EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 15.9.2010 
SEC(2010) 1049 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
 
Accompanying document to the 
  
Proposal for a 
 
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION 
 
Youth on the Move – promoting the learning mobility of young people 
  
{COM(2010) 478 final} 
{SEC(2010) 1050} 
 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues.......................................................................................................... 4  
1.1. Lead service: DG Education and Culture..................................................................... 4 1.2. Political Background.................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Work on Impact Assessment........................................................................................ 7 1.4. Purpose of the impact  assessment report ..................................................................... 8 
1.5. Main sources of information and consultations ........................................................... 8 2. Problem definition...................................................................................................... 11 2.1. EU instruments in support of learning mobility......................................................... 12 2.2. Specific Problems and underlying drivers ................................................................. 13 2.3. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? .................................................. 17 2.4. How would the problem evolve , all things being equal?........................................... 17 
2.5. Basis for EU action .................................................................................................... 18 3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 19 
3.1. The main policy objectives to be achi eved are to make learning mobility an 
opportunity for all, via: .............................................................................................. 19 
3.2. Specific/operational objectives .................................................................................. 19 3.3. Consistency of these objectives with othe r EU policies and horizontal objectives ... 20 
4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 2 1 
4.1. Policy options considered: ......................................................................................... 21 4.2. Options considered unfeasible and discarded at an early stage: ................................ 21 
4.3. Option 1: No EU Action/Status Quo.......................................................................... 22 4.4. Option 2: A Council Recommendation: Y outh on the Move: Promoting the learning 
mobility of young people ........................................................................................... 23 
4.5. Option 3: A new Open Method of Co-ordin ation (OMC) for the learning mobility of 
young people .............................................................................................................. 24 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 25 5.1. Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of  the short-listed options ....... 25 
5.2. Assessment of administrative burden......................................................................... 26 5.3. Impacts outside the EU .............................................................................................. 27 5.4. Social groups, economic sectors or  particular regions affected................................. 28 
 
EN 3   EN 5.5. Overall assessment of imp act of the three options..................................................... 28 
6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 30 6.1. Justification of ratings based upon the assessment of impacts .................................. 30 6.2. Preferred option:......................................................................................................... 31 
7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 31 7.1. Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives...................................... 31 7.2. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements................................................................... 32 
 
Annexes - technical background material
 
Annex 1: Baseline data on Mobility  for Learning Purposes   
Annex 2: Analysis of Responses to the Public and Stakeholder Consultati on (Green Paper on 
promoting learning mobility) 
Annex 3: Links to key studies/work carried out by ex ternal consultants, stakeholders or 
academics 
Annex 4a: Overview of progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 
Recommendation on mobility within the Comm unity for students, persons undergoing 
training, young volunteers, teacher s and trainers (2001/613/EC) 
Annex 4b: Overview of Level of Progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 
Recommendation (2001/613/EC) and presen tation of Areas emerging since 2001 
Annex 5: Links between the problems, objectives and areas where Member State action 
should be pursued 
Annex 6: Mobility Scoreboard – illustrative example  
 
EN 4   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES  
Lead service: DG Education and Culture 
Other involved services:  EMPL, ENTR, INFSO, JLS, MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD and SG  
Agenda planning or WP reference: 2010/EAC/008 
This Impact Assessment is part of  the Youth on the Move initiative, one of the flagship actions of 
'EUROPE 2020: A strategy for su stainable growth and jobs'. 
Modifications following the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 
The above impact assessment was reviewed by th e Impact Assessment Board at its meeting of 
14th April 2010. 
Changes to the Report were made in order to take account of the Board's recommendations. In 
particular, the problem definition has been  expanded and focus im proved. Links between 
identified problems, formulated objectives and c oncrete proposals for Me mber State action have 
been strengthened, both in the body of the text and by the inclusion of Annex 5. 
A more detailed exposé of which elements of  the existing policy framework (2001 Council 
Recommendation) have been successful and whic h not, and which areas have emerged in the 10 
intervening years is presented, notably via the addition of a table at an nex 4b and an enhanced 
textual information.. This is complemented by the addition of two new specific/operational 
objectives ensures that all identified problems are adequately reflected in the objectives and 
consistent with proposals for concrete action. 
The description of the policy options has been enhanced, and further assessment and comparison 
included on how these options will address the problem drivers and objectives identified as 
priorities for the initiative. Furthermore, an expanded analysis of the potential administrative 
burden of each option is provided. 
Finally, increased attention is paid to how uptak e by Member States will be assured and to an 
explanation of the proposed 'mobility scoreboard' th at will contribute to in creased visibility and 
better monitoring. 
Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commission's se rvices involved in its preparation and 
does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 
 
EN 5   EN Section 1: Procedural issues and co nsultation of interested parties 
Organisation and timing 
This Impact Assessment is part of  the Youth on the Move initiative, one of the flagship actions of 
'EUROPE 2020: A strategy for su stainable growth and jobs'. 
1.1. Political Background 
Young people are crucial for Europe's future. The EU has close to 100 million young people, 
representing a fifth of its total population. They have been hit particularly hard by the economic 
and social crisis. They continue to suffer du e to weaknesses in education and employment 
systems which see high numbers of young people leav e school early or with  low qualifications 
and then struggle to find jobs. Transnational learning mobility can contribute strongly to 
excellence in European education and training and to the prospects of young people to improve 
their life opportunities. However, not enough young people are ab le to reap the benefits of a 
transnational mobility period and there remains enormous untapped potential.  
In 2008, more than half a million EU students studi ed abroad, 75% of these choosing to study in 
another EU country. EU Programmes make a si gnificant contribution to  the number of young 
people taking up mobility opportunities; in 2008 there were approximately 370,000 mobile 
learners in EU mobility programmes (Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Comenius, Grundvig, Youth 
in Action and Erasmus Mundus)1 
Mobility and its potential to contribute to Europ ean strategies for learning and skills has been the 
subject of considerable  policy reflection over recent years. The 20th anniversary of the Erasmus 
programme in 2007, triggered many debates on the benefits of mobility in  higher education as 
calls to expand such opportunities to othe r areas of education and training.  
December 2007 : Portuguese Presidency Conclusions  call upon the Member  States and the 
Commission to promote greater mobility in the context  of delivering lifel ong learning to all 
citizens […] alongside its social  dimension, of particular impor tance for more and better jobs.2 
January to June 2008 : High Level Expert Forum on Mobility, bringing together 11 
internationally renowned experts in the field of mobility, from academia, social partners, NGOs 
and the European Economic and Social Committee. 
November 2008: Council Conclusions on youth mobility3 which invite the Member States and 
the Commission to adopt measures with a view to removing barriers to mobility in different areas 
and ensuring that periods of study  and training abroad are recognised . Mobility is here aimed 
above all at intra-European mobility but it ma y also contribute towards developing mobility 
between Europe and third countries. 
                                                 
1 Eurostat data ; Progress report on indicators and benchmarks 2009 (Staff Working Paper SEC (2009) 1616) 
2 Brussels European Council 14th December 2007 – Presidency Conclusions 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cm s_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/97669.pdf   
3 2008/C 320/03 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUr iServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C :2008:320:0006:0009:EN:PDF   
 
EN 6   EN May 2009: Council conclusions on a strategic framewor k for European cooperation in education 
and training (‘ET 2020’)4 set out four strategic objectives, the first of which is: Making lifelong 
learning and mobility a reality . As an essential element of lifelong learning and an important 
means of enhancing people’s employability and adaptability, mobility for learners, teachers and 
teacher trainers should be gradually expanded with  a view to making periods of learning abroad 
– both within Europe and the wider worl d – the rule rather than the exception ;  
April 2009:  In the context of the Bologna Process (intergovernmental co-operation in higher 
education) Ministers re sponsible for higher edu cation agree a communiqué5 which stresses: 
Student-centred learning and mobility will help students develop the competences they need in a 
changing labour market and will empower them to become active and responsible citizens. And 
agreeing a benchmark that:  In 2020, at least 20% of thos e graduating in the European Higher 
Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad 
September 2009: In his Political Guidelines, President Barroso  announced: "Europe is a reality 
in everyday life also th rough exchange initiatives. At a time of  economic and social crisis, I feel 
very strongly that it is of par ticular importance to further the access of the young generation to 
the European dimension. To this end, I propos e to expand existing instruments like Erasmus into 
a new EU youth and mobility initiative, as part  of the EU 2020 strategy. By 2020 all young 
people in Europe must have the possibility to sp end a part of their educational pathway in other 
Member States. Such a "Youth on the Move" initia tive would be a decisive contribution to the 
promotion of cultural diversity, interc ultural dialogue and multilingual learning." 
In presenting the portfolio for Education,  Multilingualism and Yout h to Mrs Vassiliou, the 
President underlined that "More mobility for all and in all learning experiences should become 
the norm. I would like you to l aunch a "Youth on the Move" init iative in the course of 2010, 
highlighting the general needs of our young people with a particular focus on mobility." 
March 2010:  The Commission proposal for a Europe 2020 strategy6 sets out as one of its 
priorities to develop an economy ba sed on knowledge and innovation – " smart growth ", and 
highlights the flagship ini tiative: "Youth on the move"  to enhance the performance and 
international attractiveness of Eu rope's higher education institu tions and raise the overall quality 
of all levels of education and training in the EU, combining both excellence and equity, by 
promoting student mobility and trainees' mobil ity, and improve the employment situation of 
young people. 
March 2010: draft  Council  Conclusions on the social dimens ion of education and training 
highlight the need ' continue to eliminate ba rriers to, expand opportuniti es for, and improve the 
quality of, learning mobility, including by prov iding adequate incentives  for the mobility of 
students from disadvantaged backgrounds'  
                                                 
4 2009/C 119/02 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUr iServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF   
5 http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/Bo logna/conference/documents/Leuven_Louvain-la-
Neuve_Communiqué_April_2009.pdf   
6 http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN% 20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20- %20Europe%202020%20-
%20EN%20version.pdf   
 
EN 7   EN June 2010: expected Commission approval of a 'Yout h on the Move' package to include an 
overarching 'Youth on the move' strategy (Commi ssion Communication), to be accompanied by a 
Recommendation on actions necessary to expa nd and promote learning mobility by removing 
obstacles (Council Recommendation), the Communica tion will also announce further initiatives 
to be taken forward in the coming years. Propos als for programme resources in support of Youth 
on the Move will be elaborated within the context of an integrated Youth on the Move Programme 2014-20 and will be subject to separate wide-scale consultation and a separate Impact 
Assessment Report. 
1.2. Work on Impact Assessment 
July to December 2009: Green Paper 'Promoting the Lear ning Mobility of Young People'
7 
launched a wide-scale public consultation  which resulted in over 3,000 responses (2,798 via an 
on-line IPM questionnaire and 258 wr itten responses from national, regional or local authorities, 
associations and other stakeholders). 
The preparation of this Green Paper wa s carried out by an Inter Service Group ; DGs represented: 
EMPL, ENTR, INFSO, JLS, MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD and SG. This Group met twice (30 
January and 2 April 2009) and thei r input was valuable in refining the Green Paper, its associated 
consultation documents/tools and the target group s where the Green Paper should be promoted. 
March 2010:  an Inter-Service Steering Group  provided input to the drafting of the proposed 
Mobility Recommendation and Impact Assessmen t. DGs involved: EMPL, ENTR, INFSO, JLS, 
MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD and SG. The repr esentatives involved in this Group are the 
same as those who have co-operated on the work on the Green Paper, and as such were already 
attuned to the mobility aims and key obstacles. 
Given the complementarity of the policy field a nd the expected positive employment and social 
impacts of the initiative, a bilateral inter-se rvice brainstorming meeting between DGs EAC and 
EMPL was also held (8 February  2010). This meeting brought toge ther representatives of 3 EAC 
units and 4 EMPL units (Employment Analysis, Employment Strategy, Employment Services 
and Mobility, and Social Inclusion). Information was shared on complementary initiatives, tools 
and strategies planned or in progress e.g. work on child poverty, the social aspects of migration, 
active inclusion, a thematic focus on Youth under the Cambridge process, developments on Eures 
and a '1st job' (abroad) project. Thes e inputs have been taken on board in the proposal for a 
Recommendation and its associ ated Impact Assessment.  
An Inter Service meeting of all DGs involved was held 9th March to discuss the draft 
Recommendation and accompanying Impact Asse ssment. The comments of the services 
represented have been taken into account in the proposal for a Recommendation and in the 
Impact Assessment. 
A further Inter Service meeting is planned 22 Ap ril 2010 to discuss the fi nalisation of the draft 
Recommendation (ie. the preferred option of this Impact Assessment,  which will be presented in 
                                                 
7 http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/mobility/com329_en.pdf   
 
EN 8   EN the following sections) and other parts of the Y outh on the Move package before the formal inter-
service consultation.  
1.3. Purpose of the impact assessment report 
This impact assessment report aims to support a policy action at EU leve l to improve the cross-
border mobility of young people for learning purposes, which includes formal, non-formal and informal learning and volunteering. 
The Report defines the problem at stake as well as  the rationale for policy action at EU level and 
addresses the aims of the initiative in terms of ge neral and specific objectives. Finally, it presents 
a range of different policy options to achieve su ch objectives and an analysis and comparison of 
their possible impact. 
The results of the stakeholder c onsultation, as well as evidence material are presented, and ways 
to monitor and evaluate the implementati on of the proposed initi ative are addressed. 
1.4. Main sources of information and consultations 
The Impact Assessment has been informed by a wide-scale public and stakeholder  consultation 
which took place July–December 2009 on the Green Paper 'Promoting the Learning Mobility 
of Young People'
8 More than 3,000 responses were receive d to this consultation, (2,798 via an 
on-line IPM questionnaire and 258 wr itten responses from national, regional or local authorities, 
associations and other stakeholders). The majo rity of the individual responses (1,758 = 62.8%) 
were received from young people who are the focus of this initiative. 
The questions posed in the consultation specif ically focussed on key obstacles to learning 
mobility and as such has direct relevance for the formulation of the Recommendation's themes. 
The Results of the Green Paper  consultation have informed th is impact assessment and the 
proposal for a Council Recommendation. In pa rticular, the high numbe r of young people with 
direct experience of, or who are considering a learning mobility period abroad, which have provided feedback to the Green Paper consul tation has enhanced our understanding of the 
practical issues faced.  
Analysis of responses indicates that (in order of importance) the key issues  most often cited are: 
– "Information", and in particular a lack of  accessible and reliable information on the 
possibilities for study abroad and its benefits. Furthermore, awar eness of EU portals in support 
of mobility is disapointing, up to half of all respondents sa y they don't know the portals 
mentioned in the questionnaire.  
– "funding", including the availabil ity of financial resources in support of mobility and the 
portability of financial s upport (grants and loans).  
                                                
