COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(93) 194 final 
Brussels, 10 May 1993 
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION 
LINGUA PROGRAMME 
!|^^À0ÏIrôT;KEgORT | 
This report is divided into three main parts: 
- Part One, the SUMMARY, begins on page 5 and presents a brief review of the Programme's 
activities in 1992 within the scope of its Decentralized and Centralized Actions as well as that of 
the Inter-university Cooperation Programmes. Brief mention is also made of the partnerships which 
were set up, the languages targeted by the projects and the budgets allocated to the various 
measures. Part One finishes with a cursory glance at the coherence of LINGUA, its Community 
impact and, finally, its monitoring and evaluation. 
- Part Two, entitled DEVELOPMENT, begins on page 14 and places LINGUA in its context 
before providing a detailed analysis for 1992 of the operation of the Programme and the various 
Actions it comprises. Part Two also provides information on the management, monitoring, 
evaluation and promotion of the Programme. 
- Part Three, the CONCLUSION, can be found on page 44. This part draws the lessons to be 
learnt from the LINGUA activities for 1992, underscores the value of the Programme and 
contemplates the prospects for the years ahead. 
The table of contents is found on pages 3 and 4. 
The annexes provide a statistical overview and can be consulted from page 47 onwards. 

CONTENTS 
kaMM vamme*mmm 
SUMMARY 
[Ijll DEVELOPMEPTT 
14 
1. CONTEXT 14 
l.L What is LINGUA? 14 
1.2. The Objectives of LINGUA 14 
2. THE LINGUA PROGRAMME : 
CHARACTERISTICS, DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS IN 1992 16 
2.L Operational Components 16 
2.2. Decentralized Actions 17 
2L2X Mobility and Training Grants for Language Teachers 
(Action IA) 17 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 17 
b) Review of 1991 Figures 17 
c) Development and Results in 1992 17 
r r r Visits and Exchanges of Young People: Joint Educational Projects 
(Action IV) 20 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 20 
b) Review of 1991 Figures 21 
c) Development and Results in 1992 21 
23. Centralized Actions 24 
23.1. The Network of European Cooperation Programmes 
(Action IB) 24 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 24 
b) Review of the 1991 Figures 25 
c) Development and Results in 1992 25 
23.2. The European Network of Inter-university Cooperation Programmes and 
the Mobility of Students and Higher Education Staff (Action H) 27 
a) Definition and objectives of the Action 27 
b) Review of 1991 Figures 27 
c) Development and Results in 1992 28 
233. Languages and economic life 
(Action III) 28 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 28 
b) Review of 1991 Figures 29 
c) Development and Results in 1992 29 
23.4. Complementary measures 
* Part One - Promoting the Objectives of LINGUA 
(Action VA) 31 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 31 
b) Review of 1991 Fi; 31 
c) Development and R 992 31 
* Part Two - General Teaching s for the Least Widely Used and Least 
Taught languages (Action « 33 
a) Definition and Objectives of L. -tion 33 
b) Review of 1991 Figures 33 
c) Development and Results in 1992 33 
2.4. Budget 35 
3. PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT 36 
3.L Selection Procedures in 1992 36 
3.L1. Centralized Actions 36 
3.L2J)eccntrauzed Actions 36 
3JLThe LINGUA Committee 36 
33. National Agencies 37 
3.4. Group of Experts 38 
3.5. Technical assistance 38 
3.6. Links with other Community programmes 39 
4. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 40 
4.L Follow-up, Monitoring and Internal Evaluation 40 
4.1.1. Follow-up and Monitoring of Projects 40 
4.L2. Internal Evaluation of the .~e 41 
4JL External evaluation 42 
5. INFORMATION AND PROMOTION 43 
CONCLUSION 
ANNEXES 44 
47 
SUMMARY 
LINGUA, the Community Action Programme for the qualitative and quantitative promotion of the eleven 
Community languages taught or learnt as foreign languages in the twelve Member States, was adopted by 
the Council Decision 89/489/EEC of 28 July 1989 as published in the Official Journal of the European 
Communities N° L239/24. The Programme was initially set up for a five-year period from 1 January 1990 
to 31 December 1994. The budget allocated to implement this initial phase was estimated at 200 million 
ecus. 
