]

The EQF and NQFs are overarching tools, which, by defining qualifications through learning outcomes, have laid the ground for validation of non-formal and informal learning as a valid pathway towards qualifications.

Credit systems based on learning outcomes facilitate the validation of non-formal and informal learning by possibilities to award credits for relevant learning experiences which can lead to exemptions to parts of a curriculum:

- The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)[25], developed within the European Higher Education Area, facilitates mobility between higher education institutions. ECTS is moving towards learning outcomes and this provides opportunities to further links to the validation of non-formal and informal learning;

- The European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET), of 2009[26], associates a certain number of ECVET points to units of learning outcomes, based on common standards and on agreed procedures for assessment, transfer, accumulation and recognition between vocational training institutions.

The 2009 European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning from Cedefop provide technical advice to civil servants and practitioners relate to different perspectives on validation, such as the European, the national, the organisational and the individual perspective[27]. They further deal with validation processes and methods and with the inputs of validation practitioners (counsellors, assessors, process administrators). They were developed through a process of peer learning under the open method of coordination. They form a practical tool to be applied on a voluntary basis.

In addition to the European initiatives, the following developments are relevant:

- Several sectoral skills and qualification passports have developed through the European sectoral social dialogue[28], such as the AgriPass[29], the sport and fitness competence frameworks[30], the European Qualification and Skills Passport (QSP) in the Hospitality Sector [31] and the EMU pass in the metal sector[32]. These passes promote the recognition of skills, experiences and qualifications, facilitating transnational mobility within the same sector and can play a role in the phase of identification and documentation of citizens' skills.

- Some multinational enterprises have developed internal policies on validation of non-formal and informal learning which can have positive effects on the skills levels of workers and facilitate their redeployment within or outside the company[33].

The above mentioned tools and instruments represent a number of shortcomings in addressing the problems identified in section 2.2 which are summarised as follows for each of them:

- The EQF Recommendation's main focus has been on formal qualifications and although it promotes the validation of non-formal and informal learning, it does not provide further guidance on how to implement validation.

- The common European principles on validation from 2004 are relevant for the setting up of validation systems, however, valuable as they are, they do not provide sufficient detailed guidance for the building and running of validation systems, especially in countries where validation hardly exists.

- The European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning are focused on the implementation of validation by providing technical advice, but they lack the status of a policy-framework adopted by a law-making body.

- Skills and Qualification passports developed by the social partners through the European Sectoral Social Dialogue are useful for the identification and documentation of skills and qualifications, thus making skills and qualifications better comparable between Member States. However, there value is limited to the sector on which they focus and they are not with all validation stages (e.g. they do not cover assessments eventually leading to a full or partial qualification).

- Also the Europass (in particular the Europass Experiece module, currently under development) and Youthpass are useful for identification and documentation of learning experiences, but like the sectoral Skills and Qualifications passports they can only provide inputs into the validation process, but are no validation instruments in themselves.

- Credit systems can facilitate validation, but are limited the function they perform in validation, namely the recognition of learning experiences through the award of credits for these.

Given the shortcomings of the different tools and instruments, individually, or taken together, one can speak of a “validation gap” within the existing tools/instruments for the implementation of validation of non-formal and informal learning.

2.4. Who else is affected?

In addition to the groups mentioned in sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, this initiative affects:

- Certain groups in particular: disadvantaged groups (e.g. the young and old unemployed, low-qualified adults, disabled people, school drop-outs, migrants, ethnic minorities, older workers), individuals returning to work after having spent time taking care of children, mobile learners and workers;

- Employers of all sectors;

- Employment Services;

- Qualification authorities/bodies;

- Validation professionals: assessors of non-formal and informal learning experiences, guidance counsellors;

- Providers of formal education and training;

- Non-formal education and training providers.

2.5. EU added value

EU action has already proven to be of added value for the recognition of skills and qualifications acquired throughout Europe aiming at the free movement of citizens, a better access to Europe's labour markets and the mobility of workers and learners. Such EU added value has been recognised by all Member States in the context of the EQF and in the context of other European tools and instruments such as ECVET, ECTS, and Europass[34].

EU action on validation will fill the "gap" on validation which currently exists within the currently available European tools and instruments, related to implementation of validation of non-formal and informal learning in practice. Filling this gap will bring existing tools and instruments to their full potential.

Whereas Member States' activities in the area of validation of non-formal and informal learning are focussed on the national level, EU action on validation should relate to cooperation and coordination across Member States. EU action can facilitate mobility of workers and learners through a better mutual recognition of non-formally and informally acquired skills. By introducing more cooperation and stronger coordination between Member States, the transparency of validation systems will increase and the mutual trust by Member States in each other's validation systems enhanced. Especially Member States with low trust levels and weak traditions in validation of non-formal and informal learning can benefit from this. Mutual trust cannot be achieved with the same efficiency by Member States alone without action on the EU level.

The EU added value of the initiative is finally embedded in its support to Member States in their cooperation related to the validation of non-formal and informal learning, in particular through the EU support in the framework of the Open Method of Coordination, Peer Learning Activities and projects supported by EU programmes.

2.6. EU right to act and subsidiarity

Right to act

Articles 165 and 166 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) foresee that the Union will contribute to the development of quality education and implement a vocational training policy by encouraging co-operation between Member States and, where necessary supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and vocational training. Action at Union level to promote a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce is called for by Article 148 TFEU.

Subsidiarity

The current initiative recommends common lines of action to be implemented on the level of the Member States with some European support. It will propose actions that will need implementation at EU and Member State level. The EU level will provide coordination – including in particular coordination with the relevant European instruments – and support, for instance by organising peer learning activities. Member States will remain entirely responsible for the design, development and implementation of their arrangements (laws, regulations, collective agreements) for the validation of non-formally and informally acquired learning outcomes. Action on both levels is complementary and the prerogatives of Member States are safeguarded.