 
8 http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/mobility/com329_en.pdf   
 
EN 9   EN – "motivation" with poor awareness of the benefits of learning mobility. "Personal 
development" is considered by respondents to be the most im portant benefit of learning 
mobility followed by "foreign language skills", "A dded knowledge and/or skills in the area of 
specialisation" and "Int ercultural skills" .  
– "recognition and validation afte r return". problems with formal recognition of the study, 
volunteering or traineeship period. When examining the stay abroad and follow-up, over 
83.1% of respondents agree strongly or somewhat that: "The lack of full and easy validation 
and recognition of a learning or  training period abroad is st ill a significant obstacle to 
mobility". 
– "technical and legal barriers", such as with visas,  health and social security provisions are also 
cited 
These issues are consistent with, and have info rmed, the problem drivers identified in section 2. 
More information on the results of the Green Paper consultation can be found at Annex 2 In addition, proposals have also been inspired by: 
The work of the High Level Expert Forum on Mobility  (December 2007-June 2008), which 
brought together 11 members with expertise in fiel ds relevant to learning  mobility. These experts 
included governmental advisors, representatives from academia, from agencies involved in the 
management of EU mobility programmes, a member  of the governing board of the Confederation 
of German Employers' Association, a member of the European Economic and Social Committee 
and Chief Executive of Irish Children's Rights, a nd a member of the Commission's network of the 
Group of Societal Policy Analysis, and representatives with experien ce of specific sectors such as 
music, the Arts, heritage  and the culture sector. 
The Group found that current levels of geographi c mobility are low. Only 18% of Europeans 
have moved outside their region,  while only 4% have moved to another Member State and 3% 
outside the Union, which c ontrasts with the USA, where almost a third (32%) of the citizens live 
outside the state in which they were born. Neve rtheless, while almost 70% of the European 
citizens have no intention to move  on the near future, most of th em view geographical mobility 
very positively. In addition, different Member St ates and social groups show different mobility 
intentions; the propensity is currently higher in the new Member  States and in the Member States 
with liberal or social-democratic welfare regime s; more vulnerable workers are exposed to more 
involuntary job changes than their higher-skilled or better protected c ounterparts; voluntary 
mobility goes hand in hand with economic success,  both at country level and for individuals; 
young and educated workers are the most likely to move. The Group concluded that learning mobility should become a natural feature of being European 
and an opportunity provided to all young people in Europe. And stated that such mobility would contribute to two v ital policy goals:  
– to strengthen Europe's competitiveness, building its knowledge-intensive society; 
– and to deepen the sense of European identity  and citizenship within its youth generation. 
 
EN 10   EN Their final report - ' Making learning mobility an opportunity for all'  is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/2008/mobilityreport_en.pdf   
In the area of higher education, a Eurobarometer Survey9 was conducted, which interviewed 
15,000 students across 31 countries on their perceptions of highe r education reform, including 
notably on questions relation to mobility and ob stacles to the ambition of studying abroad. The 
survey asked students about mobility issues su ch as plans to study in another country and 
obstacles that might prevent (or have prevented)  them following such a path. The majority of 
interviewees (53%) said  they had intention to study abroa d, with 11% stating that they had 
planned to, but had abandoned their plans to st udy in another country. When asked about the 
various potential reasons for not studying abroad, they cite a range of obstacles such as a lack of 
funds, language barriers, a nd recognition difficulties. 
 
 
                                                 
9 Eurobarometer  Special Target Survey (March 2009) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_260_en.pdf   
 
EN 11   EN Mobility is an area which has been the subject of many studies and academic work , a review of 
this material has been undertaken in consider ation of the key obstacles to mobility and 
conclusions on action needed to remove these obst acles. In addition to the work of DG EAC, the 
JRC ipts (Sevilla) has provide d support in this exercise. 
No external expertise has been used for the preparation of the Impact Assessment; however, 
external expertise has been used for the analysis of responses to  the public consultation (Green 
Paper on Promoting the Learni ng Mobility of Young People) 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
Mobility has an important impact in that, as part  of the freedom of moveme nt of persons, it is a 
means of promoting employment, reducing povert y, and promoting active European citizenship 
by improving mutual and intercul tural understanding in the EU and boosting economic, social 
and regional cohesion.Learning mobility, i.e. tran snational mobility for the purpose of acquiring 
new skills is one of the fundamental ways in which individuals, particularly young people (aged 
16-35), can strengthen their future employabili ty as well as their personal development.  
Studies confirm that learning mobility adds to  human capital, as students access new knowledge 
and develop new linguistic skills and intercu ltural competences. Furthermore, employers 
recognise and value these benefits. Evidence s hows that, Europeans who are mobile as young 
learners are more likely to be mobile as workers later in life. They also tend to enjoy higher 
salaries and more rewarding careers.  
EU action, in particular through flagship progra mmes such as Erasmus in higher education and 
Youth in Action in the field of non-formal educati on, has done much to increase mobility and to 
provide financial support to individuals to make  this happen. Tools such as ECTS (European 
Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) and ECVET (European Credit system for Vocational 
Education and Training) for Cr edit Transfer and Accumulation and Europass and Youthpass to 
make an individual's skills and qualifications  more clearly and easily understood throughout 
Europe, act as powerful levers to facilitate mobility. 
However, still relatively few young people reap the benefits of a le arning experience abroad and 
some groups, such as young people from disa dvantaged backgrounds are particularly 
underrepresented10 (for example, during 2007/8 the number of  disabled students participating in 
Erasmus mobility represen ted only 0.1% of the total)11. At present, 380,000 mobilities per year 
are realised under the EU programmes (Lifelong Learning Progr amme, Youth in Action, Erasmus 
Mundus, Marie Curie Actions). There is a huge un tapped potential for increasing this number.  
Obstacles to learning mobility persist , too often, young people are de terred from engaging in 
mobility for learning purposes or encounter pr oblems when they undertake such mobility. 
Problems most often cited, as in dicated above, are: lack of information and guidance about 
                                                 
10  Key issues for the European Higher Education Area – Social Dimension and Mobility (2009) 
11  European Commission, DG EAC – Erasmus Statistics 
 
EN 12   EN mobility opportunities; difficulties with the recognition of studies completed in another country; 
limitations on the portability of financial support for study (gra nts and loans), legal hurdles 
relating to the status of young re searchers, trainees and volunt eers; and national restrictions 
which impede the development of joint programmes.  
Furthermore, there is an uneven distribution of flows of young people between Member States 
(with some countries net senders and others net receivers of mobile l earners). There are no 
specific EU wide studies available on this partic ular topic and the reasons behind imbalances, but 
available evidence suggests that  the language spoken in the host country is a strong determining 
factor as well as the overall attractiveness a nd perceived quality of the education system.  
Imbalances over the short-term do not have a substantial impact on the system or present an 
undue burden to individual Member  States, but longer-term unbala nces can place a strain on 
receiving countries educationa l systems in particular, and upon sending countries if mobile 
learners choose not to return to their home c ountry ('brain drain'). Evidence from European 
mobility programmes shows that the East-West im balance which currently exists, is gradually 
shrinking and some countries have introduced na tional policies aimed at rebalancing mobility 
flows, for example, by giving higher grants for students going to 'less popular destinations'.  
It should be stressed that freedom of movement be tween Member States is a fundamental pillar of 
EU rights, safeguarded by the Treaty. Restrictio ns on cross-border mobility for the purposes of 
study have been the subject of high profile co urt cases. A guidance note on the rulings of the 
European Court of Justice in th is area is being elaborated. 
2.1. EU instruments in support of learning mobility (baseline) 
Several instruments already exist at the European level in the context of removing obstacles to 
such mobility. In particular, three separate Recommendations in the areas of Education and 
Training and Youth: 
• A 2001 Council Recommendation on mobility within the Community for students, persons 
undergoing training, vol unteers, teachers12,  
• A complementary 2006 Council Recommendati on on the European Quality Charter for 
Mobility13.  
• A 2008 Council Recommendation on mobilit y of young volunteers across Europe14, which 
seeks to boost cooperation between organisers of  voluntary activities in the Member States of 
the European Union. 
Other provisions exist where the EU has compet ence to legislate, notab ly Directive 2004/38/EC 
on the right of citizens and their family members to reside freely within the territory of the 
                                                 
12 2001/613/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUr iServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:215:0030:0037:EN:PDF   
13 2006/961/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUr iServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0005:0009:EN:PDF   
14 2008/C 319/03 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUr iServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:319:0008:0010:EN:PDF   
 
EN 13   EN Member States and a Directive on the recogniti on of professional qualif ications (205/36/EC). 
However, it should be noted that Directive 205/36/EC is aimed professional recognition for 
employment purposes and not for citizens wishi ng to study in another Member State (academic 
recognition) and has a particular focus on cer tain professions such as in medicine. 
In addition, EU programmes seek to provide di rect financial support for mobility. Most notably 
the Lifelong Learning Programme (€ 7bn), Eras mus Mundus (€ 953m), Youth in Action (€ 885 
m), and Marie Curie (€ 4.75 bn). In 2008 there we re approximately 370,000 mobile learners in 
EU mobility programmes (Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Comenius, Grundvig, Youth in Action 
and Erasmus Mundus) 15 
Erasmus, the EU's flagship mobility programme , celebrated its 2 millionth mobile student in 
2009. Growth in participation in Erasmus has, how ever, slowed in recent years. In 2008 there 
were 183,000 Erasmus students and it is estimated  that only around 4% of European students 
have had the opportunity to participate in the Erasmus programme during their studies. Further 
baseline data on mobility can be found at Annex 1. It should be noted that baseline data on youth 
mobility outside European programmes is lacking. A Member State Expert Group has been established (2010) to examine available da ta and propose an EU benchmark on mobility. 
The Bologna process, an intergovernmental pr ocess involving 47 coun ties (including all EU 
member states), offers potential for synergies in  the area of higher education. A work programme 
is agreed, which receives orientations from minist erial conferences every two/three years, this is 
supported and receives input from working groups and seminars. Higher edu cation priorities for 
the decade 2010-20 are: 
• social dimension: equitable access and completion,  
• lifelong learning;  
• employability;  
• student-centred learning and the teac hing mission of higher education;  
• education, research and innovation;  
• international openness;  
• mobility;  
• data collection;  
• multidimensional transparency tools;  
• funding.  
Progress within the framework of Bologna can act as an impetus for agreem ents at an EU-level, 
for example, an EU level target on mobility will be inspired by the 20% higher education 
mobility target agreed by Bologna Ministers in 2009.  
2.2. Specific Problems and underlying drivers 
The specific problems are summarised below. The underlying problem drivers which prevent 
learning mobility becoming a rea listic opportunity mainly arise fr om obstacles in the national 
                                                
 
15 European Commission DG EAC 
 
EN 14   EN context. In some cases this is a result of administra tive or legal barriers, in others it is due to lack 
of information about opportunities for mobility  and individual rights and entitlements.  
Information shortfalls and motivation : insufficient information is available and easily 
accessible to young people considering a mobility  experience, for example, 66% of those 
interviewed by Eurobarometer on the subject cite d this as a problem (see 1.4 above). Student 
guidance services, teachers, trai ners and counselors are often una ware of the possibilities for 
study abroad and of the benefits of such mobility.  
Set against the provisions of the 2001 Counc il Recommendation, evaluation indicates that 
Member State progress is mixed in this area. Su ch mixed progress may be linked to the nature of 
this problem, which is dynamic and requires ongoi ng efforts as new potentially mobile learners 
emerge. Furthermore, whilst efforts may have b een made to increase the availability of 
information, these may have failed to reach their target groups.  
Similarly, success in encouraging students and pupils to complete part of their studies in another 
Member State is very mixed, with many Memb er States not prioritising such actions. 
Language and culture : mastery of a foreign language is in strumental in enga ging in successful 
cross-border learning mobility; yet too few young people have the requisite language skills. 70% 
of those interviewed by Eurobarometer (see secti on 1.4 above) highlighted lack of language skills 
as a barrier to their mobility. Increased awaren ess of cultural and social differences, including 
those relating to teaching and learning, are also needed to foster a posi tive learning experience. 
Good progress can be noted in the availability of  linguistic and cultural preparation for mobility 
periods, and to some degree in the expansion of language learning in the mainstream curriculum. 
However, continued problems are reported as regards to the level of fluency attained in order to 
undertake learning programmes in a foreign language. Furthermore, lesser-spoken languages 
continue to be disadvantaged in this regard, with many smaller countries increasingly opting to 
offer programmes in English.  
Legal issues : such as the status of young researchers,  trainees, volunteers, problems relating to 
health and social security coverage and the absence of a coherent legal framework for the 
mobility of minors continue to pose unnecessary hurdles, which in some cases prove insurmountable. Added to this, are difficulties su rrounding visas and the implementation of visa 
Directives for third country nationals wishing to come to the EU to study, do research or engage 
in volunteering. 
Cross-border working on curriculum development betw een institutions and agencies can also be 
impeded by national legislative frameworks which place restrictions on the development of joint 
(cross-border) educat ion and training programmes and degrees e.g. by specifying that 
programmes must be delivered an d assessed in the national language . In several countries, it is 
not legally possible for universities to deliver an international joint degree. 
Evaluation of progress shows that legal issues ar e an area where progress is  particularly lacking 
and many problems remain. Given the broad range of  legal issues, the reasons for shortcomings 
in implementation are varied; however, legal changes which could give rise to rights or 
 