With a budget allocation of six million ecus, 1990 was essentially a preparatory year and the whole 
Programme, with all Actions taken together, only became operational in 1991. 1992 was therefore the 
second year that LINGUA was actually in operation. 
1991 benefited from a total budget allocation of 23 million ecus. The results proved favourable overall 
and promised even more encouraging results for the future. 1992, with a budget of 38 million ecus, lived 
up to the promises of the previous year. The Programme grew and developed both in quantity and quality 
in all sectors and in all Actions. 
Decentralized Actions of the Programme 
(Run by the Member States in cooperation with the Commission of the European Communities) 
- The number of mobility grants for the in-service training of language teachers increased tenfold 
in relation to the previous year. With an available overall budget of 5.6 million ecus and an average 
general LINGUA grant of some 1000 ecus (approaching the maximum of 1500 ecus set out in the 
Decision) in 1991/92, mobility grants thus enabled 5,255 teachers to benefit from in-service training 
courses abroad, compared to 516 teachers who had received grants in 1990/91. 
As is mentioned in the reports submitted by grant recipients to the LINGUA National Agencies of the 
Member States, these grants have not only given teachers the possibility to visit the country whose 
language they teach, which some were doing for the first time, but in particular they have enabled them 
to substantially improve their language skills together with their competence in cultural and methodological 
areas. In the courses they attended, grant recipients have thus managed to increase their overall 
professional know-how and their specific competence as language teachers. 
The fact that teacher participation has increased tenfold demonstrates both the interest of the teachers 
concerned (for in many countries grant applications largely exceeded the opportunities available under the 
budgets allocated) and the positive Action taken by the Commission and the Member States with regard 
to providing information on and promoting this Action. 
- Within the scope of the Joint Educational Projects (JEPs) set up in the various countries, visits and 
exchanges of young people between establishments involved 17,891 pupils and 1,829 teachers, amounting 
to 19,720 participants in 1992. The available overall budget totalled 6 million ecus in 1991/92, and the 
average general LINGUA grant amounted to between 250 and 300 ecus per participant. This financial 
support represented a maximum amount of 50% (75% in some cases) of the total cost of the projects, the 
remainder being provided by grants from outside the Programme. Compared to the 4,335 pupils and 317 
teachers who participated in 1990/91, almost five times the number of young people and six times the 
number of accompanying teachers took advantage of the mobility offered by a Community training 
programme in 1991/92. 
An increasing number of Joint Educational Projects (JEPs) are truly original in their choice of working 
topics and directed to an ever greater extent towards proposals combining both the intercultural dimension 
and the linguistic dimension. The many possible examples that could be mentioned include the following: 
the 'NIJMEGEN Exchange Scheme' which brings together six countries in the same exchange 
network and which is assigned the task of promoting tolerance, cooperation and communication 
among young people within the framework of bilateral projects; 
a joint Action between the establishments of two Member States to write two plays in two languages 
which were then produced and presented in the two countries; 
the joint construction, by establishments of two Member States, of a mobile information unit with 
its own electricity supply, enabling it to be used anywhere. 
In this and in the previous Actions, the substantial overall increase in participants, even if a few Member 
States are still experiencing difficulties in absorbing all the financial support granted them, stems both from 
the increased interest of the establishments, teachers and pupils and a good promotional campaign. It 
should also be emphasized that the opportunity offered by the Member States to the general education 
schools (while in some cases reserving priority for vocational training centres) to join the Joint Educational 
Programmes (JEPs) has certainly contributed to the development of this Action. 
Centralized Actions of the Programme 
(Globally administered by the Commission of the European Communities) 
369 large-scale projects were submitted in 1992, bringing together 1,419 partners and involving: 
the in-service training of language teachers within the scope of European Cooperation Projects 
(ECPs) (62 projects received); 
the promotion of languages in economic life (170 projects received); 
the creation of general teaching materials for the teaching and learning of the least widely used and 
least taught Community languages (52 projects received); 
the promotion of LINGUA objectives by transnational associations or bodies (22 projects received) 
and study visits or preparatory visits for setting up European Cooperation Programmes (ECPs) or 
language Action projects in economic life (63 projects received). 