2.7. How the problem would evolve without additional EU intervention (baseline scenario)

Without additional EU intervention leading to a more coordinated approach towards validation across the European Union, taking advantage of existing European tools, the following is likely to happen:

- the existing "validation gap" within the existing European tools and instruments, in particular the implementation gap on validation of the EQF, as well as the weak status of the European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning, will persist and not contribute to addressing the problems described in section 2.2;

- current policies in education and training will continue to stress the importance of validation of non-formal and informal learning. The Bruges Communiqué on Enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training calls for validation procedures linked to national qualification systems to be put in place by 2015[35]. Like the EQF Recommendation it does not provide further guidance on the implementation and is expected to contribute only to a limited extend to dealing with the problems addressed by this initiative;

- Without a stronger political framework there is a high probability that the funding for validation under the Lifelong Learning Programme, the future Erasmus for All programme and the European Social Fund will remain scattered as it has been in the past, and that the problems identified in section 2.2 will not be sufficiently addressed.

- based on current trends, the situation of validation will improve only slowly in most Member States; by 2020 a mainstreamed validation system might be available in ten countries. This is better than the current four countries, but represents still less than half of the Member States;

- validation opportunities will continue to be underused in a large number of Member States;

- validation systems will remain uncoordinated between Member States and thus hamper the mobility of learners and workers;

- the opportunities offered for the employability of individuals will not reach their full potential, as many skills in many countries will remain invisible and undervalued;

- on the level of the European social partners validation of non-formal and informal learning, as part of a broader focus on lifelong learning, will continue to be characterised by sectoral (e.g. sectoral skills passports) rather than transversal initiatives.

3. Section 3: Objectives

As seen in 2.3, access to the labour market and to further learning is hampered by limited and underused opportunities for validation, while mobility of workers and learners is hampered by a lack of comparability and coherence of national approaches to validation. The objectives of the initiative directly target the limited availability of validation opportunities at national level, the lack of a comparable and coherent approach in validation and the awareness of validation opportunities in Europe. Action towards the objectives is also expected to have a positive impact on the trust in validation of non-formal and informal learning as a pathway to obtain a qualification.

3.1. General objectives

The general objectives of this initiative are the following:

(1) To provide citizens in all Member States with the opportunity to validate their skills acquired outside formal education and training systems.

(2) To provide citizens with the opportunity to use their validated skills for working and learning purposes throughout Europe.

3.2. Specific and operational objectives

To pursue the two general objectives, two specific objectives and four operational objectives have been defined.

3.2.1. Specific objectives

To achieve the systematic provision of validation opportunities that now is available only in a few countries, there is a need to mainstreaming validation within the lifelong learning strategies of all Member States. While the nature and form of validation systems will vary between countries, they should follow a coordinated approach, taking advantage of existing tools allowing citizens to move across countries without any loss of validated skills. The specific objectives are therefore the following;

(1) To put in place systems for the validation of non formal and informal learning at national level linked to the National Qualifications Framework.

(2) To establish an appropriate level of comparability and coherence between national validation systems linked to the European Qualifications Framework.

3.2.2. Operational objectives

The following operational objectives have been defined:

(1) To promote national qualification frameworks in a way that qualifications can be acquired through formal programmes as well as through the validation of non-formal and informal learning.

This contributes to both comprehensiveness at national level and coordination between national approaches, as national qualification frameworks concern all education and training subsystems, cover all subjects and are related to the EQF.

(2) To provide mechanisms for the identification, documentation, and quality assured assessment and validation of skills acquired through non-formal and informal learning, taking advantage of common European instruments such Europass, ECTS, ECVET.

The use of European tools will ensure a good level of coordination: skills can be documented in the common European format provided by the Europass framework. Following assessment they can be converted into formal credits recognised throughout Europe through the European credit systems ECTS and ECVET. The mechanisms should also take into account tools and initiatives developed by social partners and other stakeholders, including industry based tools as this reinforces the coverage and penetration of validation arrangements.

A quality assured assessment and validation will contribute to creating more trust in validation systems, processes and outcomes. All qualifications, whether obtained through formal learning or through validation of non-formal and informal learning should be issued against the same standards, ensuring that qualifications obtained on the basis of non-formal and informal learning have the same currency value as qualifications obtained on the basis of formal learning.

(3) To allow individuals to have their skills and competences identified and documented without resulting into a formal qualification.

Experiences of national validation systems show that the primary target of individuals entering into a validation procedure is not necessarily to obtain a higher qualification but to make their skills visible. This documentation should be presented in a format allowing an as wide as possible portability towards employers and education and training institutions.

(4) To extend and intensify the cooperation and exchange of good practice between Member States, supported by peer-learning activities and European reporting tools.

Both stronger coordination between national approaches and more effective results within countries can be achieved through peer learning and through an improved knowledge basis.

(5) To raise the awareness of validation opportunities.

As suggested by the 2010 country update of the European Inventory on validation, the actual take-up of validation could be increased by raising awareness of validation opportunities. A specific effort should be made towards disadvantaged groups who will otherwise be more difficult to reach.

3.3. Consistency of objectives with other EU policies and strategic objectives

3.3.1. Consistency with the EU 2020 strategic objectives

The general and specific objectives are in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy on smart, sustainable and inclusive growth[36]. They match with the following EU 2020 flagships:

- Youth on the Move[37] and the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs[38], which call for better employability, increased occupational and educational mobility, flexible learning pathways and for valuing learning outside formal systems; both announced the initiative for a Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning;

- The Digital Agenda for Europe[39]: in particular its action areas to enhance digital literacy, skills and inclusion and to bring ICT-enabled benefits to the EU society;

- The European platform against poverty[40].

They contribute to the following Europe 2020 headline targets[41]:

- Less than 10 % early school leavers: the objectives can support individuals who dropped out from school to re-enter the formal system or obtain a qualification;

- Increasing the proportion of 30-34 having completed tertiary or equivalent education to 40%: through the recognition of prior learning to get access to higher education;

- 75% overall employment rate: validation can increase the employability of individuals and is therefore relevant for getting more people into work, especially women, the young, older and low-skilled people, legal migrants and people with disabilities;

- At least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty and social exclusion: validation can enhance the employment prospects of e.g. the low qualified and individuals who dropped out from school, thus contributing to alleviating poverty and to their social inclusion.

They are in line with the Commission's intention to publish a Communication on rethinking the way education and training systems are providing skills in 2012.

3.3.2. Consistency with other policies, tools and instruments in the field of education, training and youth

The objectives are in conformity with the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework proposal[42] and with the objectives of the proposed Erasmus for all Programme, in particular (a) the improvement of the level of key competences and skills and their relevance for the labour market and society and (b) the promotion of a European lifelong learning area[43].