EN 15   EN entitlements that may lead to an increased de mand upon public finances (in particular where 
benefits are not available in other countries) may face particul ar scrutiny or resistance eg. 
extending accessibility of benefits  (other than social security) available to domestic students to 
students from other Member States – public tr ansport subsidies, accommodation support etc. 
Restrictions on the portability of financial support (grants and loans): trainees, researchers 
and students are often faced with difficulties wh en moving between countries and accessing, or 
continuing to benefit from grants and loans. 
Despite rulings of the European Court on the portab ility of grant assistance, this continues to be 
an area of confusion and frustrat ion for many mobile citizens. Po rtability of loans for education 
and training purposes, especially as  concerns support for living cost s, are even more fraught; with 
accessibility a particular issue and substantial differences in residency requirements between 
Member States. Aside from concerns over the potential cost implications of full portability of all types of grants and loans and the potential for imbalanced burden between Member States, lack of progress in this area may al so be attributable to accessibility of information on national 
schemes to the target groups, and the absence of a clear presentati on of the EU jurisprudence in 
this area for administrative levels. 
Recognition and validation of the stay abroad: A key consideration for young people thinking 
about a mobility period abroad is the value of such an experience, not only as enriching personal 
development (which in itself is important), but al so to enhance their employability and to deepen 
their knowledge and understandin g of their field of study or practice in another setting. 
Understandably, where doubts exist over the recogn ition and formal validation of such a mobility 
period, many people choose not to go. Recognition is one of the most frequently cited difficulties 
by young people engaging in mobility (65% of  those interviewed on the subject by 
Eurobarometer); and is especially problematic as  concerns non formal and informal learning and 
for volunteering moves. 
Analysis of the implementation of the 2001  Council Recommendation indicates that good 
progress exists as regards the recognition of quali fications completed in another Member State. A 
clear commitment and concrete action on the part of Member States to 'encourage the creation of 
a European Qualification Area' can be seen, including via the establishment of national 
qualifications frameworks linked to the European  Qualifications Framework. The existence of 
European-level tools and frameworks to facilita te the recognition of formal academic study, in 
particular the ECTS (European Credit Transfer  and Accumulation System), and the 'Diploma 
Supplement' in higher education, which makes th e content of individual qualifications more 
transparent, has done much to stimulate progre ss. Monitoring and assessm ent of Member State 
progress in this area has been closely followe d up at European level, via the production of 
specific and regular analysis and the agreement of timelines, and active sharing of experience 
through peer learning and the promotion of good practices.  
Member State progress on recognition and valid ation of informal and non-formal learning 
undertaken in another country (i ncluding volunteering) is notabl y lacking. This is much more 
complex in its nature and in many Member States the frameworks to make this happen (including 
for the validation of such learning undertaken in  a domestic context) are not yet developed. In 
addition, decisions on recogniti on and validation may fall under the competence of several 
 
EN 16   EN different agencies, or individual learning institutions, and as such  will suffer from any lack in 
joined-up working.  
Linked to issues of recognition, quality assurance  and the importance of high quality in all 
mobility activities is essential,  with 62% of those interviewed by Eurobarometer on barriers to 
mobility citing concerns over quality as an obstacl e to mobility. A European Quality Charter for 
Mobility was agreed in 2006, but outside Europ ean programmes, uptake of this Charter is 
disappointing. Information on the reas ons for this is not available. 
In addition, structural rigidities result from sectorally-focussed working . Too often 
national/local departments and ag encies dealing with different target groups (h igher education 
students, school pupils, volunteers etc) do not work in a joined- up fashion, despite the potential 
for synergies and the existence of shar ed problems between  target groups. 
This assessment of key obstacles is echoed by the Bologna process on co-operation in higher 
education, which highlights that many challenges to mobility remain , especially with regard to: 
visas, residence and work permits; recognition of  qualifications; financial incentives (including 
portable student loans and grants ); pension arrangements; and joint programmes and flexible 
curricula16  
Overall, when looking at the diffe rent approaches taken by indivi dual Member States, the reasons 
why a specific provision highlighted in the 2001 Council Recommendation was successful (or 
not) are many and varied. Some countries have introduced mobility strategies or established 
interdepartmental committees as is the case in Ire land to look at barriers across all areas. Whilst 
others have focussed on specific initiatives or ar eas of specific concern in their country, e.g. 
Belgium Flanders has ensured that foreign studen ts in Flemish institutions have access to the 
same social benefits as domes tic students (housing, cheap meals,  free public transport etc), in 
some cases leading to mixed results.  
Furthermore, and in line with the assessment by specific problem above, it is clear that some 
elements of the 2001 Recommendation were 'easier'  to deliver upon than others and bring more 
visible outcomes. More problematic  areas are often those which re quired changes to legislation 
and/or administrative regulations and which invol ve cross-agency working at Member State level 
eg. for the portability of grants and loans or measures to apply e qual or comparable treatment to 
different target groups such as the legal status of volunteers/trainees. 
Problems, challenges and opportunities which have emerged since the 2001  Council 
Recommendation include:  
Substantial technological progress , including Information a nd Communication Technologies 
(ICTs), brings new opportunities for virtual m obility and for accessibility of information on 
mobility possibilities/preparing mobility 
                                                 
16 Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009 - 
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/ hogeronderwijs/bologna/confer ence/documents/Stocktaki ng_report_200 9_FINAL.pdf   
 
EN 17   EN More emphasis is increasingly placed upon the social dimension  eg. as HE becomes more 
accessible to non-traditional learners such as t hose from disadvantaged backgrounds these groups 
will have different needs to the traditional student body, perhaps more financial support but 
especially cultural/aspira tional and guidance support 
New partnership models  and new alliances are an increa singly common aim of educational 
establishment, yet these can be restricted due to  administrative and legi slative barriers to co-
operation. Joint working is more of a feature th an 10 years ago eg. for the delivery of joint 
degrees, yet many countries do not permit their accre ditation bodies to certify joint programmes. 
Extra EU mobility  is increasingly demanded by students as  part of the curriculum, yet the 
availability of information on oppor tunities for learning mobility  outside the EU and academic 
recognition of periods spent outside  the EU is particularly weak and in the case of incoming 
students legal and administrative  barriers are particularly acu te (e.g. visa restrictions). 
The economic crisis has led to a reduction in budge ts available to support mobility initiatives and 
implementing institutions in many countries, maki ng it more difficult for young people to afford 
a mobility period. Conversely, more young people, faced with a difficul t labour market, are 
seeking to differentiate themselves in order to  be more attractive to employers and/or defer 
potential unemployment  
Furthermore, it should be noted that the ex isting legislative framework (the 2001 Council 
Recommendation) was agreed before the accessi on of newer Member States. The circumstances 
and mobility challenges of these countries may di ffer somewhat to 'older' Member States Eg. 
Central and Eastern European countries have experienced large mobility outflows for study and 
employment.  
2.3. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 
Those affected are young people (primarily those aged 16-35), and in pa rticular students and 
learners who have chosen (or who wish) to purs ue a part of their lear ning pathway in another 
Member State. They face unnecessary obstacles a nd restrictions which inhibit their ability to 
engage in cross-border learning. The extent of these barriers to mobility results in many people 
being deterred from engaging in mobility.  
2.4. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 
A 2001 Council Recommendation on mobility within  the Community of students, persons 
undergoing training, volunteers and teachers and trainers17 seeks to guide Member State action in 
removing obstacles to learning mobility. A 2004 Report on the implementation of this 
Recommendation by Member States18 recognised that some progr ess has taken place, and the 
Recommendation was effective to a cer tain extent., but highlights that '..the share of the actually 
                                                 
17 2001/613/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUr iServ.do?uri=OJ:L: 2001:215:0030:0037:EN:PDF  
18 COM(2004) 21  Report from the Commission to the Coun cil, the European Parliament, the Eu ropean Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions - Report on the follow-up to the Recommendation of th e European Parliament and the Council of 10 
July 2001 on mobility within the Community of students, pers ons undergoing training, volunt eers and teachers and trainers  
 
EN 18   EN mobile persons in education and training clearly indicates that much more still has to be done. 
People have to be persuaded of the benefits of a learning related mobility experience.'  
Without substantial increased visibility and renewed efforts by Member States and competent 
national, regional and local organisations, progress in reducing obstacles will be insufficient to realise the shared goal of the EU and Member St ates of making mobility an opportunity for all. 
The low and static proportion (a pproximately 10% of the releva nt population cohort, of which 
4% in EU supported programmes) of people who effectively partic ipate in mobility in education 
and training make it clear that much more e ffort is needed (see Annex 1 for a detailed 
presentation) 
Following the specific Report on the fo llow-up of the Recommendation (2004),
 19 monitoring was 
subsequently integrated into na tional reporting in the contex t of the broader Education and 
Training Work Programme 2010 ( open method of co-ordination). The incorporation of the 
monitoring and follow-up of the Recommendati on into the Education and Training 2010 OMC 
from 2004 onwards led to a shift in focus away fr om mobility. It is fair  to say that the 2001 
Council Recommendation has largely fallen into di suse.  Whilst progress against some areas is 
substantial, this has been more marked in areas  followed up within the context of specific actions 
or initiatives at EU level.  Other areas, notably at the national or regional  level have fared less 
well overall, and in some cases insufficient informa tion is available to assess if adequate progress 
has been made. A detailed presentation of to  what degree areas of the 2001 Recommendation 
have worked is included at Annex 4.  
2.5. Basis for EU action 
Education, Youth and Training Polic y is an area where the EU has supporting competence  as 
defined by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Lisbon Treaty). 
The Treaty (articles 165 and 166) provides that 'The Community shall contribute to the 
development of quality education by encouragi ng cooperation between Member States and, if 
necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action' and in particular, foresees that 
Community action shall be aimed at ' encouraging mobility of students and teachers, by 
encouraging inter alia, the academic rec ognition of diplomas and periods of study' as well as at  
"encouraging the development of youth exch anges and of exchanges of socio-educational 
instructors". 
This Recommendation conforms to the principle of subsidiarity referred to in Article 5 of the 
Treaty insofar as Community action, complemen ting action by the Member States, is necessary 
for the obstacles to mobility to be removed. It is important to that end, to emphasise that mobility 
requires Community intervention because by its nature it entails transnational aspects. This Recommendation also conforms to the principle of proportionality referred to in that Article 
because it does not go beyond what is necessa ry to achieve the objectives pursued.  
                                                
 
19 COM(2004) 21   
 
EN 19   EN The EU adopts a twin-track approach to taki ng forward this mission, through policy cooperation 
with EU Member States, and through the implem entation of the Lifelong Learning and Youth in 
Action Programmes which provide funding in support of mobility actions (i.e. Erasmus, 
Comenius, Leonardo, Grundtvig).  
Much progress has been made in opening up mobility opportunities for young people across 
Europe. However, further and sustained action will be necessary to make transnational learning mobility truly an opportunity for all. Policy initia tives and programme resources at the EU level 
have been put in place to facilitate mobility, bu t challenges remain, especi ally at the national and 
regional level. Proposals for removing obstacles to learning mobility for young people will seek 
to update and refocus the existing 2001 C ouncil Recommendation on mobility within the 
Community for students, persons undergoing traini ng, volunteers, teachers and trainers, and will 
be complementary to other initiatives in this area, including notably proposals for a Community 
spending programme for Youth on the Move. 
3. O
BJECTIVES  
3.1. The main policy objectives to be achiev ed are to make learning mobility an 
opportunity for all, via: 
– The elimination of barriers to learning  mobility at national/regional levels 
– The promotion of learning mobility 
3.2. Specific/operational objectives 
Based upon the underlying drivers/obstacles to  mobility set out in section 2.1 above,  
• improve the availability and accessibly of re liable information on the possibilities for study 
abroad and its benefits 
• improve language skills, consistent with the aims of the multilingualism strategy, including the 
target of "Mother tongue plus two (foreign languages) for every citizen20  
• remove legal and administrative barriers to the development of cross-border joint study 
programmes and other forms of learning mobility 
• reduce legal and administrative ba rriers relating to health and social security coverage for 
young researchers, trainees and volunteers  
• promote a coherent legal framewor k for the mobility of minors 
• reduce or remove restrictions on the portability of student financ ial support (gra nts and loans) 
                                                 
20 Council Resolution on a European strategy for multilingualism 2008/C 320/01 http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:320:0001:01:EN:HTML   
 