Of these 369 applications, 164 were accepted and supported (ie almost 45% of the projects submitted in 
1992 and about twice as many as in 1991). The 164 accepted applications involved 769 coordinators and 
partners. 
This increase in projects supported by Community funds is distributed relatively evenly across all of the 
Actions. .Particular increases were noted for: 
projects related to economic life (86 major projets supported in 1992 compared to 58 in 1991) 
teaching materials for the least widely used and least taught languages (23 projects in 1992 
compared to 15 in 1991) or the Actions for promoting the LINGUA objectives (14 in 1992 and 8 
in 1991). 
In view of the large scale of the projects taken into consideration and the entire novelty of the principle 
of transnational cooperation between training centres for language teachers, the most s^nificant difference 
(although, in absolute terms, the figures still seem a little low) involves European Cooperation Programmes. 
Here the number of projects supported in 1992 has more than doubled compared to 1991 (25 large projects 
supported in 1992 compared to 12 in 1991). 
Taking all Centralized Actions together, the general increase in the budget available in 1992 - irrespective 
of the larger number of supported projects - enabled higher average levels of grants per project supported 
than in 1991. In 1992, the average grant amounted to almost 50% of the total costs authorized by the 
Decision. This enabled worthwhile projects to come about and considerably reduced the number of 
accepted projects that might not have been set up due to a lack of Community support. 
However, this increase also reflects the excellent quality of the very large majority of applications 
submitted, whatever the sectors and Actions concerned. Owing to a wealth of good projects which could 
not all be supported, a reserve list has had to be drawn up in case any of the accepted projects do not 
materialize. 
As regards European Cooperation Programmes (ECPs), there is no doubt that the success of the Symposium 
organised in Veldhoven at the end of 1991 largely contributed to the significant increase in projects 
submitted, in the high quality of the training content offered and, consequently, in the number of projects 
the Commission decided to support. 
Inter-university Cooperation Programmes (ICPs) 
(run by the Commission of the European Communities on the model of the Inter-university Cooperation 
Programmes of the ERASMUS Programme) 
There were 232 applications for the Inter-university Cooperation Programmes (ICPs) in 1992, of which 
211 were accepted (compared to 149 in 1991, ie an increase of more than 40%). With a budget of just 
over seven million ecus, 6,724 students and 774 teachers were able to take advantage of the mobility 
offered. 
These 211 Inter-university Cooperation Programmes (ICPs) enabled 972 partners from higher education 
centres to participate. 48 of these Programmes concerned the study of the least widely used and least 
taught Community languages. 
Partnerships 
Within the context of the Centralized Actions of the Programme, transnational groups and networks of 
experts and institutions, bringing together more than 1,742 partners in 1992, were set up to develop projects 
in all the Actions and sectors covered by LINGUA. 
The networks set up are, as a whole, more concerned with the problems of training content and developing 
quality training materials which best suit Community requirements than with the problems posed by the 
simple encouragement of physical mobility among European citizens. In this context, mobility is 
considered to be more a means than an end. 
Although universities and various university training and research departments and institutes have 
monopolized all available places in the Inter-university Cooperation Programmes (ICPs), as was to be 
expected, they also represented around 31% of the partners in Centralized Actions concerning the in-
service training of language teachers, the development of the language skills of those involved in economic 
life and the development of teaching materials for the general promotion of the least widely used and least 
taught Community languages. Enterprises and vocational training centres counted for 30% in these 
Actions, the ministries and local and regional authorities for more than 10%, and publishers and other 
promoters of teaching materials for almost 5%. 
Target Languages 
Most applications for support among Decentralized Action projects were received for English, French and 
German, as these arc the target languages that more than 81% of in-service training grant recipients have 
in view. Similarly, 68% of applications for Joint Educational Projects involve the United Kingdom, France 
and Germany. The same result is found in the Inter-university Cooperation Programmes where English, 
French and German account for 77% of the languages targeted. 
Worrying as this situation may be. it is hardly surprising since the figures merely reflect the place these 
languages still hold in the national curricula. The general trend in several Member States is certainly 
towards a development and more significant »>f'tr of the least widely used and least taught languages in 
these curricula. But some time is require:: , v tisss trend is reflected in the habits and choices of 
potential beneficiaries. 
Nevertheless, Spain is more in demand than Germany for ^--service training grants and Denmark is among 
the leading countries visited within the context of Joint Educational Projects. 