They are closely linked and complementary to the tools and instruments discussed in section 2.2. They are further consistent with the development of other specific instruments, namely a new module under Europass to record non-formal and informal learning experiences, ESCO[44], the European Framework for Key Competences for Lifelong Learning[45] and the quality assurance reference framework EQAVET[46].

They are coherent with the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020)[47] including its target of 15% of adults participating[48] in education and training by 2020[49]. They are in line with EU policies developed on education and training (adult learning, vocational training, higher education), as witnessed in particular by the Bruges Communiqué on Enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training that calls for validation procedures to be put in place by 2015.

They are also consistent with policies and initiatives on youth and voluntary work (e.g. the European Strategy for Youth[50] and the 2011 European Year of Voluntary Activities Promoting Active Citizenship[51]).

3.3.3. Consistency with employment policy and other policies

The objectives are consistent with the Annual Growth Survey 2012 which calls for adapting education and training systems to reflect labour market conditions and skills demand[52], with the framework agreement by the European social partners on inclusive labour markets of 2010 calling for the recognition and validation of competences and for improving the transferability of qualifications[53] and with the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines for the Economic and Employment Policies of the Member States[54], in particular its guideline 8 on "developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs".

They are in conformity with the objectives of Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications, which promotes the free movement of persons and services, and more in general with the objectives of the Single Market[55] as well as with the Commission proposal for the modernisation of this Directive[56] which stresses that skills developed through working experience may be taken into account for access to a regulated profession.

4. Section 4: Policy options

The policy options that are considered here are the following:

No additional EU action (baseline scenario); A Council Recommendation on the implementation of validation; A new Open Method of Coordination devoted to validation aimed at the development of a European Quality Charter on validation.

The potential option of discontinuing EU actions and initiatives in the field of validation of non-formal and informal learning has been discarded at an early stage, as this would be contradictory to announced policy intentions, in particular the EU 2020 Strategy.

4.1. Option 1 (baseline scenario):

This option consists of the current situation which can be summarised as follows:

- Validation of non-formal and informal learning is taken into account in European policies concerning education and training, employment, youth and active citizenship;

- Existing European instruments such as the EQF, ECVET, ECTS, Europass etc. call for the possibility to validate experiences acquired through non-formal and informal learning, without indicating how to do this;

- The Common European principles on validation by the Council in 2004, the publication of European guidelines on validation by Cedefop in 2009, as well as available funding through the Lifelong Learning Programme, the future Erasmus for All Programme and the European Social Fund will continue to be relevant;

- Validation is part of the policy agenda in most Member States, but only implemented in a comprehensive way in a few Member States;

- Member States exchange experiences on validation under the Open Method of Coordination such as in the EQF Advisory Group, in other sectoral settings (e.g. in the fields of higher education, VET, Adult Learning and Youth) as well as under the European employment strategy.

4.2. Option 2 (Council Recommendation on the implementation of validation):

Option 2 entails political and practical measures to be undertaken by the Member States and stakeholders in the form of a Council Recommendation, as announced by the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives “Youth on the Move” and “Agenda for New Skills and Jobs”.

The measures build on the Common European principles and on the European Guidelines for validation of 2009. They also take account of Member States' and other stakeholders' experiences with validation as expressed in several Peer Learning Activities and as analysed in the European Inventory and they build on existing credit systems in higher education and in the vocational education and training sector. In addition they build on experiences of stakeholders with regard to the use of skills and qualification passes developed under the European social dialogue.

The measures provide for a key role of labour market stakeholders (employers, employer organisations, trade unions, public employment services) in the practical development and implementation of measures. They respect the key principle that seeking validation should remain a voluntary act of citizens.

The measures to be included in the Recommendation will call on Member States to:

- Ensure that all qualifications, at any level of the national qualification framework, can in principle be acquired through the validation of prior learning, including non-formal and informal learning, respecting the same standards as for qualifications obtained through formal programmes;

- Put in place mechanisms that provide citizens with the opportunity to submit an application for the validation of their learning outcomes; ,

- In the forms appropriate to the national context and needs, ensure that information on validation opportunities is widely available, that guidance is available for individuals who wish to undertake a validation procedure and that transparent quality assurance mechanisms in their validation system concerning both the assessment (methodologies and tools, qualified assessors) and its results (agreed standards) are established;

- Provide specific measures for disd-advantaged groups, including citizens most likely to be subject to unemployment or insecure forms of employment, for whom such an approach could help increase their participation in lifelong learning and their access to the labour market, in particular in relation to targeted information and awareness raising measures and through specific guidance;

- Provide individuals with the opportunity to undergo a skills audit/'bilan de compétences' within three months of an identified need, promote the use of current and future Europass tools to facilitate the documentation of learning outcomes, promote partnerships and other initiatives to facilitate the documentation of learning outcomes developed within SME and other small organisations and establish links between validation arrangements and credit systems such as ECTS and ECVET;

- Provide incentives to social partners and other relevant stakeholders, namely employer organisations, trade unions, chambers of commerce, employment services, youth organisations, youth workers, education and training providers as well as civil society organisations to be actively involved in the development and implementation of the validation mechanisms

- Provide incentives to employers, youth organisations and civil society organisations to promote and facilitate the identification and documentation of learning outcomes acquired at work or in voluntary work;

– Provide incentives to education and training providers to facilitate access to formal education and training on the basis of learning outcomes acquired in non-formal and informal settings and ensure co-ordination between education, training, employment and youth implementation services as well as between relevant policies.

The proposed measures leave it up to the Member States how to implement the Recommendation within the national system, including the burden sharing between public authorities and private operators.

The measures to be proposed in the Recommendation are in line with the results of the public consultation: strengthening the implementation of practical measures was considered as important by 83 per cent of the respondents. Along the priorities and items for action they will address the following replies received to the public consultation:

- raising the status and value of validation (mentioned by 96 % of the respondents as being very important, important or moderately important);

- awareness raising (95 %);

- exchange of good practice and peer learning (95 %);

- strengthening the implementation of practical measures at national regional and local level (94 %);

- enhancing the comparability, transparency and trust across national boundaries (94 %);

- improving the visibility of non-formal and informal learning including through documentation (94 %);

- building flexible pathways between non-formal and informal learning and formal education and training (93 %);

- building links between validation and education and training credit systems (92 %);

- enhancing synergies between the existing European tools and frameworks that support validation (91 %);

- integration of validation in mainstream education and training and qualification systems (90%).