EN 20   EN • improve recognition and validation for formal, non-formal and informal learning completed 
abroad 
• increase opportunities for young people from un derrepresented groups (lower socio economic 
backgrounds, minority ethnic groups, disabled peopl e) to participate in learning mobility  
• encourage a focus not only on in creasing mobility in quantita tive terms but, above all, on 
improving its quality, including vi a increased take-up of the voluntary European Quality 
Charter for mobility 
• encourage cross-sectoral working, in order to facilita te shared solutions common to different 
target groups 
• enable a better comparison of progress between Member States and reinforce peer learning, 
via an effective monitoring process 
It should be stressed that whilst it is appropriate to set out the ar eas where action is particularly 
needed by Member States in order to realise mo bility as an opportunity for all, Recommendations 
at the EU level should not be ove rly prescriptive: it will be for Member States themselves, in 
respect of the subsidiarity principle, to define how this will be taken forward  
3.3. Consistency of these objectives with other EU policies and horizontal objectives 
As one of the four strategic objectives of the Education and Training 2020 work programme, 
mobility contributes to the creation of the Europ ean Area of Education and Training and plays an 
essential part in supporting 's mart growth' as set out in th e Europe 2020 Strategy proposals. 
Promoting mobility of young people is also underlin ed in the EU Youth Strategy: Investing and 
Empowering as a means to achieve the overall objectives of European youth cooperation. 
The elimination of obstacles to mobility and the promotion of mobility for the purposes of 
learning are fundamental to the aspirations set ou t in the 'Youth on the Move' initiative. Youth on 
the Move (YoM) is a flagship EU  initiative to support the Eur ope 2020 Strategy. The aim is to 
"enhance the performance and international attr activeness of Europe's higher education 
institutions and raise the overal l quality of all levels of education and training in the EU, 
combining both excellence and equity, by promoti ng student mobility and trainees' mobility, and 
improve the employment situation of young people.21 It will pursue five main lines of action: 
• Higher education  educates highly skilled workers and contributes to the research base and 
capacity for innovation that determine co mpetitiveness in a knowledge-based economy. 
Europe needs to raise the percen tage of young people participating in higher education to keep 
up with competitors. It also needs  to improve the quality a nd attractiveness of higher 
education and make university studies more open to the rest  of the world and equipped to 
respond to the challenges of globalisation. Student mobility ha s played a key role in the 
"internationalisation" of higher education, which has raised sta ndards considerably and led to 
                                                 
21 "A strategy for smart,sustainable and inclusive growth". COM (2010) 2020 
 
EN 21   EN the emergence of worldwide university rankings. The EU should step up efforts to promote 
more and better student mobility. 
• The EU's long track record of supporting mobility  through various programmes and initiatives 
will need to be reviewed, expanded and linked up with national and regional resources in order 
to meet the ambitions of Europe 2020. Obstacles  to mobility need to be tackled. The aim is 
that by 2020 all young people in Europe should have  the possibility to spend a part of their 
educational pathway in another Member State.  
• Smart and inclusive growth also depends on actions throughout the lifelong learning  system, 
to secure key competences, including solid basi c skills, and quality learning outcomes. The 
high level of early school leaving needs to be tackled. Opportunities for learning mobility 
should also be more widely accessible to all young people, including those in non-formal and informal learning arrangements. 
• Europe must improve the employment situation of young people.  A Youth employment 
framework should be launched outlining polici es aimed at reducing youth unemployment 
rates, facilitating the transition from school  to work and promoting labour mobility 
• Europe needs to extend and broaden learning  opportunities to young people as a whole and 
promote their active involvement  in society.  
4. P
OLICY OPTIONS  
Policy options considered: 
• No EU Action/Status Quo 
• A new Council Recommendation: Youth on th e Move: Youth on the Move: Promoting the 
learning mobility of young people, monitore d through the existing Ed ucation and Training 
2020 Open Method of Co-ordination 
• A new and standalone Open Me thod of Co-ordination (OMC) fo r the Learning Mobility of 
Young People 
• Legislative options such as a Regulation or Directive  
• Increased investment via an EU programme  
• Commission Recommendation  
4.1. Options considered unfeasible and discarded at an early stage: 
• Legislative options  such as a Regulation or Directive – the Community has no competence to 
issue such instruments in the area of Education and Training policy. Furthermore, in the case 
 
EN 22   EN of a Regulation, the natu re of the problems to be addres sed and the divers ity of national 
approaches do not lend themselves we ll to this type of instrument 
• Increased investment via an EU programme  – the Commission will explore the possibility 
to make extra resources available to support le arning mobility when it makes proposals for the 
integrated Youth on the Move Programme in  2011. However, whilst increased resources 
would certainly assist in achieving the general objectives of increasing learning mobility, and 
provide support to individuals to overcome so me of the obstacles identified (eg. financial 
barriers to mobility, or information campaigns to promote the value of mobility),extra funding 
alone will not be sufficient to unblock progress in some key areas eg. legal restrictions on 
portability of grants and loan s, or continued problems with  recognition and validation.  
• Commission Recommendation  –. Given the importance of th e objectives and the focus of 
proposed follow-up, and in particular that some  of the key obstacles to mobility are at 
national/regional level, a Council Recomme ndation would set a st rong, and consistent 
message for implementation (the existing texts which this initiative seeks to build upon are 
Council Recommendations). In the event that a Commission Recommenda tion were pursued it 
is unlikely that this would be sufficiently powe rful to trigger the cha nges required to achieve 
the specific and operatio nal objectives outlined in section 3 above.  
Following an assessment of possible options, three main options emerge as those most realistic 
and feasible, and are in line with the narrow scope for EU intervention in the field of education 
and training. 
4.2. Option 1: No EU Action/Status Quo 
The status quo is based upon thre e separate Recommendations in  the areas of Education and 
Training and Youth as deta iled in section 2.5 above. 
The implementation of these Recommendations is monitored via the Open Method of Co-
ordination (OMC) in Education a nd Training and via a separate OMC in the 'Youth' field. 'Open 
method of coordination' focuses on the definitio n of common objectives and the monitoring of 
progress towards agreed benchmarks, supporte d by peer learning amongst Member States.  
As highlighted above, the 2001 Council Recommendati on is the key text in this area but is now 
somewhat out of date and has fallen into disuse . Much progress has been made in some areas 
(such as the introduction of the European Credit  Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and 
the European Credit system for Vocational Educ ation and Training (ECV ET), quality assurance 
and the development of EU programmes in suppor t of learning mobility), but in other areas 
progress has been slow and is still lacking (eg. full validation and recognition of learning periods abroad, legal and administrative barriers for trainees, portability of grants and loans). Furthermore, new challenges have emerged in  the 10 years since the Recommendation was 
adopted, which were not addressed by the original  text: a greater awarene ss of the employability 
benefits and a stronger focus on the social dime nsion (disadvantaged groups) of mobility, and 
substantial increases in mobility  beyond the EU's borders both in terms of EU citizens going 
further afield to study and in students from outsi de being attracted to study in the EU. A fuller 
 
EN 23   EN analysis of uptake of this Recommendation and new challeng es can be found in section 2.3 and 
Annex 4. 
Even if fully implemented, the 2001 Recommendation would be insufficient to  address all current 
obstacles to mobility, as a result of new challe nges and it would be difficult to revive this 
Recommendation in its current form and the sectoral approach taken by the Recommendation 
may compound structur al rigidities.  
Based upon past experience, it ca n be expected that the current  pace of progress in removing 
obstacles to mobility will not deliver a change co nsistent with the political aspiration of mobility 
as an opportunity for all and will be insufficient to  raise mobility levels in line with agreed or 
planned benchmarks. 
4.3. Option 2: A Council Recommendation: Yout h on the Move: Promoting the learning 
mobility of young people 
Building upon the 2001 Council Recommendation and subsequent texts on learning mobility and 
on transnational volunteering a new Recommendation would be elaborated to take account of 
progress since 2001 and new obstacles which ha ve arisen in the in tervening 10 years. 
Whilst the 2001 Recommendation adopted a sectoral  approach to examining obstacles and 
formulating proposals, a new R ecommendation should focus on a cro ss-sectoral approach thus 
ensuring increased visibility and a more co-ordin ated approach across sectors where obstacles are 
often shared rather than distinct. 
Evaluation of progress in implementing the 20 01 Recommendation has revealed that obstacles 
remain entrenched, and in some areas and for some  countries efforts to remove obstacles are not 
visible at all eg. national legislat ion facilitating the porta bility of grants to support living expenses 
of students or volunteers. A new 2010 Recomme ndation to Member States would call for 
renewed action on areas where prog ress lags behind, advoc ate increased cross-sectoral work to 
remove obstacles and set out which further obstacl es have emerged in recent years and for which 
action is required as detailed in section 2.3 above and Annex 5. The role of this Council 
Recommendation in removing obstacles to learning m obility are part of a wider suite of Youth on 
the Move actions, which together represent a co mprehensive and co-ordinated approach covering 
both policy and programme elements, with action fo reseen at both national and European levels  
A Council Recommendation would propose Member  State action in the following areas:  
• Providing easily accessible, up-to-date an d comprehensive information on mobility 
opportunities (eg. by reach ing out to underrepresented groups  via the use of innovative ICT 
tools such as social networking websites, or by setting up mobility counselling facilities in 
university campuses) 
• Motivating young people to be mobile by explaini ng the benefits of learning mobility (eg. by 
providing targeted information/ case studies in co-ope ration with business a bout the value of a 
learning mobility expe riences to employers) 
• Improving language skills and intercultural awar eness (eg. through changes to the curriculum, 
including the provision of mobility preparation courses) 
 
EN 24   EN • Facilitating mobility to and from  the EU by reducing administrative and legal burdens related 
to the exchange with Third C ountries (e.g. by addressing visa re strictions for non-EU learners) 
• Removing restrictions on the development of  cross-border joint study programmes and other 
forms of learning mobility 
• Reducing legal and administrative barriers relating to health and social security coverage for 
young researchers, trainees and volu nteers (eg. by clarifying the le gal status of some groups of 
mobile young people (apprentices , volunteers, researchers)) 
• Reducing or removing restrictions on the portab ility of student financ ial support (grants and 
loans) 
• Improving recognition and validation procedures fo r formal, non-formal and informal learning 
completed abroad (eg. through adoption of validat ion procedures which adequately evaluate 
and certify learning gained as part of volunteering in another Member State) 
• Addressing specific obstacles face d by disadvantaged groups (eg. fi nancial constraints, better 
guidance and support to increase aspiration) 
• Mobilising actors via 'mobility partnerships', in particular the business community, NGOs and 
local level authorities in co-opera tion with learning institutions.  
All elements above are equally im portant. See annex 5 for more de tail on concrete actions to be 
proposed at Member State level. 
A 'mobility scoreboard' would be introduced as part of the existing monitoring and reporting 
framework under the Open Method of Co-ordina tion in Education and Tr aining (ET2020). This 
scoreboard would allow for transparent assessm ent of progress and comparison across countries. 
As set out in section 1.2, the political commitm ent (at both EU and Member State level) to 
increasing learning mobility and addressing the ba rriers to mobility has ne ver been higher. This 
strong political commitment linked to recommendations for action in  areas of identified need, and 
followed up by a transparent and fo cussed monitoring mechanism is expected to lead to a good 
uptake of the Recommendation and represents a significant advance on the circumstances 
surrounding the earlier 2001 Recommendation.  
4.4. Option 3: A new Open Method of Co-ordinat ion (OMC) for the learning mobility of 
young people 
Description  
Member States will be asked to formulate nation al action plans for the removal of obstacles to 
mobility and to report on progress on a bi-annua l basis to the Commis sion. Common objectives 
and benchmarks would be agreed at the EU le vel in order to monitor progress. Based upon the 
national reports, the Commission would present a bi-annual assessment  of progress across 
Member States and observati ons at country-level regardi ng strengths and weaknesses in 
removing obstacles to learning mobility. 
A 'mobility scoreboard' would be introduced and incorporated into the new OMC monitoring and 
reporting framework, in order to complement the country-specific analysis and allow for 
 
EN 25   EN transparent assessment of progress and comparis on across countries. This element is common 
with Option 2. 
The new OMC would work in parallel and be i ndependent of other existing OMCs, such as on 
Education and Training Strategic Framework 2020 and the Youth OMC. 
A fresh impetus and an increased visibility, comb ined with the potential for clear comparison of 
progress between countries could be expected to act as a stimulus to driving forward progress in 
this area, in particular in addressing objectives which are linked to information sharing and learning from experience elsewhere eg. encour aging the development of partnerships and 
exchanges between education intuitions to addre ss linguistic and cultural obs tacles, or using more 
creative methods for language learning.  
However, the establishment of a new OMC woul d bring an additional administrative burden, both 
at national and EU levels. Furthermore, this opti on is limited to its nature of 'soft law' which 
could weaken its potential impact compared to a legal instrument, in particular as regards 
addressing legal and administrative barriers at the Member State level. As compared with Option 
2, the absence of a Recommendation as the initial driver of the exercise risks to weaken the 
collective effort. 
5. A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Likely economic, social and environmen tal impacts of the short-listed options 
The estimated economic, social and environmen tal impact assessment below is based upon 
qualitative judgement. 
The option "status quo" would have a small but limited economic and social impact because it 
implies no further action at EU level.  
Both options 2 (a new Council Recommendation) a nd 3 (a new standalone OMC) would lead to 
more substantial positive econom ic and social impacts due to  an increased volume of young 
people engaging in learning mobility, which has proven benefits for their employment and cultural integration. It is expected that Option 2 has greater impacts for social groups, as it will 
bring about concrete action on the part of Member  States across all objectives. Given the nature 
of the instrument, it is could be expected to be more successful than Option 3 in driving progress 
in 'harder' areas, such as those involving revisi ons to legislation or changes in administrative 
procedures eg. making study grants and loans more portable, introducing changes to the 
curriculum or ensuring na tional laws do not impede joint (cro ss-border) educational programmes, 
and in cross-sectoral issues. S ee Annex 5 for a fuller assessment. 
In this respect, it should be noted that in particular young peopl e from disadvantaged 
backgrounds or for whom mobility was beyond reach, are expected to benef it particularly from 
the removal of specific barriers which disadvantage them. Thus they can expect to benefit from 
increased social (re)integrati on through the expansion of opportun ities (to all) for learning 
mobility. These options offer the potential to strengthen commitment to improve young people's 
 