On the other hand, the predominance of the most widely taught and most widely learnt languages in the 
Community is considerably less marked in the Centralized Actions of the Programme. Here the variety of 
applications submitted and the selection made by the Commission ensure that the three most widespread 
languages only represent 45% of the languages targeted by all supported projects. 
The least widely used and least taught languages comprise 55% of applications and are in the majority 
here, a figure which is more than encouraging. 
Budget 
The total budget for 1992 amounted to 38 million ecus, compared to 23 million ecus in 1991. 
This budget has been used as follows: 
- In-service training for teachers 
(individual grants, support for 
European Cooperation Programmes 
and preparatory visits) 8.52 million ecus 
- Mobility in higher education 
(support for Inter-university Cooperation 
Programmes and individual grants) 7.53 million ecus 
- Languages and economic life 
(projects relating to language audits, 
teaching materials and preparatory visits 
7.02 million ecus 
- Mobility of young people aged between 16 and 25 
(Joint Educational Projects) 8.40 million ecus 
- Complementary measures 
(grants for associations, seminairs, publications 
and projects concerning teaching materials 
for the least widely used and least 
taught languages 1.85 million ecus 
Programme management 
(technical assistance and subsidies 
to National Agencies 4.68 millions ecus 
Total 38.00 million ecus 
The Coherence of LINGUA 
Experience gained in the LINGUA Programme's first few years of operations has shown that an effective 
quantitative and qualitative promotion of foreign language competence can only be achieved in a coherent 
overall context. 
At first glance, the problem of language communication in a multilingual Community is a complex one 
since there are many and, apparently, quite different targets and objectives. It would appear, however, that 
the solution largely lies in defining coherent national language policies and a coherent Community 
approach. These should be reflected in specific measures which are linked by an overall strategy. 
The LINGUA Programme offers this coherence and tackles the problems as a whole, allowing it to have 
a real impact on Member State policies. 
LINGUA aims to tackle the language problem facing Europe overall and not on the basis of randomly 
identified requirements (the various Programme users and coordinators are dedicated to this approach). 
The LINGUA Programme consists of a series of Community Actions which aim to develop mobility, on 
the one hand, and training content and materials, on the other hand, all Actions being linked together by 
an internal logic and closely interdependent. 
Although this logic and interdependence of Programme Actions are clearer with regard to the Actions for 
teacher training and young people's mobility (vocational training pupils, secondary school pupils or 
students), they are just as real in the context of relations between these Actions (and the strategies they 
involve) and those concerning the promotion of languages in economic life or the production of teaching 
materials. 
Although the economic world does have its own strategies and its own means of training its various staff 
in foreign languages, it is equally true that this sector defines its strategies and adapts its means to fit their 
students' competence. This in turn clearly depends on the quality of the education they have received and 
the opportunities of mobility given to them. Their competence is generally the result of a school education. 
The connection between those who develop teaching materials - who tend to be language education experts 
and therefore often teachers or former teachers - the way in which they have been trained (initially or 
through in-service training) and their pedagogical experience is clear enough not to require further 
elaboration. 
It is therefore essential that in these two particularly important aspects of the Programme (languages in 
economic life and the development of teaching materials), all those who contribute to make language 
teaching and learning more efficient and learning strategies more effective should combine forces and work 
together: from the theoretical linguistics researcher to the applied linguistics expert, from the teacher to the 
non-linguist responsible for company training and the final user of the products designed for him, from 
the psycholinguist to the teacher trainer, from the audiovisual expert to the computer technician, and from 
the mobility expert to the intercultural specialist. The force and skill of each component in this synergy, 
and the opportunities and facilities provided for them to cooperate, are guarantees for the success of 
Community action in these sectors. 
All these forces, that have just begun working together within the scope of a coherent overall Programme, 
must also ensure that they are given the opportunity of continuing to work together for the same common 
Community good in the future. 
The Impact of LINGUA 
The results of the Programme can now be quantified significantly in the sector of Decentralized Actions 
concerning the mobility of teachers and young people. The figures demonstrate this (see the paragraph on 
the Programme's Decentralized Actions in 1992, pages 5 and 6 of this report). 