The Recommendation will be complemented by more intensive cooperation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning within the existing EQF Advisory Group as Open Method of Coordination structure. Making use of the EQF Advisory Group will reinforce the integration of validation of non-formal and informal learning within the ongoing EQF process.

The measures will strengthen the implementation of the EQF Recommendation by filling its "gap" on the implementation of validation

In addition to the baseline scenario the measures foreseen under Option 2 foresee for the Commission a role in regularly updating the European Inventory on validation of non formal and informal learning and the European Guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning. The European Inventory will be stronger focussed on evaluation of results of validation systems than is currently the place. The European Guidelines will be regularly reviewed in the light of experiences made with validation systems.

Under this option the Council Recommendation is expected to be approved in 2012, with an implementation of the proposed mechanisms by the Member States and the European Commission from 2013 onwards.

4.3. Option 3: A new process based on a new Open Method of Coordination devoted to validation aimed at the development of a European Quality Charter on validation

Under Option 3 Member States will work together, in a new Open Method of Coordination (OMC) specifically devoted to validation, aiming at the setting up of a European Quality Charter on the validation of non-formal and informal learning. The new OMC would work in parallel to and be independent from other existing OMCs, in particular the EQF Advisory Group. Relevant stakeholders will play an important role in the new OMC process, such as trade unions, employer organisations, formal and non-formal education and training providers as well as relevant quality assurance bodies. If relevant also other parties (e.g. individual companies with useful experiences in validation) will be involved in the process.

The European Quality Charter will build on both European (e.g. European guidelines and the common European principles on validation) and on national initiatives (public and private) related to quality assurance in the area of validation. It will be developed based on a mutual learning process. A European Quality Charter could contribute to building trust and confidence between Member States. It should be implemented on a voluntary basis.

The idea of a European Quality Charter as such is not new and has been part of a Recommendation on transnational mobility for education and training purposes of 2006[57].

The European Quality Charter could be formulated around the following lines:

- Quality ensured validation procedures for existing validation centres;

- Quality standards for assessors (methodologies and tools, training of assessors);

- Guidance and counselling (for individuals who wish to have their skills validated);

- Access to validation (avoiding barriers to validation);

- Stakeholder involvement (social partners, both sectoral and transversal, education and training providers, quality assurance bodies);

- Specific target groups (in particular disadvantaged groups);

- European dimension of quality assurance (in line with the quality assurance principles that underpin the EQF).

Apart from its focus on developing a European Quality Charter, the new OMC process will, compared to the baseline scenario, also consist of:

- A new set of reporting mechanisms by Member States, including national action plans, to be implemented on an annual basis;

– Monitoring progress by the Commission.

Option 3 fully respects the prerogatives of Member States as far as the setting up and the implementation of validation systems is concerned, including how the financial burden is shared between public authorities and private actors.

Like in Option 2, in addition to the baseline scenario, Option 3 foresees for the Commission a role in regularly updating the European Inventory on validation of non formal and informal learning and the European Guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning.

The OMC mechanisms are expected to be put in place late 2012 which should lead to the approval of the charter in 2014. Its implementation is expected to follow from 2015 onwards.

5. Analysis of impacts

The assessed impacts concern economic, social impacts and other impacts, assessed in comparison with the baseline scenario. As all options have only limited environmental impacts and are not significantly different between each other, these will not be explored in more detail.

The social, economic and other impacts have been examined in qualitative terms based on likely impacts, as there are no hard data available. For each of the likely impacts it has been assessed whether it leads to an improvement (+: slightly positive, ++: positive) or a deterioration (-: slightly negative, --: negative) in comparison with the baseline scenario. A score of "0" is given if there is no likely improvement or deterioration compared with Option 1. The score for Option 1 (the baseline scenario) is always 0.

The realisation of the expected impacts will depend on a number of factors such as the concrete implementation by Member States of the recommended measures (Option 2) and the way in which Member States will effectively work towards a European Quality Charter on validation (Option 3).

The scoring is further based on the following two assumptions:

- The set of recommendations addressed to Member States (Option 2) will have more immediate effects on the creation of more validation opportunities than will be the case for the newly created OMC (Option 3). Ongoing developments of National Qualification Frameworks (see section 2.2) will benefit from the measures proposed under Option 2 which will be able to deliver concrete outcomes already in 2013. The forthcoming new module under the Europass Framework (Europass Experience), to be adopted in 2012, will facilitate the documentation of learning outcomes acquired through non-formal and informal learning.

- Immediate effects will better contribute to reaching the Europe 2020 targets in time and therefore higher scores have been given to impacts realised in the short than to impacts that are realised in the longer term.

5.1. Economic impacts

Economic growth and employment

Under Option 1, current policies on employment and on education & training under the EU 2020 Strategy, focus on the strategic objective of enhancing economic growth. A positive effect on economic growth and employment of these policies is therefore assumed (0).

In addition to existing policies, Option 2 foresees measures which focus on the creation of more validation opportunities (including individual entitlements), and on better comparable and more coherent validation systems facilitating mobility. Skills will become more visible and can be better appreciated and used through validation, leading to a better skills match on the labour market. This will strengthen economic growth and employment (++).

Under Option 3 the Open Method of Coordination will increase validation activities and economic growth. The European Quality Charter could enhance mutual trust between Member States on validation systems with a positive effect on the mobility of workers and on economic growth. However these impacts will only be realised in the longer run (+).

Public expenditure[58]

The available evidence suggests that in most countries validation initiatives are to a large extent publicly financed[59], both from national/regional sources and from European resources (mainly from the European Social Fund and from the Lifelong Learning programme).

According to the European Inventory comprehensive earmarked validation budgets are the exception rather than the rule and if they exist they usually concern one part of the validation system. Luxembourg (4.5 million EUR for the period 2009-2010) and Spain (30 million EUR for the period 2009-2010) are the only countries were budgets on an aggregate level are available.