EN 26   EN economic integration through the development of increased and broader skills and through the 
expansion of their horizons and aspirations. 
This is in line with the New Skills for New J obs initiative which specifically highlights the 
importance of the removal of obstacles, including adminis trative barriers, to the free movement 
of workers in the EU, as well as more transpar ent information on labour market trends and skills 
requirements, would contribute to the prom otion of occupational, sector and geographical 
mobility and allow a better match between peoples ' skills and job opportunities. Mobility periods 
during education and training (e.g. via the Erasmus and Leonardo programmes) help make 
people more open to mobility later in their working lives.  22As regards environmental impact, 
increased mobility may give rise to increase d carbon emissions as a re sult of more travel. 
However, the overall increase in volume is likely to be relatively discrete when compared to overall emissions. Furthermore, several proj ects supported by the European Commission 
Lifelong Learning Programme are seeking to explore new and jo int curricula in areas of 
environmental sustainability and 'green' sectors. At the same time, several activities financed by 
the Youth in Action Programme also contribut e to raising the awareness of young people on 
environmental issues and promoting "green " behaviours. Options  such as virtual 
mobility/internationalisation at home, can be a valuable complement to physical mobility, but 
should not act as a substitute. 
5.2. Assessment of administrative burden 
The criteria used for the estimation of the ad ministrative costs combine quantitative (EU level 
only) and qualitative aspects (at EU and Member State level).  
Option 1 (status quo) requires no additional admini strative burden or cost because it involves no 
further action on the part of the EU or national authorities.  
Option 2 (a new Council Recommendation) will imply some additional costs for implementing 
agencies, institutions and government departments in the design of new strategies or revision of legislation to make learning mobility easier fo r young people. However, such costs could be 
partly offset by the benefits of mobility a nd through improved information sharing and cross-
sectoral working at national and local level. Furt hermore, such costs woul d largely be limited in 
time e.g. during the revision of legislation. The administrativ e burden of monitoring and 
reporting is expected to be neutral as this would be inco rporated into existing frameworks 
(Education and Training 2020 OMC) , which would be re-oriented for this purpose . Guidelines 
issued to Member States for the completion of their national reports w ould include a specific 
section on removal of obstacles to mobility, including a requirement for self-assessment by 
Member States in the format of the mobility scoreboard, supported by relative qualitative and 
quantitative data. Whilst this represents an i nnovation, it will replace some of the existing 
reporting under ET2020 and as such lead to no overall increase in the administrative burden, 
which is already provided for at  national and European-level). 
                                                
 
22 COM/2008/0868 Commission Communication New Skills for New Jobs - Anticipating and matching labour market and skills needs  
 
EN 27   EN Option 3 (a new standalone OMC) will lead to the highest additional administrative burden at 
both EU and national levels, as it will requ ire the establishment of a new framework for 
monitoring and reporting (agreem ent of common objectives, submi ssion of action plans/national 
reports, EU-level monitoring a nd reporting). This would be in addition to existing OMC 
processes, and based upon the model which exists  in the areas of Education and Training, 
Employment, Social Protection and Inclusion a nd would have resource implications both at 
national and at European level. Based upon expe rience of such co-operation in Education and 
Training policy, the estima ted direct cost at European leve l would be approximately 3.3 m€ per 
year, plus a human resource implication of 5 full time equivalent posts. Costs at national level 
associated with monitoring and reporting have  not been estimated, but these would be 
commensurate with the levels of resource committed to existing OMC processes. 
 
5.3. Impacts outside the EU  
Both inward mobility (third country nationals travelling to the EU for learning purposes) and 
outward mobility (EU citizens travelling abroad  to study, volunteer or to do research) have 
positive and far-reaching benefits in cultural understanding and increased propensity for 
academic and economic links. This may also include  positive spill-over effects in the area of 
external relations through impr oved understanding and partnershi ps. The conditions of admission 
of third-country nationals for th e purposes of studies , pupil exchange, unremunerated training or 
voluntary service are set out  in a Council Directive23. EU Member States s hould make all efforts 
possible to facilitate such mobility experien ces e.g. by improved study visa arrangements, 
promotion of the value of, and providing ade quate recognition for, studying in other world 
regions. Qualitative criteria have been used for the estimation of impacts. 
Whilst all three options aim for an increase in mobility flows due to reduced obstacles, Option 1 
is expected to have a limited impact on extra EU mobility, since the 2001 Council 
Recommendation does not addr ess this specifically. 
Option 2 is expected to bring wider positive imp acts for mobility outside the EU, given that a 
new Council Recommendation will explicitly target  this aspect, eg. by promoting greater co-
operation and the establishment of partnerships a nd bilateral agreements with non-EU institutions 
and in addressing difficulties associated with obtaining visa requirements and residency permits 
for non-EU residents . This will provide an important update and enhancement compared to the baseline. 
Option 3 will have more limited impact for extr a-EU mobility as the absence of a legal 
instrument might provide less of an incentive for action by Member States. 
                                                
 
23 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004  
 
EN 28   EN 5.4. Social groups, economic sectors or  particular regions affected 
Statistical and qualitative evidence from EU  programme evaluations and from studies24 tells us 
that young people engaging in learning mobility ar e predominantly from relatively privileged 
backgrounds. Young people from disadvantaged b ackgrounds, such as lower socio-economic 
status/low income families, people with disabi lities, youngsters who have dropped out of formal 
education are significantly underrepresented in existing mobility flows, whether through 
organised EU/national mobility programmes or as independent 'free movers '. Women are slightly 
overrepresented in mobility actions. Improving access to reliable information on possibilities for 
mobility experiences, and putting in place tools and resources to facilitate mobility will help all young people to take up mobility opportunities. It is expected, that disadvantaged or underrepresented groups will particularly benefit e.g. improved portability of grants and loans for 
study abroad will help those from modest bac kgrounds who would otherwise struggle with the 
financial cost of mobility.  
Qualitative criteria have been used for the estimation of impacts, with all three options expected 
to have positive impacts for social groups to da te underrepresented in mobile learning, with 
options 2 and 3 particularly advantageous.
 The impact on human rights is expected to be broadly 
neutral for all three options; although access to  learning mobility opportunities is highly 
supportive of the fundamental 'right  to education'. The effects of all three options are also likely 
to be largely consistent across regions, but Options 2 and 3 offer increased effectiveness. 
In addition, there are expected  benefits to the educational sector, and the NGO volunteering 
sector brought about by  increased internationalisation brin ging increased openness and enhanced 
performance. Students, young researchers, volunt eers and others enga ging in cross-border 
learning experiences will widen horizons in teac hing and learning approach es and foster mutual 
understanding. There is no substantive di fference between the individual options. 
5.5. Overall assessment of impact of the three options 
It should be stressed, that irre spective of the option chosen, the overall objective is to remove 
obstacles to mobility and promote mobility with a view to making it 'an opportunity for all ' 
– which will in turn lead to more young people choosing to study, train, vol unteer and engage in 
research in another country. 
The status quo (Option 1) might allow for some improvements in evolution, but th ese are likely 
to be insufficient to realise the aspiration of learning mobility as an opportunity for all. The 
current set of legal documents do not cater for im portant developments in recent years within the 
education and training sector which have influence on learni ng mobility. Furthermore, the 
sectoral approach of the 2001 Recommendation makes it difficult to address cross-sectoral issues 
common to more than one target group. Obstacles to mobility have emerged more recently which 
are not adequately recognised or addressed and as  such are likely to remain areas of concern.  
                                                 
24 See for example, http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/publ/evalcareersum_en.pdf   
 
EN 29   EN As concerns options 2 and 3, both options offer good potential for progress and positive 
economic and social impacts combined with neutra l to mildly negative en vironmental impacts as 
highlighted above. The nature of  the instrument proposed in Op tion 2 is stronger and therefore 
will offer higher visibility and an increased comm itment on the part of Member States for action. 
In particular, a Council Recommenda tion should update, refocus and re vitalise action in this area 
and boost Member State commitment, acting as a stimulus at both national and regional levels, 
which will substantially increase visibility and benefit many pot ential students and learners. A 
further differentiating factor betw een options 2 and 3 lies in the potential administrative burden, 
with Option 3 representing an increased burden at both EU and national/regional levels 
associated with a new standalone OMC process.  
 
EN 30   EN 6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
 ++ + 0 - -- 
Impact compared with 
baseline scenario  positive slightly 
positive neutral slightly 
negative negative 
 
 Option 1  
(status quo – 
continuing with 
existing framework) Option 2 
 (2010 Council 
Recommendation 
Youth on the Move) Option 3 
 (new 'Youth on the 
Move' OMC) 
Effectiveness in terms of achieving objectives  
Objective 1 
Eliminate obstacles to mobility at 
national/regional levels  0 ++ + 
Objective 2 
Promotion of learning mobility  0 ++ + 
Financial impacts (EUR million)  
Implementation costs 0 not quantified  not quantified  
Administrative burden 0 0* -- (4.3m€ pa) 
Including Member Stat es 0 ** not quantified
Coherence  
 0 ++ ++ 
Feasibility of implementation 
 0 + - 
* Costs associated with mon itoring and reporting are expected to be neutral as the existing OMC in Education 
and Training would be re-oriented to include a focus on mobility and to incorporate a mobility scoreboard. 
** potential for cost savings based upon increas ed cross-sectoral and cross-agency working  
6.1. Justification of ratings based upon the assessment of impacts 
Whilst Option 1 is expected to be neutral overa ll, both Options 2 and 3 represent the potential 
for increased effectiveness in eliminating obstacles to mobility and to promoting learning mobility, through the prioritisation of mobility and the implementation of specific measures at 
national and regional levels in areas identifie d as obstacles, as set out in the problem 
 
EN 31   EN description above. Option 2 offers the potenti al for the highest im pact based upon the 
agreement by the Council of a new legal instrume nt and its potential tr iggering effects at 
Member State level. 
In terms of financial impact, option 1 remain s the baseline position, with Options 2 and 3 
representing an overall net co st implication, although for Option 2 this is expected to be 
relatively small. For Option 2, costs asso ciated with the implementation of the 
Recommendation will include, for example, adapta tion of legislation to make grants and loans 
more portable, the provision of more information on mobility opportunities via careers and study guidance/counselling offices. The administrative burden of monitoring and reporting for 
Option 2 is expected to be broadly neutral as administration will be incorporated into existing 
monitoring and reporting frameworks (Educa tion and Training Open Method of Co-
ordination 'ET2020'). For Option 3, substantial administrative costs at both EU and Member 
State level will stem from the establishm ent of a new standalone OMC process. 
In comparing the feasibility of implementa tion, Option 2 will be readily possible under 
existing administrative framewor ks, but will require extra effo rts on the part of Member 
States to remove obstacles – legal, technical and administrative – to improve opportunities for 
learning mobility. Option 3, however, presents mo re challenges as a st andalone monitoring 
and reporting framework would need to be in troduced to assess progress. All options are 
highly coherent with EU and national agr eed policy priorities and strategies. 
6.2. Preferred option:  
Option 2 – A Recommendation on Youth on the Move : Promoting the learning mobility of 
young people - represents the best potential for achieving the desi red objectives, when 
balanced with the potential for administrative burden and increased cost.  
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
7.1. Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives 
Result Indicators:  
• Decrease in significant problems with obs tacles to mobility reported by mobile 
students/volunteers/researchers (as measured by surveys) 
• Specific indicators to be elaborated based upon progress in each field of obstacle, to be 
monitored via a proposed 'Mobility Scoreboard'  
Impact Indicators:  
• An increase in the number of young people (16-35)  engaging in mobility for the purposes 
of learning; 
• An EU-level mobility benchmark(s) for learni ng mobility (by the end of 2010 in the field 
of Higher Education, and subsequently extende d to VET and teachers) will be proposed 
(foreseen within the context of the Stra tegic Framework on Education and Training 
ET2020) 
 
EN 32   EN • In higher education: In 2020, at least 20% of  those graduating in the European Higher 
Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad. (Bologna Process 
mobility benchmark) 
7.2. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements 
Monitoring and evaluation should take place with in the context of the reporting structures 
which already exist within the framework of th e Open Method of Co-ordination in Education 
and Training (ET2020). This fr amework provides for (biennial)  reporting by Member States 
which leads to a Joint (C ommission-Council) Report.  
Experience has led to the conclu sion that stronger mechanisms for monitoring are needed to 
ensure that the pace of progress is accelerated. With this in mind, a 'mobility scoreboard' will 
be introduced as part of the existi ng monitoring and re porting framework.  
Member States will be invite d to report specifically on progr ess in removing obstacles to 
learning mobility as part of their ET2020 country  reports; this will be  a standing item in 
national reports submitted for the period 2011-2020. The Commission will analyse this information based upon transparent criteria an d present an overall assessment of progress 
including via the compilation of a comparat ive assessment across countries (Mobility 
Scoreboard). The precise criteria/indicators upon which the assessment will be based still need to be developed and agreed . Whilst criteria and result indicators may be fairly easy to 
define, impact indicators (what is the ultimate and quantifiable effect on citizens ability to be 
mobile) are more difficult to estimate. A
 Member State working group on mobility indicators 
within the framework of ET2020 has been set up and would be consulted on the most appropriate indicators for the mobility scoreboard. 
The scoreboard will support monitoring and p eer review and as such will reinforce the 
commitment of Member States to driving forward progress in this area. See Annex 6 for an 
illustrative example of what a m obility scoreboard may look like. 
In addition to the strong political commitment  on the part of both Member States and the 
Commission, uptake of the Recommendation by th e Member States will be ensured via the 
increased focus on visibility and on monitori ng, as detailed above and in section 4.3.  
In addition, an evaluation is proposed to  assess the overall effectiveness of the 
implementation of a new Recommendation after the first four years of implementation of the 
Recommendation (ie. by end 2014). 
 