Results can also be quantified in the Centralized Actions which are concerned with the content of in-
service training intended for teachers, with languages in higher education and projects intended for 
economic life or the general public. This is of particular interest for partnerships bringing together 
hundreds of institutions and thousands of individuals with little or no experience of working together, and 
who have only been able to engage in active cooperation through the Programme. The figures substantiate 
this as well (see the paragraph on the Centralized Actions of the Programme and Inter-university 
Cooperation Programmes in 1992, pages 6 and 7 of this report). 
For the time being, however, these results are less easy to evaluate in terms of quality. 
With regard to the Decentralized Actions, the questionnaires drawn up by the Commission and by the 
representatives of each country have been distributed to the participants. At the time of distribution, they 
reached some 50% of all teachers and young people concerned by these Actions in 1992. The 
questionnaires were completed and returned to the Commission via the national structures for Programme 
management at the beginning of 1993. The results of entering and processing the data furnished in these 
questionnaires by computer and their qualitative analysis will be ready at the end of the first half of 1993. 
With regard to Centralized Actions and the teaching materials they are in the process of developing, the 
very first results of the projects supported by the Programme are just beginning to emerge. Almost all of 
the reports from the end of the first phase to be drafted for the first projects supported by LINGUA and, 
consequently, the product samples or the products themselves, are only expected at the beginning of 1993. 
Their dissemination will also begin in 1993. In this way, a serious study of their impact on the Community 
can only begin in 1994. 
Nonetheless, the first indications received by the Commission in the first interim reports are already 
showing a particularly favourable cost-benefit ratio. Convincing evidence has been provided by: 
the large scale of most of the projects, 
the large number, diversity and quality of the partnerships they have generated, 
their great potential multiplier effect (since many of them use new information technologies 
enabling optimum use and dissemination, and also on account of the setting up of large 
national or transnational networks which some team members belong to), 
the Community gain achieved (the great majority of products being developed had very little 
chance of being produced without the Commission's intervention and the additional support 
provided by LINGUA). 
As of 1993, the Commission will be able to start an in-depth evaluation of the impact of the first European 
Cooperation Programmes for the in-service training of teachers. Almost all of the final reports on phase 
1 were submitted during the last quarter of 1992. Since again most of the projects are the object of a 
three-year Action plan, the first modules or training products for dissemination will only become available 
after 1993. 
Although only a few of these European Cooperation Programmes existed in 1991, the final reports on phase 
1 demonstrate their effectiveness. 
In the same way as the projects relating to teaching materials mentioned above, these Programmes already 
serve as excellent examples of a very positive cost-benefit ratio thanks to: 
their scale, 
the partnerships they have formed, 
their great multiplier effect (owing to their impact, in the very short term, on thousands of 
teachers who have begun to exercise their Community mobility with LINGUA in-service 
training grants and who are potential users of the products generated by these projects), 
the obvious gain, both in quantity and quality, they provide with regard to transnational 
cooperation between specialist institutions (which, without the Programme, would have 
continued to be unaware of each other and work alone, each in their own country, region and 
sector) and with regard to the foundations they lay for a large transnational network for the 
in-service training of language teachers. 
To give an idea of the types of projects supported by the Commission within the scope of the Centralized 
Actions of the Programme and their potential impact on the Community, reference can be made to the two 
compendia of LINGUA projects accepted in 1991 and 1992. The 1991 compendium has been available 
for almost a year, while the 1992 compendium will be available in April 1993. 
A more accurate assessment of the general impact of the Programme on the language policy of the Member 
States can be made once the reports to be provided during the first six months of 1993 by the aforesaid 
Member States at the request of the Commission have been received and evaluated. These reports will also 
enable the Commission to report to the Council on its experience with implementing the Programme at the 
end of its second year of operation, in accordance with Article 13 of the Decision of the Council of 
Ministers of 28 July 1989. 
The Programme was already the subject of debate in the Council of Ministers on 1 June 1992. The 
discussions during that meeting related, in particular, to the question of administrative obstacles to the 
smooth development of the Programme and the problems related to language diversification. 
Particular mention was made of administrative obstacles involving the availability of teachers for in-service 
training courses during the academic year and their replacement during training courses. Also mentioned 
were the problems of integrating Joint Educational Projects intended for young people aged between 16 
and 25, the work they involve and the visits or exchanges they generate within the scope of the educational 
programmes of the participating establishments. 