For certain countries figures are available on costs for obtaining a certificate. They usually vary between 800 and 1,800 EUR for a complete validation process leading to a certification. Concrete examples are Portugal (1,600 EUR), Sweden (1,550 EUR), Belgium (Flanders) (between 960 and 1,440 EUR), France (between 800 and 1,800 EUR) and the Netherlands (between 800 and 1,600 EUR).

Based on the examples of these countries, combined with statistical indicators on the use of validation (see annex 3), it is possible to provide some indications on aggregated costs:

- Portugal: around 320,000 people obtained a certificate through validation of non-formal and informal learning. Based on the assumption that this figure relates to 4 years of validation policy, the total costs per year are EUR 120 million. The Portuguese case of validation is unique as the large number of applicants for validation is closely related to the general low level of professional qualifications of adults. Costs are high as specific centres were set up as part of the validation policy;

- France: average costs of EUR 1,300 multiplied by around 50,000 applications per year lead to an annual budget of EUR 65 million;

- In the Netherlands the annual average budget of 28.5 million EUR covered for 14,000 experience certificates.

In countries which according to the European Inventory show a lower level of development, the cost figures are also lower, e.g.:

- Belgium (Flanders): total annual costs of EUR 625,000 for 500 certificates of vocational experience;

- Sweden: total annual costs of EUR 3 million EUR for 1,900 qualifications awarded.

The country examples above have been given for illustrative purposes. They reflect the wide variety in validation policies and practices in the Member States. A more detailed analysis of costs and benefits of validation is provided in Annex 4.

The real costs of putting in place validation mechanisms depend on a number of factors, such as:

- The readiness of the current system: if validation arrangements can be developed within the existing institutional set up (e.g. assessment centres, available guidance), and if existing standards can be used (assessment, certification), the costs will be lower than if hardly any infrastructure exists[60];

- The scale of validation arrangements: in a well functioning education and training system with an appropriately qualified population and workforce, there is less need for a large scale validation programme than in a country where the overall qualification levels of the population are low. This is illustrated by the French and Portuguese cases which both have a comprehensive validation system, but with a completely different scale[61];

- Target groups of validation: the costs for guidance and counselling of most people belonging to disadvantaged groups are higher than guidance costs for already well qualified people[62].

When referring to the costs of putting in place validation mechanisms at the same time, the cost savings for formal education and training should be taken into account. The final trade off between public expenditure resulting from setting up validation systems and the savings on public expenditure resulting from formal education and training will depend on several factors e.g. the way in which education and training institutions are financed.

Relating the three options, the following situations are expected:

- Option 1: public expenditure will probably increase due to the increase in validation that is brought by the EQF process, however no quantitative estimates can be given (0).

- Option 2: the full costs of a validation procedure are on average between 800 and 1,800 EUR. As most activities concerning validation are publicly financed, it is probable that the enlarged opportunities for validation developed under Option 2 will lead to higher public expenditure compared to Option 1. Exact estimates cannot be given as this depends on measures taken by the Member States. The Commission will face some limited higher expenses due to the regular updating of the European Guidelines on validation[63] (--).

- Option 3: the development in validation follows in the short term a slightly more intensive pattern than under Option 1. Given the absence of a set of concrete measures recommended to the Member States, developments will be slower than under Option 2, but could receive a further boost once the European Quality Charter is in place and then result in higher public expenditure at a later stage. The meetings under the OMC and the additional reporting by Member States under Option 3 will also entail some higher public expenditure[64]. Overall the increase in public expenditure will be lower than under Option 2, but no overall quantitative estimate can be given (-).

Private expenditure

In many countries individuals pay fees in order to receive recognition of prior learning for their access to formal education and training or to obtain a formal qualification on the basis of learning outcomes acquired outside the formal education and training system. For example in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Latvia individuals have to cover the charges of validation schemes ran by public authorities and stakeholders, however no concrete amounts of fees are available[65]. Also companies pay for validation schemes, especially if they see the direct benefits of validation, such as the Philips case study has shown[66].

Translated into the three options the expected impacts are as follows:

- Option 1: under the current EQF process opportunities for validation are enhanced through the development of National Qualification Frameworks, which will increase private expenditure by individuals; it is not possible to give a further indication of costs (0).

- Option 2: two factors contribute to higher private expenditure. The first factor is that stakeholders (e.g. employers and education and training providers) are called upon to document the learning outcomes acquired through non-formal learning, using Europass, Youthpass and ECVET; depending on how Member States have set up their validation system, this might increase the financial burden upon them. The second factor is that under Option 2 more validation opportunities will be created compared to the current situation, increasing the private expenditure of individuals (-).

- Option 3: given the absence of a set of concrete measures recommended to the Member States under this option, the development of more validation opportunities will be slower than under Option 2, but could receive a further boost once the European Quality Charter is in place (0/-).

Obligations on business

Under Option 1 no additional obligations are imposed upon business (0).

Under Option 2 social partners, employers, employment services, youth organisations, education and training providers and civil society organisations are called upon to document the learning outcomes acquired through non-formal learning, using Europass, Youthpass and ECVET. There will be more obligations upon business, but what really happens will depend on the situation in each Member State (-).

Like Option 1, Option 3 does, at this stage, not impose any further obligations upon business. Once the envisaged European Quality Charter on validation is adopted and subsequently implemented, there could be some more obligations on business in the field of validation, such as the documentation of learning outcomes, but this will depend on the situation in each Member State (0/-).

Administrative burden to Member States

Under Option 1, there will be no additional information obligations to the Member States (0).

Also under Option 2 there is no additional administrative burden to the Member States, as this option does not impose upon them any additional legal obligations to provide information. Monitoring will take place through a more regular European Inventory which is drafted by national and international experts in validation but for which Member States do not have to engage in additional reporting (0).

The new OMC process proposed under Option 3 entails important additional administrative burden, related to the additional annual reporting by the Member States and to the additional meetings under the OMC in preparing and implementing the European Quality Charter. Both the participation in meetings and the contributions to reporting represent administrative burden. On the basis of an estimation per country of 0,5 FTE during 3 years, for 27 Member States the total estimated staff costs will be 4 million EUR for a three year period (--).