EN 33   EN Annexes - technical background material  
Annex 1: Baseline data on Mobility  for Learning Purposes   
Annex 2: Analysis of Responses to the Public and Stakeholder Consultati on (Green Paper on 
promoting learning mobility) 
Annex 3: Links to key studies/work carried out by ex ternal consultants, stakeholders or 
academics 
Annex 4a: Overview of progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 
Recommendation on mobility within the Comm unity for students, persons undergoing 
training, young volunteers, teacher s and trainers (2001/613/EC) 
Annex 4b: Overview of Level of Progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 
Recommendation (2001/613/EC) and presen tation of Areas emerging since 2001 
Annex 5: Links between the problems, objectives and areas where Member State action 
should be pursued 
Annex 6: Mobility Scoreboard – illustrative example  
 
EN 34   EN Annex 1: Baseline data on Mobility for Learning Purposes  
 
 
EN 35   EN 
 
 
EN 36   EN 
 
 
EN 37   EN Annex 2: Green Paper on promoting learning mobility – Consultation 
In July 2009 the European Commission published a Green Paper on Promoting the learning 
mobility of young people . The public consultation closed on 15 December 200925 and was 
open to all parties including indi viduals, European, national, re gional and loca l organisations 
involved in mobility. 
The Green Paper highlighted the benefits of mobility in supporting acquisition of new 
knowledge and skills. It also highlighted the contribution to  opening up the education and 
training institutions to a wide r world, different audiences of  learners and consequently 
contributing to enhancing the qual ity of education and training. Other benefits noted are those 
of combating isolation, protectio nism and xenophobia as well as the contribution to fostering 
a deepened sense of European iden tity and citizenship among young people. 
The ambition of the Green Paper is to set the road for further devel oping and strengthening 
the European and national polic ies and programmes supporting mobility. It affirms that every 
young person should have the opportunity to pa rticipate in some form of mobility.  
There were three main channels availa ble to submit responses. These were:  
An online questionnaire for citizens 
An online questionnaire for organisations 
Sending a written response to DG EAC 
2798 on-line responses were received and 258 written responses were received. 
Respect of the Commission's minimum standards on consultation:  
The Green Paper consultation was fully in line with the General principles and minimum 
standards for consultation of inte rested parties by the Commission26  
Information provided on the consultation was clear and concise, facilitating responses . With 
over 3,000 replies received to this consultation; this represents twice the average expected for 
Commission consultations. 
The Green Paper consultation was publicised wide ly to reach relevant  consultation target 
groups. The consultation was targ eted both at the public at large a nd at interested 
stakeholders:  
• a press release and news story on the Eur opean Commission and DG EAC home pages, 
supplemented by further information and relevant links on DG EAC webpages; 
• the consultation was announced via th e 'Your-Voice-in-Europe' webportal27 and responses 
were received via the on-line IPM Questionnaire or by written contribution to a mailbox 
set up for this purpose; 
• presentations to consultation target groups (Government officials and policy-makers at 
different territorial levels, st udent groups; national agencies fo r the promotion of mobility; 
                                                 
25 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/educati on_culture/consult/mobility_en.html   
26 COM(2002)704  
27 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/educati on_culture/consult/index_en.html   
 
EN 38   EN University associations and networks, rec ognition experts via the National Academic 
Recognition Information Centres , youth organisations, Vocationa l Education and Training 
experts and other stakeholders within education and training; 
• standardised presentation materials were developed and circulated to maximise multiplier 
opportunities;  
• a mailing list of around 10.000 people contacts was constructed to reach as many key 
stakeholders as possible and to en sure balance in the consultation. 
Adequate time was provided for preparation a nd planning of responses. The consultation 
period ran from 8 July to 15th December 2009. The volume of responses received and the 
wide range of stakeholders part icipating are testament to the success of this consultation and 
the effectiveness of the approach chosen.  
Analysis of the 2,798 on-line (IPM questionnaire) responses  
Responses received were primarily from indi viduals (78.8%) but also from organisations 
(19%). The majority of the respondents are female (61.4%) and given the nature of the 
initiative, it is particularly welcomed th at a high number of young people under 35 years 
participated in the consultaiton  (1,758 = 62.8%). Replies come fr om a broad cross section of 
coutnries with the highest numer of replies coming from Italy (19.5%), France (10%), Spain 
(7.8%) and Germany (7.5%), followed by Romania, Turkey, the UK and Belgium.  
Analysis of responses indicates that, "Informati on" seems to be the most important issue in 
order to increase learning mobility followed by "funding", "motivation" and "recognition and 
validation after return".  
According to the replies, "Personal developmen t" is considered to be the most important 
benefit of learning mobility followed by "forei gn language skills", "Added knowledge and/or 
skills in the area of specialisatio n" and "Intercultural skills" .  
Awareness of EU portals in support of mobility is disapointing, up to half of the respondents 
say they don't know the portals me ntioned in the questionnaire.  
When examining the stay abroad and follow- up, over 83.1% of respondents agree strongly or 
somewhat that: "The lack of full and easy validation and recognition of a learning or training 
period abroad is still a significant obstacle to mobility". 
Furthermore, responses indicate that the "E uropean Union and its institutions" followed by 
"Education and training  institutions" and "Nat ional governments" play  the most important 
role in promoting learning mobility of young people. 
A full analysis of the results of the questi onnaire will be published on the Education and 
Training pages of the Europa website: http:/ /ec.europa.eu/dgs/educa tion_culture/index_en.htm   
Analysis of the 258 in-depth written responses  
Responses by organisational type  
(nb. These numbers cannot be cons idered as fully representati ve of the wider consultation 
process as they do not take into account th e consultations organise d at national level.) 
 
EN 39   EN Composition of responses by organisational type and country (plus EU-level organisations 
such as social partners , organisations, networks) 
 
Key messages from the consultation  
Preparing for a mobility period  
Information and Guidance: There is a very clear message from all respondent types to 
improve the quality of information and guidance re lated to mobility. Central to effective, clear 
and transparent information is however the n eed to redefine what is understood by mobility 
and potential target groups eligible for mobilit y. This is necessary to provide dedicated 
information and guidance to meet  specific needs of learners.  
To ensure information and guidance reach learne rs, the need for a single integrated EU web 
portal was proposed not only as a tool to provide relevant in formation but to promote the 
benefits of mobility to learners, parents, educ ation institutions and employers. However, there 
was much support (particularly from governments)  for new and creative ways to disseminate 
information (e.g. through social networks, bars, rock concert and cafes, though other 
respondents emphasised the need for associated funding to ensure the effective availability 
and dissemination of quality information a nd guidance through more  creative channels. 
Ensuring teachers, trainers, administrative st aff and social workers are experienced in 
mobility was also highlighted as a necessary  requirement by all respondents to improve 
information and guidance. Making use of learners with previous mobility experience to act in 
the capacity of mobility ambassadors was also proposed.  
Promotion and motivation: Promoting the benefits of m obility for young people by providing 
evidence of the added value of mobility in  terms of future employability and their 
professional and intercultural skills deve lopment was recommended by all respondents.  
Better cooperation at European level and ne tworking between agencies, regional, local 
authorities, institutions, youth workers, mu ltipliers, ex-beneficiaries, policy makers, 
employers, civic society, young people and their fa milies with a view to an improved ‘joined 
up’ approached is encouraged. 
 
EN 40   EN All respondents highlighted the need for clear factual, practi cal and targeted information 
tailored to individual learners is central to th e success of mobility and is required in advance 
of mobility. Peer exchange with a focus on the experiences of young people returning from 
mobility experiences was proposed as one way to better promote and motivate young people.  
It was noted that more focus on systematic preparation within the curriculum, improving 
opportunities for recognition and va lidation of learning is criti cal however adequate funding 
and resources must be made availabl e to support mobility in its entirety. 
Individuals focused on a number of  practical issues in order to better promote and motivate 
young people to be mobile, these range from  finding suitable temporary accommodation, 
subsidised transport, simplifying application procedures, improve preparatory arrangements 
and information exchange, improving informal  language development and increasing the 
number of places available for learne rs to access mobility opportunities.  
Languages and culture: The importance of language learning to begin during early stages of 
education (primary and secondary) through to continued education was stressed. Using more 
creative methods for the delivery of language learning and ensuring disadvantaged learners 
are not excluded from languages and mobility  opportunities is recommended. Here, many 
respondents emphasise the requirement for highe r levels of funding to  promote preparatory 
and continued language learning. 
There is a call for Member States to revisit and where appropriate re form national education 
polices to embed language learning  into the national curriculum.  
Emphasising the cultural and linguistic value of mobility experiences in the context of 
employability was highlighted as an important factor to address.  
Some respondents expressed support for a manda tory mobility period for teachers and trainers 
(a small number of respondents proposed up  to a one year mandatory requirement). 
Developing partnerships and exchanges between education institutions was also considered 
necessary to address linguistic and cultural obstacles.  
Legal issues: Legal issues relating to difficulties associated with obtaining visa requirements 
(residency permits, cot of visa, timings) together with implications in relation to the lack of 
legal status of mobility learners were highlight ed by nearly all respondents as the main legal 
obstacles to mobility encountered . Serious concerns about the im plications for social welfare 
arrangements were expressed. Legal issues link ed to the recognition of learning were also 
raised as a barrier to mobility. The overarchi ng message is that there is no clear legal 
framework for learners or employers participating in mobility periods. 
In relation to the proposal to establish a fram ework to support minors,  it was noted that the 
different legal rules exist across Member States may make it difficult for a European framework to be developed and implemented.  
Further to the proposal to introduce a European  Trainee Statue, few but mixed views were 
received. On the one hand a European Trainee St atute would help to en sure equal treatment 
and provide much needed clarity on legal ma tters. On the other ha nd however, views were 
expressed that the status of the individual as a ‘l earner’ or as a ‘worker’ is blurred and reflects 
the complexity in the relationship between education and training and the labour market across Member States more generally.  
 
EN 41   EN Portability of Grants and Loans: All respondent types cited variations in  the eligibility, 
portability of grants and funding arrangement s from one Member State to another as key 
obstacles. Lack of information together with  administrative and bureau cratic burdens were 
cited as adding to difficulties associated with the portability of grants and loans where evidence suggests late payments or delays in  funds reaching learners  is problematic and 
especially difficult for economically disadvantag ed learners. A key message from European 
Associations in particular is that all funding arrangements associated with learner mobility 
should be revisited. 
A number of government responses discussed the possibility to formulate guidance at 
European Level applicable to Member States in relation to the portability of grants, loans and 
access to benefits. Generally speaking, government s highlighted some reservations and voiced 
concerns that common guidance may be difficu lt for individual countries to implement. 
Mobility to and from the European Union: All organisational types highlighted the need to 
reduce administrative and legal burdens in order to promote mobility to and from the European Union. Government and Regional Asso ciations called for greater cooperation and 
partnerships with third countries and agr eements between compet ent authorities across 
Member States and bilateral ag reements between institutions. 
European Associations, National Associations and education institutions were mainly more 
focused on the need to improve access to qua lity information; enhance funding opportunities 
for non-nationals and create more programmes/oppor tunities for learners in order to promote 
mobility to and from the European Union. Sp ecific attention was given to educational 
arrangements and the need for greater flexibility in  terms of the recogni tion and accreditation 
in addition to the relationshi p between non-ECTS arrangemen ts/systems with ECTS for 
example. 
Preparation of the mobility period and quality assurance issues: Nearly all organisational 
types were in support of using existing quality ch arters to ensure mob ility is of high quality. 
There was also support for introducing monito ring and evaluation methods – suggestions 
include systematic quality assurance procedures  for each aspect of mobility and qualitative 
and quantitative measures for example. Othe r quality assurance measures cited include 
continuous dialogue and clearly established cont ractual arrangements between all actors and 
beneficiaries, a standardised approach to guidelines and templates, transparent selection 
procedures, peer exchange and structured le arner support (through student associations, 
counselling and networks for example). 
Reaching out to Disadvantaged Groups: The main barriers cited by all respondent types 
concern financial constraints, lack of informa tion regarding specific pr ovision for learners and 
existing programmes not meeting the needs of learners. 
The need for greater flexibil ity in mobility opportunities in order to encourage the 
participation of disadvantaged learners is re quired, however it was noted that the difficult 
personal constraints learners experience will re quire targeted learner support and appropriate 
levels of funding.  
There was a clear view that those involved in  mobility such as teachers, trainers, youth 
workers and social workers must be aware of a nd experienced in dealing with specific issues 
facing disadvantaged learners. Ther e is however a call for the term  ‘disadvantaged learners’ to 
 
EN 42   EN be further defined as this term is wide reachi ng and encapsulates a wide range of learners with 
very different needs.  
Supporting the stay abroad  
Mentoring and Integration: All respondent types under line the importance of good 
mentoring and integration for supporting young people throughout the learning mobility 
phase. Academic mentoring and peer buddying scheme s are seen as central in this process by 
all respondents. Mentoring and buddying should be  provided to students in the form of a 
single academic advisor or tutor by the educati onal institution. The role of peer support is 
equally important in providing guidance to students and facili tating their integration. Peer 
tutoring should take place in the accommodation where students reside. In this regard, there are differences of opinions in what kind of accommodation students should be placed ranging 
from mixed accommodation and dormitories to host families. 
Since adaptation to the new environment is very important, particularly in the first few weeks 
of arrival, specially programmed orientation events should be made available to incoming 
students to orientate them in academic and prac tical matters. Such events should be organised 
by the host educational institution or by a student organisation. Through membership in student organisations incoming stude nts can also take part in social and intercultural activities 
with a view to enha ncing their integrati on in the new country. 
Recognition and Validation: There is a unanimous view shared  by all responde nt types that 
the validation and recognition of both form al and non-formal learning constitutes a 
considerable obstacle to the mobility of young  people. The most common problems with the 
validation and recognition of lear ning are associated with the variability of validation and 
recognition practices among institutions and the lack of a common language about them. 
Other relevant issues include: 
– Lack of information about existing EU inst ruments which facilita te the transfer of 
educational qualifications between Member States 
– Lack of recognition of the va lue of non-formal learning 
– Lack of flexibility in validation and r ecognition in primary and secondary schools 
– Lack of flexibility in validation and recogni tion in some professi on-oriented programmes 
(e.g. nursing, engineering, social work) 
– Problems with ECTS in universities – this include recognition verses replacement, heavy 
ECTS requirements, lack of transparency and comparability 
– Further development of ECVET and compatibility with ECTS 
In order to address the above issues respondent s emphasise as a general rule the need for 
establishing a good definition and synergie s between formal and non-formal learning. 
Furthermore, the development of good partne rships based on mutual trust and dialogue 
between different educational institutions is essential in harmonising validation and 
recognition practices.  
In particular, recognition instruments such  as Europass and Youthpass should be better 
promoted, particularly among employers who ar e presently not familiar with them. It is 
 