The Council noted difficulties in achieving language diversification. It also noted that the teaching of two 
foreign languages in educational programmes was not compulsory in all Member States, and that efforts 
were generally focused on the more common languages. 
While awaiting the reports on the evaluation and effectiveness of the Programme planned for 1993, the 
Council assigned the Education Committee the task of monitoring the situation. 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
In addition to monitoring the projects and making regular internal evaluations by means of reports, 
discussions and coordination meetings in Brussels, and site inspections, the Commission launched an 
invitation to tender in 1992 for the external evaluation of the Programme, its structures and its impact in 
the twelve Member States. The final report of this evaluation is expected during the second half of 1993. 
LINGUA 
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DEVELOPMENT 
OF LANGUAGE SKILLS IN EUROPE 
by 
- generalizing the use of foreign languages 
- supporting the promotion of all Community languages 
- integrating foreign languages into university courses 
- improving the skills of language teachers 
- promoting foreign languages in economic life 
- encouraging innovation in teaching methods 
- fostering exchange programmes for young people 
by building on pedagogical projects 
LINGUA in 1992 
Several key figures in review 
* The Programme1* Decentralized Actions have enabled : 
~ $3?l*w&ers to IbH^^ •* 
language they teach (ten âmes more than in 1991) 
- 19*720 people to become involved in Joint Educational Projects 
(live times mare than in 1991) through more than mm hundred paimeiships ; 
between educational estabiishmeats in the twelve Member States 
* Hie Centralised Actions of the Programme have enabled : 
- more than 1,742 partner institntions from all Community coannies.lQ.hejgln.or 
coatame working within the context of projects supjpoited by the Commission. 
-16>» yarinerships bringing together 769 durèrent utstitntfon* (more than twice 
':-• the figures :fbr 1991), to be established in order to improve: and promote, throughV | 
ambitious projects with a great maitipiier e$ect, the- fenttevic* training otr -; : J 
language teachers and language skills hi economic life or in general :', *.. •• 
-almost 55% of the total number of languages targeted b$ the projects orooosed ^ 
by these 164 partnerships to he the least widely used and least taught 
Community languages 
—2U ïnter-iiniversïty Cooperation Projects (4b% more than in 1991), bringing: 
together 972 institutions to operate, peimitting the mobility of 6,724 students and 
774 teachers 
* All centralized projects combined i 
~ universities represented almost 70% of partnerships 
* Action Outside Inter-university Cooperation Programmes : 
- universities represented more than 31% of the partnerships and enterprises, 
professional associations and vocational training centres almost 30% 
DEOTl^MENT 
1. CONTEXT 
1.1. What is LINGUA? 
While reflection on its objectives began as early as 1976, the LINGUA Programme was adopted on 
28 July 1989 at the proposal of the Commission and came into being on 1 January 1990 for a five-
year period with an estimated budget of 200 million ecus. 
At meetings held in Stuttgart in July 1983, then in Fontainebleau in June 1984 and in Milan in June 
1985, these initial reflections led to an official adoption of the view that languages constitute an 
appropriate field of Community activity. Declarations on European Union subsequently underscored 
the need for the Community to improve the language skills of its citizens. 
This process of reflection was spurred by declarations from all those involved in the building of 
Europe. They have in fact regularly and clearly indicated their concern to safeguard and promote 
the cultural identity of all the components of the Community and of each of its citizens. As 
languages represent one of the best means to express the culture of peoples and individuals, the 
preservation of the European cultural environment and the safeguarding of a true multicultural 
character necessarily entail the defense of multilingualism across the Community. The task is to 
ensure that all Community languages can live together and enjoy equal opportunities, to promote 
the multilingualism of our citizens, so as to give each of us the means to master one or more foreign 
languages in addition to our mother tongue. 
This movement was also fostered by the strong belief that improved foreign language skills among 
Europeans would help them to overcome communication barriers, thus constituting one of the keys 
to achieving overall Community objectives. In particular, foreign language skills can facilitate the 
introduction of the internal market and realization of the free movement of persons, goods, services 
and capital within the single market. 