5.2. Social impacts

Employability and access to the labour market

Option 1: under the baseline scenario, the ongoing developments under the EQF process and under current employment policies facilitate the access to the labour market as well as employability and job transitions, both on the national and on the European level. However under the baseline scenario the potential employability is not achieved to its full extent as the current situation does not fully exploit all possibilities for validating non-formally and informally acquired skills (0).

Option 2: the measures proposed have an explicit European dimension by recommending Member States to develop their validation systems in a comparable and coherent way, thus facilitating mobility between them. Labour market access and job transitions, on both the national and the European level, will be improved compared to Option 1. The proposed measures also focus on the documentation stage of validation, making knowledge, skills and competences of individuals more visible and therefore more easily usable on the labour market, thus increasing their employability, without necessarily leading to a formal qualification (++).

Option 3: the European Quality Charter will enhance access to the labour market and facilitate job transitions as well as improve the employability of individuals. Given their later timing and their larger uncertainty these impacts will be less strong than under Option 2 (+).

Access to further learning

Option 1: under the baseline scenario the 2009 Bologna stocktaking report showed that "while a small number of countries have put in place quite advanced systems for recognition of prior learning, in most countries there is little or no recognition of learning undertaken outside the formal education system". It further concluded that "there has not been much progress since 2007[67]". The same findings were confirmed by a recent Eurydice study, which stated that "higher education institutions need to open up to flexible learning and to introduce more access routes that would enable broader participation of disadvantaged groups"[68] (0).

One of the specific foci of Option 2 concerns the recommendation to Member States to provide incentives to providers to facilitate access to formal education and training on the basis of learning outcomes acquired in non-formal and informal settings. This will also contribute to the EU 2020 headline target on participation in tertiary education. Given the targeted measures access to further learning should be clearly enhanced (++).

Option 3: under the OMC process no direct measures are proposed on enhancing the access to further learning. This could however be an important element of the European Quality Charter. In the mid-term a positive effect is therefore possible (+).

Information on available skills

Under Option 1, the process of developing National Qualifications Frameworks has led to an increased focus on validation of non-formal and informal learning at policy and practice level. Through validation of non-formal and informal learning more information on individuals' skills becomes available through their identification, documentation and assessment (0).

Compared to Option 1, Option 2 focuses explicitly on making the skills of individuals more visible. Several measures that are proposed to the Member States explicitly focus on enhancing the availability of information on skills. This goes in particular for the putting in place of mechanisms providing citizens with opportunities to submit an application for the validation of their learning outcomes and for the possibility for individuals to undergo a skills audit within three months of an identified need. The French and Dutch cases provide evidence for this potential of validation (++).

The European Quality Charter could be an important source of inspiration for the further development of validation systems, and enhance the available information on individuals' skills (+).

Working conditions

Option 1: the number of individuals benefiting from better working conditions as a result of the validation of their non-formally and informally acquired learning outcomes is limited (0).

Option 2 does not directly address working conditions. However, it includes measures addressed to Member States that all qualifications obtained on the basis of formal learning, should, in principle, also be accessible through the validation of prior learning, including non-formal and informal learning. As collective labour agreements are in most countries based on occupations and qualifications individuals obtaining a higher qualification will be able to obtain better working conditions (++).

Option 3: the impacts are the same as under Option 2, but they will develop more slowly and could receive a boost through the new impetus created by the European Quality Charter (+).

Education level of workers

Option 1: under the baseline scenario the general education level of workers will rise further to the existing recommendation for policies against early school leaving and the benchmarks on early school leaving and on tertiary education attainment (0).

Option 2: in comparison to Option 1 a boost in validation policies and practices is expected. The most frequent form of non-formal learning concerns learning at the workplace. As such more validation possibilities do not increase the education level of workers, however validation values learning and motivates people to engage in further learning, hence improving the education level of workers. In order to reach this positive impact it is essential that, as proposed by Option 2, education and training institutions create more opportunities for recognising prior learning. Experiences from Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Finland confirm this potential (++).

Option 3: the impacts are the same as under Option 2, but they will develop more slowly and could receive a boost through the new impetus created by the European Quality Charter (+).

Mobility of workers

Under Option 1 the mobility of workers across the European Union is guaranteed by Regulation 492/2011 and facilitated by Directive 2005/36 on the recognition of qualifications of regulated professions. It is furthermore facilitated by credit systems, such as ECTS and ECVET and by the Europass tools. Under the current EQF process referencing to the European qualification levels will increase the transparency and comparability of qualifications and thus facilitate mobility (0).

Under Option 2 the proposed measures will enhance validation opportunities and result in a better comparable and more coherent approach on validation between Member States. The validation measures proposed have as a purpose to facilitate the mobility of workers at different levels: within companies, between companies, between sectors, regions as well as between Member States. Increased mobility of skilled labour will make the European economy more competitive[69] (++).

Option 3 focuses on national action towards agreed objectives and benchmarks on validation. The setting up of a European Quality Charter will enhance the mutual trust between Member States in validating non-formal and informal learning experiences and result in a better comparable and more coherentapproach to validation across the European Union. As the Charter will be developed within a few years of time, such comparable and coherent approach will probably develop at a later stage than under Option 2; as a consequence the enhanced mobility will also be facilitated at a later stage. Taking into account the current initiative to facilitate the mobility of learners and workers (the Youth Opportunities Initiative) the later implementation of Option 3 gives it a disadvantage compared to Option 2 (0/+).

Equality (including gender equality):

Option 1: the EU 2020 benchmarks on early school leaving, on tertiary education attainment, on a 75% employment rate for women and men and on reducing poverty and social exclusion are all part of the baseline scenario. The Early School Leaving Recommendation explicitly targets the early school leaving benchmark. The 2010 Update of the European Inventory revealed that for the majority of countries, there is a tendency to target validation initiatives to disadvantaged groups, forming part of broader strategies to improve social cohesion, including through the promotion of employment and equal opportunities[70] (0).

Option 2: validation policies that have a specific focus on marginalised groups will have a positive impact on equality such as a more equal access to qualifications[71]. One of possible target groups for validation policies are women returning to the labour market or learning after a career break (++).

Option 3: the European Quality Charter could pay particular attention to the situation of disadvantaged groups. Positive impacts on equality (including gender equality) are therefore probable in the longer term (+).