EN 43   EN suggested that perhaps a comm on recognition tool should be es tablished which would help 
individuals to document all the knowledge, skil ls and competences acquired throughout their 
lifetime. A broader understanding of the value of non-formal learning for the acquisition of key competencies for lifelong learning should be promoted in society. The use of ECTS and 
ECVET should be expanded through gr eater collaboration in this area. 
New partnerships for mobility 
Mobilising actors and resources: All respondent types agree th at creating or improving 
partnership involvement as well as impr oving funding opportunities and information and 
support structures would help to mobilise all actors in the interest of youth mobility.  
Successful mobility partnerships should be fo rmed with both public and private actors 
operating at local level; chambe rs of commerce, business associations, and NGOs can be very 
valuable non-educational partners. In addi tion, networks of schools and universities 
exchanging information, news and experience should be created.  
Furthermore, it is noted that regional authoritie s should play an increasing role in promoting 
mobility through building on existing networ ks and creating new partnerships and 
encouraging it through financial support. On the same issue of financing mobility, it is 
suggested that a system with funding from differ ent sources needs to be  established. The EU 
should streamline mobility notably in the Struct ural Funds and the Research and Development 
Framework programme. It is also noted that the ESF should become an additional source of 
funding. 
More active involvement fr om the business world: All respondent types perceive the 
involvement of businesses as an important fact or in strengthening youth mobility. In order to 
improve the motivation of businesses, activ e cooperation and communication (including 
awareness-raising and advocacy about the value of mobility) between the educational and the 
business sector is essential. 
The latter should not only be familiarised with  the benefits of mobility but also given 
incentives to engage more young people in training periods abroad. It is suggested that such 
incentives should be in the form of special grants  or tax exemptions, or ethical awards such as 
‘mobile excellence label’. Where financial compensation is lacking, the importance of exchange in order to find substitutes replac ing missing employees in enterprises during a 
mobility phase should be considered. 
Virtual Networking and eTwinning
28: There is a clear message from  all respondent types that 
virtual mobility should accompany physical mobility  rather than replace it. Virtual mobility 
and ICTs play an important role in strength ening the support for learners when it comes to 
preparing them for the physical mobility phase as well as maintaining follow-up 
communication and networking once the mobility stage is over. In order to make virtual mobility and ICTs a valuable source of prepara tion, it is suggested that there should be a 
range of electronic guidance and counsellor se rvices and that teacher s and trainers should 
undergo regular training to ensure an adequate  provision of such services. In addition, online 
learning communities between teachers and lear ners should be established to support those 
                                                
 
28 eTwinning enables schools across Europe to link online and engage in ICT-based partnerships 
 
EN 44   EN willing to go abroad through peer learning. ICTs should also offer online language courses to 
learners prior to the stage of mobility.  
Several types of respondents al ert to the need to introduce or  significantly improve the ICT 
infrastructure at schools befo re aiming at using it for the pur pose of promoting mobility. 
The eTwinning approach is embraced by all types of respondents who unde rline that it should 
be extended to all forms of formal and non-form al learning, in partic ular the vocational and 
voluntary sector. eTwinning is seen as a ve ry good way to develop partnerships with 
educational institutions and to exch ange experiences and good practices. 
Mobility opportunities for ‘multipliers’: Respondents of all types clearly indicate that 
mobility opportunities for ‘multipliers’ should be  given additional support and prominence in 
European programmes. ‘Multipliers’ such as teachers, trainers, yout h workers and students 
who previously participated in a mobility stage could be a great source of inspiration for their 
students and peers which is considered as a sure way to promote young people’s mobility in 
Europe.  
To provide more mobility opportunities for multipliers, teacher/traine r courses should be 
modernised to include a mandatory period of  mobility. Later on, employers in education 
should be able to accommodate teachers/trainers ’ professional mobility involvement so that 
additional workload is avoided. Public and scho ol authorities should be strongly involved in 
the management and allocation of resources. It  is also proposed that they should provide 
incentives and recognition to staff with  particular commitment to mobility. 
Mobility Targets: Nearly all respondents consider targets a useful tool in defining a mobility 
strategy, though preferences for at what leve l the targets should be set varied. Most 
respondent types were of the vi ew targets should be set at European and National levels, 
though many education institutions, felt targets should be set at an in stitutional level.  
There is a general view that on the one hand targets would help to ensure coherence and 
efficiency, however on the other hand, there is a concern that targets in terms of quantity may 
have a negative consequence in distorting the initi al principles of mob ility and, thus, affect 
quality. As such, there was an overarching view that mobility targets should be realistic, 
supported by adequate financial tools and not primarily focused on quantitative aspects of 
improvement at the cost of qualitative aspects 
The full analysis of the in-depth submissions will be published on the Education and Training 
pages of the Europa website : http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/e ducation_culture/index_en.htm  
 
EN 45   EN Annex 3 : Links to key studies/work carried out by external consultants, stakeholders or 
academics 
Report of the High Level Expert Forum on Mobility: ' Making learning mobility an 
opportunity for all' (2008) - http://ec.europa.eu/e ducation/doc/2008/mobilityreport_en.pdf   
Open Method of Co-ordination in Education and Training - Peer Learning on Ways to 
increase mobility: funding models examined  (2008) 
http://www.kslll.net/Documents/PLA_Ways% 20to%20increase%20mobility_final%20report_
Oct.%2008.pdf   
Eurobarometer Special Target Survey ' Students and Higher Education Reform' (March 2009)  
http://ec.europa.eu/public _opinion/flash/fl_260_en.pdf   
A Study on the Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility (2006) which surveyed former ERASMUS students and teachers, university l eaders, employers, and mobility experts on 
experiences of Erasmus mobility and the percep tions of the role and impact of learning 
mobility http://ec.europa.eu/educati on/erasmus/doc/publ/evalcareersum_en.pdf
  
 
EN 46   EN Annex 4a: Analysis of Progress in implemen ting the provisions of the 2001 
Recommendation on mobility within the Co mmunity for students, persons undergoing 
training, young volunteers, teache rs and trainers (2001/613/EC)  
Key to symbols: 9: positive progress X: poor progress ~: mixed progress 
2001 Recommendation  
 Assessment of Progress to 
date  Comments 
 
1. Member States are called on to take the m easures they consider appropriate in order to:  
1. (a) remove the legal and administrative obstacles 
to the mobility of persons  ~  Very limited reporting by 
MS in this area  
1. (b) reduce linguistic and cultural obstacles, 
notably by  
- encouraging the learning of at least two 
Community languages and  
- encouraging linguistic and cultural preparation 
before any mobility measure;   
9 
 
9 Variety of efforts in all 
countries. Trend towards two foreign languages at school. 
 
1. (c) promote the development of the various forms 
of financial support for mobility,  
- facilitate the portability of scholarships, national 
aids and other support arrangements   
 
X Improved portability 
sometimes mentioned, but also controversial issue to be tackled at European level.  
1. (d) encourage the creation of a European 
qualification area  9  Efforts made in all 
countries.  
1. (e) extend to persons participating in mobility 
schemes the benefits (other than social security benefits) available to the same categories of persons in the host State, such as fare reductions for public transport, financial assi stance with accommodation 
and meals, etc.;  
Introduction of a 'mobility card'  X Few reported measures. 
Some countries report the system to be already implemented.  
1. (f) facilitate access to all useful in formation.  ~ Information available 
 
EN 47   EN - information dissemination 
- ensuring that citizen s are aware of their 
entitlements under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (social security) 
- training on community aquis on mobility  - creation of a database on jobs and learning 
opportunities  ~ 
~ 
 
X 
9 throughout Europe by 
many initiatives which are being extended and improved. Internet portals complement traditional means.  
(g) take the measures they consider appropriate so that 
the categories of persons concerned by this 
Recommendation are not subjected to discrimination 
in their home Member State in relation to the same 
categories of persons who do not undertake a 
transnational mobility experience; X Specific new initiatives are 
not common  
(h) take measures they consider appropriate to remove 
obstacles to the mobility of third country nationals who, when participating in Community programmes, including Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth, 
pursue study or training, do voluntary work or provide 
teaching or training.  ~ 
 Some improvements in 
simplified admission procedures and specific financial help  
2. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern students  include  
2. (a) facilitate the recognition in the home Member 
State of the period of study undertaken in the host Member State. To this en d, use of the European 
Credit Transfer [and Accumulation] System (ECTS),  9 Increasing use of ECTS 
reported. Used in all countries. Also adjustment of national systems.  
2. (b) ensure that the decisions of the competent 
authorities responsible for academic recognition are made within reasonable timescales, are justified and are open to administrative and/or legal appeal;  ~ 
 Autonomy of HEIs in this 
area.; normally appeal procedure available.  
2. (c) encourage educational establishments to issue 
a European supplement as an administrative annexe 
to the diploma, describing the studies undertaken, in 9 Use of Diploma 
supplement increasing and widely supported.  
 
EN 48   EN order to facilitate their recognition;  
2. (d) encourage students and pupils to complete 
part of their studies in an other Member State and to 
facilitate recognition  ~ 
 Mobility encouraged 
through legislative and non-legislative measures  
2. (e) take appropriate measures to make it easier 
for students on mobility schemes to prove that they have the health cover or insurance needed in order to obtain a residence permit  X  No specific actions 
undertaken. Although in some countries incoming students part of national health care system.  
2. (f) facilitate the integration (academic guidance, 
educational psychology etc) of students undergoing mobility into the education system of the host Member State  ~ 
 Varied actions taken. 
Often practical services provided by HEIs without reference to wider policy measures.  
3. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern persons undergoing training  
include:  
3. (a) facilitate the recognition of the training 
undertaken in another country. To this end, the use of the " EuropassTraining " document, designed to promote European pathways in work-linked training, should be encouraged;   
~ 
 The use of Europass-
Training implemented in all MS as action to increase status of a mobility period abroad. Lack of other actions.  
3. (b) encourage the use of more transparent models 
for vocational training certificates. For example, official national certificates  should be accompanied 
by a translation of the cer tificate and/or a European 
certificate supplement;  ~ 
 Signs of converging views 
and successful cooperation. Certificate Supplement is being prepared.  
3. (c) take the measures they consider appropriate, 
in accordance with Comm unity law and in the 
framework of their national law, so that persons travelling to another Member State for the purpose of undergoing recognised training there are not subject, because of their mobility to discrimination ~ 
 Significant variation 
across Member States  
 
EN 49   EN with respect to relevant social protection, including 
the administrative formalities for this protection, such as in the area of health care and other relevant areas;  
3. (d) take appropriate measures to make it easier 
for persons undergoing training to prove that they have the financial resources needed in order to obtain a residence permit.  9 Following Directive 
93/96/EEC a declaration of sufficient resources (not proof of) is enough.  
4. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern young volunteers  include:  
4. (a) ensure that the specific nature of voluntary 
activity is taken into account in national legal and administrative measures;  X Volunteering still mostly 
informal activity; unclear status, varying between countries.  
4. (b) promote the introduction of a certificate of 
participation for persons who have taken part in voluntary activity projects, with a view to bringing about a common European format for curricula vitae;  ~ 
 The only case seems to be 
volunteers within EVS (European Voluntary Service) who receive a certificate.  
4. (c) ensure that volunteers on transnational 
mobility schemes are not discriminated against in terms of entitlement to social protection measures.  ~ 
 Only volunteers within the 
EVS are automatically insured.  
4. (d) ensure that recognised voluntary activities are 
not treated as employment.  ~ 
 In many countries 
volunteering treated as employment. Influences taxation, but gives access to social security benefits.  
5. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern teachers and trainers  include:  
5. (a) take into account the problems of short-term 
mobility covered by legislation of several Member States and encourage co-operation  X Some countries point to 
the employer's responsibility. General absence of policies supporting short-term 
 
EN 50   EN mobility.  
5. (b) promote the Europe an mobility of teachers 
and trainers by  
- making arrangements for the temporary 
replacement of teachers  
- measures to facilitate integration in the host 
establishment 
- introducing European training periods;   
~ 
 
~ 
 
x In some cases a national 
strategy on mobility, in some cases regional and local initiatives. Little action to facilitate integration in the host institution.  
5. (c) encourage the introduction of a European 
dimension into the professional  
- in the context of teach er training programmes  
- by encouraging contacts and exchanges between 
establishments within Eu rope which train teachers 
and trainers   
 
~ 
~ 
 Except some initiatives, a 
general lack of a European dimension in teacher's training at national level.  
5. (d) promote inclusion of European mobility 
experience as a component of the careers of teachers and trainers.  ~ 
 For university teaching 
staff mobility is in some countries considered standard. On general weak link between teaching exchanges and career development.  
II Member States are called on to  
submit to the Commission ev ery two years a report 
on the implementation of the proposals made in the Recommendation.  9 A first report was 
submitted, reporting was subsequently subsumed into the ET2010 OMC  
III The Commission is called on to:  
(a) set up a group of experts in order to permit 
exchanges of information and experience 9 A working group with a 
double mandate was set 
 
EN 51   EN concerning the implementation of the 
Recommendation and of the Action Plan for Mobility ;  up. 
(b) continue to cooperate with the Member States 
within the European Forum on the transparency of professional qualifications;  9 Common structure for a 
certificate supplement.  
(c) submit no later than two years and six months 
after the adoption of the Recommendation, and thereafter every two years,  an analytical summary 
of the national reports on the implementation of the Recommendation;  9 
 (2004 Report. Reporting 
subsequently incorporated into the Education and Training OMC Framework – biennial Joint Report)  
(d) study the procedures for introducing a pass for 
schoolchildren/ students/ trainees/ volunteers within the Community, giving holders entitlement to various concessions during their period of mobility;  X 
  
(e) draw up proposals designed to promote the 
transparency of professi onal qualifications and the 
exchange of information on opportunities for studying, performing voluntary work or teaching in other Member States.  9 Implemented through NRP 
and Europass.  
(f) study appropriate proce dures and measures with 
Member States for the exchange of information on opportunities for education, training or voluntary work or providing teachi ng or training in other 
Member States  9 Ploteus Internet Portal 
(launched March 2003) and development of a service to make national services inter-operable.  
 