1.2. The Objectives of LINGUA 
Article 4 of the Decision of 28 July 1989 states that: 
•The principal objective of the LINGUA Programme shall be to promote a quantitative 
and qualitative improvement in foreign language competence with a view to developing 
communication skills within the Community. To that end, it shall, by means of 
Community-wide measures, provide opportunities for supporting and complementing 
Member States' policies and schemes aimed at achieving this objective." 
Article 5 insists on the aspects of subsidiarity and complementarity emphasizing the fact that the 
Programme aims "to promote the implementation of those policies adopted by the Member States, 
applied within the scope of their internal structures and the characteristics and opportunities of their 
education and training system" which aim to achieve this principal objective. 
Article 5 describes this principal objective in greater detail and indicates the following specific 
objectives: 
- generalize the practice of foreign languages 
"encourage all citizens to acquire a working knowledge of foreign languages" 
- help promote all Community languages 
"increase the opportunities of teaching and learning foreign languages in the 
Community and, in particular, encourage competence with the least widely used and 
least taught foreign languages" 
- incorporate foreign languages into the largest possible number of university courses 
"promote the provision of opportunities for university students to combine foreign 
language studies with the pursuit of their main disciplines as a recognized component 
of their degree, diploma or other qualification" 
- improve the skills of foreign language teachers 
"raise the standard of foreign language teaching by improving the initial and in-service 
training of foreign-language teachers and trainers, by increasing the opportunities for 
them to reap the benefits of appropriate preparation abroad" 
- promote foreign languages in economic life 
"encourage employers and professional organizations to promote training in foreign 
languages for the workforce in order to take full advantage of the internal market, with 
particular reference to the needs of the small and medium-sized enterprises and of the 
peripheral and least-developed regions of the Community" 
- encourage methodological innovation 
"promote innovation in methods of foreign language training and in the exploitation 
of the communication technologies used" 
The information collected from the Member States at the end of the first phase of operation of the 
Programme clearly shows that pursuing these objectives has already had a certain effect on their language 
policy and that the impact of the Programme is starting to be felt. 
Four examples spring to mind to illustrate this, although they only represent some of the measures or steps 
inspired by LINGUA in one Member State or another: 
the almost systematic and compulsory inclusion of languages in all secondary education and 
vocational training curricula 
a wider range of languages offered to pupils or students in educational establishments 
the increasing inclusion of languages in non-language university courses 
the spread of early language teaching in most Member States. 
2. THE LINGUA PROGRAMME : 
CHARACTERISTICS, DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS IN 1992 
2.1. Operational Components 
To achieve its objectives, the LINGUA Programme is divided into five Actions which boast several 
characteristics in common. On the one hand, they all aim somehow and to some extent in one 
sector or another to promote competence in the eleven Community languages which are learned or 
taught as foreign languages. On the other hand, they all involve transnational partnerships with the 
countries in which the languages targeted by the projects are spoken and/or include mobility to those 
countries. And finally, for projects of equal quality and when budgets require priorities to be set, 
all five Actions give preference to the least widely used and least taught languages. 
These five Actions, as described in the Annex to the Decision of the Council of Ministers, are as 
follows: 
- Action I : Measures intended to promote the in-service training of foreign-language 
teachers 
- Action II : Measures intended to promote the learning of foreign languages at university 
and, in particular, to develop the initial training of foreign-language teachers 
- Action III : Measures intended to promote competence in foreign languages used in working 
relations and in economic life 
- Action IV : Measures intended to promote the development of exchanges of young people 
following specialist, vocational or technical training courses in the Community 
- Action V : Complementary measures, in particular those intended to promote innovation in 
foreign language teaching methods 
Despite their heterogeneous appearance, these five Actions of the Programme are closely related, 
very interdependent and create a synergy by bringing together all those who are essential to an 
effective promotion of language skills among Europeans. The complementarity of the design and 
content of these Actions as well as that of the people implementing them ensure the coherence of 
the Programme as a whole. 
These five Actions belong to two different categories at management level: the Decentralized 
Actions and the Centralized Actions. 
The first part of Action I (relating to mobility grants for language teachers, all categories combined, 
except for higher education teaching staff) and Action IV are decentralized, ie they are run as a 
whole by the Member States in cooperation with the Commission. However, their general guidelines 
and overall budget are defined by the Commission with the assistance of the LINGUA Committee. 