Administrative requirements upon individuals

In neither of the options additional administrative requirements for individuals are expected. In all options, seeking validation would remain a voluntary initiative of citizens, in line with the existing common European principles on validation. The score for the three options is (0).

5.3. Other impacts

Information to the public

Option 1: under the baseline scenario one of the drivers revealed by the European Inventory explaining the low take up of validation opportunities in some countries was a lack of awareness. Existing tools and policies do not foresee any specific measures raising the awareness of validation (0).

Option 2 specifically calls for Member States to make information on validation opportunities widely available, with particular reference to targeting disadvantaged groups (+).

Under Option 3, once adopted, the European Quality Charter could become an important reference point on validation in Europe with the potential to have more positive effects on the available information to the public in the longer term than Option 2 (++).

Cooperation between Member States

Under the baseline scenario the existing cooperation between Member States will continue. The main forum for cooperation is the EQF Advisory Group under which also Peer Learning Activities will be organised (0).

Option 2 will strengthen the political basis for further cooperation between Member States within the EQF Advisory Group. Under the measures proposed by Option 2 are the support proposed to be given by the Commission to Member States and stakeholders for the facilitation of peer learning and the exchange of experiences and good practices (+).

Under Option 3 the new OMC specifically devoted to validation and focussed on the development of a European Quality Charter could entail an even more intensified cooperation between Member States (++).

Involvement of stakeholders

On the level of the Member States the involvement of stakeholders in validation policies and practices varies between very important in some countries, with a major impact on the implementation of validation, to less important or nearly inexistent in other countries (0).

Among the specific measures proposed under Option 2 is the involvement of a large group of stakeholders, comprising employer organisations, trade unions, chambers of commerce and labour, (public) employment services, formal and non-formal education and training providers on both the national and the European level (++).

In setting up the European Quality Charter, the new OMC process under Option 3 involves quality assurance organisations in addition to the stakeholders involved under Option 2 (++).

Fundamental rights

Under all three Options the fundamental rights of citizens are fully respected. There are no major differences in impacts between the options (all options: 0).

5.4. Risks and uncertainties

5.4.1. Risks

It is possible to consider two different risks, related to different scenarios.

Risk 1: The initiative is adopted and implemented, with unintended, unwelcome consequences, namely under Option 2: it forces a formal structure on a whole set of experiences for which informality, flexibility, reactivity are distinctive characteristics, opposed to the rigidity of formal systems.

Comment to Risk 1: the initiative aims at better validating the outcomes of non-formal and informal learning, but leaves the learning process itself untouched. This is confirmed by the existing evidence. Comprehensive validation systems do exist in a few Member States, and have not had any negative impact on the provision of non formal and informal learning.

Risk 2: The initiative is adopted, but some Member States, namely those where little has been done so far, may take very limited action or any at all, considering that the objectives are too demanding.

Comment to Risk 2: this reaction by Member States is unlikely, because all of them are implementing the EQF Recommendation by developing national qualification frameworks based on learning outcomes. This means that qualifications are defined through learning outcomes, separate from formal programmes, and that there already is a working platform for dialogue of all concerned stakeholders. Therefore, even in countries with little experience in validation, the ground is well laid.

5.4.2. Uncertainties

The assessment of different impacts is based on a qualitative judgement. The final impacts will depend on the concrete actions that will be undertaken by the Member States, as well as by the willingness of other actors, such as social partners, business, NGO's/voluntary organisations to support validation policies and, more importantly, validation practices.

6. Comparing the options

The comparison between the three options is based on the efficiency/cost-effectiveness, effectiveness and coherence with EU policy objectives (section 6.1). Together with the expected economic, social and other impacts, the overall results of the comparisons between the options are presented in section 6.2.

6.1. Efficiency/cost-effectiveness, effectiveness and coherence with EU policy objectives

Legend

++ || + || 0 || - || --

positive || slightly positive || Neutral || slightly negative || Negative

|| Option 1 Baseline scenario || Option 2 Concrete measures || Option 3 European Quality Charter || Explanation of given ratings

Efficiency/cost-effectiveness

Efficiency/cost-effectiveness || 0 || ++ || 0/+ || Option 1 is the Option with the lowest costs, but also with the lowest expected impacts and the lowest benefits for individuals, the economy and the society at large. Option 2 requires investments (e.g. for infrastructure, guidance to individuals, assessments, training of guidance counsellors and assessors, awareness raising, and quality assurance). These costs depend on the status quo in a country (e.g. the infrastructure in place) as well as on policy choices (e.g. target groups). The net direct costs are the result of the total direct costs minus cost savings for formal education and training. Individual costs for obtaining a qualification on the basis of validation are on average between 800 and 1,800 EUR, which is generally lower than the costs for formal education or training leading to the same qualification. On the level of systems there exist high marginal costs for validation and limited marginal costs for additional formal education or training. Also opportunity costs have to be taken into account. The resulting net costs of validation have to be weighted against the benefits of validation. Given the absence of hard data on the aggregate level these cannot be quantified. For each individual the cost-benefit ratio is different, as is the case for each Member State, depending on the status quo and on policy choices. It is assumed that the aggregate benefits of validation altogether outweigh the net costs of validation. This is supported by the assumption that current comprehensive validation systems exist on the basis of the underlying assumption of a positive benefits-costs ratio. The benefits resulting from Option 3 are expected to be higher than under the baseline scenario, but surrounded by more uncertainty and realised at a later moment in time than under Option 2. Overall the score for benefits will be lower than under option 2. By analogy with Option 2 it is assumed that the aggregate benefits of validation altogether outweigh the net costs of validation. Another element negatively affecting the efficiency/cost effectiveness of Option 3 concerns the new structures that will be created in addition to the existing structures under Options 1 and 2. These will increase the additional administrative burden and costs due to additional annual reporting by the Member States and to the additional meetings under the OMC in preparing and implementing the European Quality Charter.