Assessment of progress is based upon the findings of the Report on the follow-up to the Recommendation of the 
European Parliament and the Council of 10 July 2001 on mobility within the Community of students, persons 
undergoing training, volunteers and teachers and trainers (Report from the Commission to the Council, the 
European Parliament, the European  Economic and Social Committee an d the Committee of the Regions) 
COM(2004) 21 , supplemented with additional information from Education and Training Joint Reports 2006, 
2008 and 2010 where available.  
 
EN 52   EN Annex 4b: Overview of Level of Progress in implemen ting the provisions of the 2001 
Recommendation (2001/613/EC) and presen tation of Areas emerging since 2001  
Areas identified by the 
2001 Council 
Recommendation where progress has 
been positive    Areas identified by 
the 2001 Council 
Recommendation where progress 
mixed  or limited 
information 
available   Areas identified by 
the 2001 Council 
Recommendation where progress is 
lacking    
Areas emerging since the 
2001  Council 
Recommendation  
Recognition of 
qualifications 
completed in another Member State, in 
particular through the 
use of the ECTS (European Credit 
Transfer and 
Accumulation System), and use of 
the 'Diploma 
Supplement' in higher 
education, and the use 
of more transparent models for vocational 
training certificates   Ensure decisions of 
competent academic 
recognition authorities are made 
within reasonable 
timescales   Recognition of non-
formal and informal 
learning undertaken in another Member 
State, including 
volunteering   Substantial technological 
progress, including 
Information and Communication 
Technologies (ICTs), brings 
new opportunities for virtual mobility and for accessibility 
of information on mobility 
possibilities/preparing mobility  
Availability of 
linguistic and cultural preparation for 
mobility periods   Facilitation of access 
for people considering learning 
mobility to all 
relevant information eg. awareness of 
possibilities for 
mobility, awareness of rights to social 
security, and facilitate 
integration in the host country (guidance 
and support services)   Take appropriate 
measures to ensure that mobile students 
are not subject to 
discrimination in their home Member 
State, when 
compared to people not undertaking 
transnational 
mobility   There is a greater emphasis 
on employability eg. stages/work placements 
increasingly popular as part 
of a study programme and mobility experience – this 
brings different challenges 
for facilitating mobility compared to 'traditional 
learning mobility'  
  Encourage students 
and pupils to 
complete part of their 
studies in another Member State   Make it easier for 
students on mobility 
schemes to prove 
they have health cover or insurance 
needed in order to 
obtain a residence permit.   More emphasis is 
increasingly placed upon the 
social dimension eg. as HE 
becomes more accessible to non-traditional learners such 
as those from disadvantaged 
backgrounds these groups will have different needs to 
the traditional student body, 
perhaps more financial support but especially 
cultural/aspirational and 
guidance support  
  Removal of legal and 
administrative  Ensure the specific 
nature of voluntary 
activity is taken into  New partnership models and 
new alliances are an 
increasingly common aim of 
 
EN 53   EN obstacles to mobility  account in national 
legal and 
administrative measures, including 
ensure that 
recognised voluntary activities are not 
treated as 
employment  educational establishment, 
yet these can be restricted 
due to administrative and legislative barriers to co-
operation. Joint working is 
more of a feature than 10 years ago eg. for the delivery 
of joint degrees, yet many 
countries do not permit their accreditation bodies to 
certify joint programmes.  
  Promote the 
European mobility of teachers and trainers, 
and encourage the 
introduction of a European dimension 
into their professional 
development   Take into account 
the problems of short-term mobility 
for teachers and 
trainers, covered by legislation of several 
Member States and 
encourage co-operation   Extra EU mobility is 
increasingly demanded by students as part of the 
curriculum, yet the 
availability of information on opportunities for learning 
mobility outside the EU and 
academic recognition of periods spent outside the EU 
is particularly weak and in 
the case of incoming students 
legal and administrative 
barriers are particularly acute (e.g. visa restrictions).  
  Remove national 
obstacles to mobility 
of third country nationals 
participating in EU 
mobility programmes   Portability of grants 
and loans. Many 
Member States have introduced new 
student support 
mechanisms which have differing 
portability 
provisions (also the subject of ECJ 
rulings in recent 
years)   The 2001 Recommendation 
was agreed before the 
accession of new Member States. The circumstances 
and mobility challenges of 
these countries may differ somewhat to 'older' Member 
States Eg. Central and 
Eastern European countries have experienced large 
mobility outflows for study 
and employment.  
    Extend the 
accessibility of 
benefits (other than 
social security) 
available to domestic 
students to students from other Member 
States eg. public 
transport subsidies, accommodation 
support   The economic crisis has led 
to a reduction in budgets 
available to support mobility 
initiatives and implementing 
institutions in many 
countries, making it more difficult for young people to 
afford a mobility period. 
Conversely, more young people, faced with a difficult 
labour market, are seeking to 
differentiate themselves in order to be more attractive to 
employers and/or defer 
potential unemployment.  
 
 
EN 54   EN  
Annex 5: Links between the problems, objectives a nd areas where Member State action should be pursued 
 
 
 COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 
OPTIONS  
PROBLEM  SPECIFC OBJECTIVE PROPOSED MEMBER STATES' ACTION 
1. STATUS 
QUO/ 
2. NEW 
RECOMMENDA
TION 
3. NEW OMC 
Take appropriate measures to improv e the information and guidance on mobility 
opportunities in their countries:     
¾ Improve the quality of information and guidance and target it to specific 
groups of learners.     
¾ Make information easily accessible to all young people interested in learning 
mobility,   
  
  
 
¾ Cooperate with the Commission to furt her develop the PLOTEUS portal on 
learning opportunities.    
¾ Provide evidence of the added va lue of learning mobility     
¾ Encourage the use of ICTs to  support physical mobility,     Information shortfalls and motivation 
 
  improve the availab ility and accessibly of 
reliable information on the possibilities for 
study abroad and its benefits 
¾ Use ICTs to set up electronic guidanc e and counselling services and online 
learning communities 
   
 
EN 55   EN Enhance the motivation of young people to participate in trans national mobility 
activities:    
¾ Encourage networking between agencies,  and other stakeholders to ensure 
a coordinated approach to motivating young people.     
¾ Encourage "peer exchange" between mobile and not yet mobile young 
people.    
¾ Promote the value of learning mobility  to learners, their families and 
employers     
¾ Wherever feasible, make a mob ility period for t eachers and trainers 
mandatory.   
   
 
Role of multipliers    
¾ Encourage the use of  ‘multipliers’ who previously participated in a mobility 
stage as an important source of inspiration and motivation.   
 
  
  
 
¾ Include a European mobility experience as a component of the careers of 
teachers and trainers. 
¾ Encourage employers in education to recognise and reward mobility  
 
 
EN 56   EN ¾ Use more creative methods for the delivery of language learning..   
¾ Encourage the development of partnerships and exchanges, such as 
eTwinning.  
¾ Embed linguistic and cultural preparation for mobility into the curriculum.   
  Language and culture improve language skills, consistent with 
the aims of the multilingualism strategy, 
including the target of "Mother tongue plus 
two (foreign languages) for every citizen 
 
¾ Use more creative methods for the delivery of language learning..   
 
¾ Simplify and co-ordinate national procedures   
¾ Ensure that the legal provisions related to the free movement of workers 
within the European Union are fu lly respected and applied where 
appropriate.     
¾ Address the lack of legal status of some groups of mobile learners, notably 
minors taking part in mobility schemes. 
¾ Address legal issues relating to diffi culties associated with obtaining visa 
requirements and residency permits  for non-EU residents.  Legal issues 
such as: 
- the status of young 
researchers, trainees, volunteers, in cluding problems 
relating to health and social security coverage  
- the absence of a coherent legal 
framework for the mobility of 
minors  
- difficulties surrounding visas 
and the implementation of visa 
Directives for third country nationals wishing to come to the EU to study, do research or engage in volunteering. 
- Impediments to cross-border 
working on curriculum 
development between institutions and agencies   
reduce legal and admini strative barriers 
relating to health and social security coverage for young researchers, trainees and volunteers  
promote a coherent legal framework for 
the mobility of minors 
remove legal and admini strative barriers to 
the development of cross-border joint 
study programmes and other forms of learning mobility 
 
¾ Reduce administrative and legal burdens in  order to promote mobility to and 
from the European Union.  
 
EN 57   EN  
 ¾ Ensure that national laws encourage and don't impede joint programmes 
and degrees in education and training.  
 
 
Restrictions on the portability of financial support (grants and loans) 
  reduce or remove restrictions on the 
portability of student  financial support 
(grants and loans) ¾ Ensure that policies in relation to t he portability of grants, loans and access 
to benefits are fully in line with the ruli ngs of the European Court of Justice.  
  
 
¾ Improve procedures and guidelines for the validation and recognition of both 
formal and non-formal learning .  
¾ Commit to changing attitudes and creating a broader understanding in 
society of the role played by knowl edge and skills acquired in informal or 
non-formal learni ng environments.  
¾ Take a pragmatic approach to the i ssue of validation and recognition of 
knowledge acquired elsewhere (e.g. foreign language skills acquired during 
a stay abroad)  Recognition and validation of the stay abroad 
 
 improve recognition and validation for 
formal, non-formal and informal learning 
completed abroad 
 
¾ Set up a central reference point where individuals seeking to be mobile for 
learning purposes could have their qualif ications recognised and certified.  
 
 
EN 58   EN ¾ Ensure mobility is of high quality, and consider the intr oduction of quality 
assurance procedures for each aspect of mobility     
¾ Encourage continuous dialogue and clearly established contractual 
arrangements between the sending and the hosting institutions and a 
standardised approach to guidelines and templates     
¾ Organise regular reporting, stocktaking and feedback mechanisms, to 
reassure prospective mobile learner s regarding the high quality of their 
mobility experience.    
¾ Encourage mentoring and peer learning schemes to ensure good integration 
of mobile young people.    
¾ Encourage public actors to better exploit existing structures for hosting 
young people in convenient and affordable facilities.  Quality assurance and concerns 
regarding the qualit y of  mobility, 
including disappointing uptake of the 
2006 Quality Charter for Mobility 
 encourage a focus not only on increasing 
mobility in quantitative terms but, above 
all, on improving its quality, including via increased take-up of the voluntary 
European Quality Charter for mobility 
 
¾ Provide guidance to mobile individuals after their return on how to make use 
of the competences acquired duri ng their stay abroad, and help with 
reintegration  
 
¾ Encourage mobility partner ships with both public and private actors 
operating at local level.  
¾ Encourage regional authorities to play  an increasing role in promoting 
mobility.   Structural rigidities resulting from 
sectorally-focussed working.   
 
 
 
 encourage cross-sectoral working, in order 
to facilitate shared solutions common to 
different target groups 
 
¾ Stimulate active cooperation and co mmunication between the educational 
and the business sector.   
 
EN 59   EN ¾ Pay attention to the coherence and  complementarity of national and 
European programmes   
¾ Encourage national agencies to ensure that their work is integrated with that 
of all stakeholders     
 
¾ Ensure that those involved in mobilit y are aware of an d experienced in 
dealing with specific issues facing disadvantaged learners.  (including the 
disabled)    
¾ Develop a mobility cultur e during the period of compulsory education     Still relatively few young people reap 
the benefits of a learning experience 
abroad and some groups, such as young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly 
underrepresented.  
 increase opportunities for young people 
from underrepresented groups (lower 
socio economic backgrounds, minority ethnic groups, dis abled people) to 
participate in learning mobility  
 
¾ Pay particular attention to providi ng disadvantaged learner s with targeted 
information on programmes and support tailored to their specific needs. 
   
 
¾  Encourage the setting of mobility targets     Lack of information on progress in 
removing barriers to learning mobility  enable a better comparison of progress 
between Member States and reinforce 
peer learning, via an effective monitoring 
process 
 ¾ Provide the Commission with data on  national performance which the 
Commission will use to monitor de velopments thr ough a "mobility 
scoreboard"    
 
 
Key to colour-coding  
 
 
EN 60   EN  Very good potential for progress 
 Good potential for progress 
 Neutral progress/status quo 
 Negative progress  
 
 
 
EN 61   EN Annex 6: Mobility Scoreboard – illustrative example 
The proposed mobility scoreboard model coul d be based upon a traffic-light approach, 
inspired by the Stocktaking of progress made in the area of Higher Education Reform in the 
context of the Bologna Process.  
Here, countries are assessed on a range from red = poor performance to dark green = very 
good performance (see below).  
This 'traffic-light' system has an advantage of being well known in the education sphere, 
easily understandable and relativ ely light in its approach. 
 
Source: Bologna scorecard, Bologn a Process stocktaking report 200929  
 
                                                 
29http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/ hogeronderwijs/bologna/confer ence/documents/Stocktaki ng_report_200 9_FINAL.pdf