Effectiveness

Specific Objective 1: To put in place systems for the validation of non formal and informal learning at national level linked to the National Qualifications Framework || 0 || ++ || + || Option 1 invites countries to promote the validation of non-formal and informal learning in their national qualification frameworks, but it does not indicate how to do that. The European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning do so, but have not been adopted by a law making body, which reduces their clout. Skills and Qualification passports developed by the social partners through the European Sectoral Social Dialogue are useful as support to validation in a certain sector, but they do not have a transversal coverage and are not primarily focussed on the validation of non-formal and informal learning. Under Option 2 Member States are recommended to put in place validation mechanisms linked to their National Qualifications Framework. This is expected to contribute largely to attain the objective. The new OMC under Option 3 could also lead to attaining the objective, but its outcomes are less certain and its results only expected in the longer run.

Specific Objective 2: To establish an appropriate level of comparability and coherence between national validation systems linked to the National Qualification Framework || 0 || ++ || + || Current policies focus on the comparability and transparency of qualifications, but do not address the comparability of validation systems. The measures proposed under Option 2 are common to all Member States and will lead to a better comparable and more coherent approach in validation across Member States. The European Quality Charter under Option 3 will provide a series of common quality assurance criteria on validation; it explicitly addresses the European dimension of validation. Its results will depend on the cooperation between Member States and be realised at a later moment in time than under Option 2.

Operational Objective 1: To establish national qualification frameworks in a way that qualifications can be acquired through formal programmes as well as through the validation of non-formal and informal learning || 0 || ++ || + || The EQF Recommendation refers in its recitals to the fact that each level of qualification should, in principle, be attainable by way of a variety of educational and career paths. Option 2 goes one step further and includes an explicit measure recommending Member States to ensure that all qualifications except regulated professions falling under Directive 2005/36, can in principle be obtained through the validation of prior learning, which largely contributes to reaching the objective. Under Option 3 this objective could also be achieved, but it is less certain given the absence of concrete measures.

Operational Objective 2: To provide mechanisms for the identification, documentation, and quality assured assessment and validation of skills acquired through non-formal and informal learning, taking advantage of common European instruments such as Europass, ECTS, ECVET || 0 || ++ || + || Under Option 1 the identification, documentation, and quality assured assessment and validation of skills acquired through non-formal and informal learning are addressed by both the Common European principles and the European guidelines on validation. The Principles are however very general and the Guidelines have no political/legal status which reduces their clout. Under Option 2 the objective is explicitly addressed and could be achieved depending on the implementation of the Recommendation by the Member States. Under Option 3 the OMC process and the European Quality Charter could, on the basis of a mutual learning process, finally also lead to reaching the objective, but this is less certain than under Option 2.

Operational Objective 3: To allow individuals to have their skills and competences identified and documented without resulting into a formal qualification || 0 || ++ || + || Under Option 1 the identification and documentation are in a limited way addressed by both the Common European principles and the European guidelines on validation. Option 2 contains measures that directly focus on achieving this objective, in particular the skills audit for individuals. Under Option 3 the identification and documentation of skills should be part of the European Quality Charter contributing to the objective at a later stage.

Operational Objective 4: To extend and intensify the cooperation and exchange of good practice between Member States, supported by peer-learning activities and European reporting tools || 0 || + || ++ || Under the baseline scenario Member States cooperate, also involving social partners, in the EQF Advisory Group under which also peer learning activities are organised. Under Option 2 cooperation between Member States will continue in the same way as under Option 1, except for an additional focus on validation in the EQF Advisory Group. In addition, the European reporting tools on validation will be strengthened: in particular the European Inventory and the European Guidelines on Validation. Under Option 3 a new OMC process is launched leading to more intensive cooperation between Member States, involving stakeholders, which should in the end lead to a European Quality Charter on validation.

Operational Objective 5: To raise the awareness of validation opportunities || 0 || + || ++ || Under the baseline scenario raising the awareness of validation opportunities depends on policies and practices in the Member States. Option 2 includes the recommendation to Member States to ensure that information on validation opportunities is widely available with particular reference to disadvantaged groups. This will result in higher awareness of validation opportunities. The European Quality Charter under Option 3 has the highest potential in raising the awareness of validation opportunities as the Quality Charter's potential is to receive a high level of visibility.

Coherence with wider EU policy objectives

Coherence with wider EU policy objectives || 0 || ++ || + || Option 1 is compatible with the wider EU policy objectives announced by the EU 2020 Strategy which focus on smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Option 2 is fully coherent with the wider EU policy objectives of the EU 2020 Strategy, and its different flagships. The measures proposed under Option 2 will create more validation opportunities, their larger use and more comparability and coherence between validation systems across the EU, facilitating the mobility of workers and learners. These results of Option 2 will to contribute to the EU 2020 targets on economic growth, early school leaving, tertiary education attainment, poverty reduction and on the overall employment rate. The new OMC proposed under Option 3 will also contribute to reaching the EU 2020 objectives and benchmarks, but at a slower pace and surrounded by more uncertainty than Option 2.

6.2. Comparison between the options: synthesis

Legend

++ || + || 0 || - || --

positive || slightly positive || Neutral || slightly negative || negative

|| Option 1 || Option 2 || Option 3

Efficiency/cost-effectiveness || 0 || ++ || 0/+

Effectiveness: || 0 || ++ || +

Coherence with EU policy objectives || 0 || ++ || +

Social, economic and other impacts: Economic growth and employment Public expenditure Private expenditure Obligations on business Administrative burden to Member States Access to the labour market/job transitions Access to further learning Information on available skills Working conditions Education level of workers Mobility of workers Equality (including gender equality) Administrative requirements upon individuals Information to the public Cooperation between Member States Involvement of stakeholders Fundamental rights || 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || ++ -- - - 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + + ++ 0 || + - 0/- 0/- -- + + + 0/+ + + + 0 ++ ++ ++ 0

6.3. Conclusion

Option 2, a Council Recommendation targeted to improving the implementation of validation by the Member States, results overall as best option. Option 2 is also the most coherent with EU policy objectives and with the largest positive economic and social impacts.

Its proposed measures are justified with regard to the importance of validation as a means to make skills visible, allowing for their optimal use for labour market and further learning purposes, representing important benefits for individuals, the economy and the society at large.

Under Option 1, the current situation of validation is expected to change only slowly, implying that the limited availability and use of validation of non-formal and informal learning experiences, as well as a lack of a comparable and coherent approach in validation across Europe, will remain.

Option 3 (a new OMC) is expected to lead to improvements compared to the baseline scenario regarding impacts effectiveness, efficiency and coherence