The second part of Action I (relating to the setting up of European Cooperation Programmes for 
improving the in-service training of language teachers), and also Actions II, III and V are 
centralized, ie they are run as a whole by the Commission. 
The general guidelines for the Decentralized Actions and their respective budgets are also defined 
by the Commission with the assistance of the LINGUA Committee. 
16 
Italy is also improving its percentage (68% more than in 1991), even if it is still a fair way 
behind the big' four. However, if we take into account that the overall number of participants 
is much higher this year, the result is encouraging. 
The Danish, Greek, Dutch and Portuguese languages together account for 1.45% of 
applications. This figure should be credited to the LINGUA Programme which has enabled 
some one hundred teachers to go to Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal to follow 
courses which they would not have had the means to attend without Community incentive. 
This dynamic appears to be developing well and applications relating to the least widely used 
and least taught languages are likely to increase in the months and years to come. 
1991 
Host country 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
P 
UK % 
00.23 
00.23 
11.35 
00.47 
16.79 
15.60 
00.47 
02.13 
00.00 
02.37 
01.19 
49.17 Rank 
10 
10 
4 
8 
2 
3 
8 
6 
12 
5 
7 
1 1992 
Rank 
9 
11 
4 
7 
3 
2 
6 
5 
12 
8 
10 
1 % 
00.40 
00.08 
08.51 
00.67 
10.98 
26.94 
02.17 
03.59 
00.02 
00.55 
00.15 
45.94 Host country 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
Table 1 - Action IA 
Teacher Mobility - Host Country - Comparison of 1991 and 1992 Figures 
- The Commission's budget commitments, by country, under contracts covering the 1991/92 
and 1992/93 financial years were as follows: 
(Note: the Programme's Decentralized Actions do not operate in calendar years, but in school 
or academic years. They thus make it possible to support, for example, projects undertaken 
during the period running from 1 August one year to 31 July the next. But these dates may 
vary depending on the Member States. Some projects which span 1991 and 1992 are taken 
into account in this 1992 activity report, although these projects were financed under the 1991 
budget (for the record: the 1991 LINGUA activity report showed figures relating to projects 
implemented in 1990/91 and financed under the 1990 budget). The 1992 budget will be used 
during the 1992/93 school or academic year. The figures relating to the amounts made 
available to the Member States within the scope of this 1992 budget are shown in Table 2a, 
for information and to offer a point of comparison with 1991). 
Italy is also improving its percentage (68% more than in 1991), even if it is still a fair way 
behind the 'big' four. However, if we take into account that the overall number of participants 
is much higher this year, the result is encouraging. 
The Danish, Greek, Dutch and Portuguese languages together account for 1.45% of 
applications. This figure should be credited to the LINGUA Programme which has enabled 
some one hundred teachers to go to Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal to follow 
courses which they would not have had the means to attend without Community incentive. 
This dynamic appears to be developing well and applications relating to the least widely used 
and least taught languages are likely to increase in the months and years to come. 
1991 
Host country 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
P 
UK % 
00.23 
00.23 
11.35 
00.47 
16.79 
15.60 
00.47 
02.13 
00.00 
02.37 
01.19 
49.17 Rank 
10 
10 
4 
8 
2 
3 
8 
6 
12 
5 
7 
1 1992 
Rank 
9 
11 
4 
7 
3 
2 
6 
5 
12 
8 
10 
1 % 
00.40 
00.08 
08.51 
00.67 
10.98 
26.94 
02.17 
03.59 
00.02 
00.55 
00.15 
45.94 Host country 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
Table 1 - Action IA 
Teacher Mobility - Host Country - Comparison of 1991 and 1992 Figures 
- The Commission's budget commitments, by country, under contracts covering the 1991/92 
and 1992/93 financial years were as follows: 
(Note: the Programme's Decentralized Actions do not operate in calendar years, but in school 
or academic years. They thus make it possible to support, for example, projects undertaken 
during the period running from 1 August one year to 31 July the next. But these dates may 
vary depending on the Member States. Some projects which span 1991 and 1992 are taken 
into account in this 1992 activity report, although these projects were financed under the 1991 
budget (for the record: the 1991 LINGUA activity report showed figures relating to projects 
implemented in 1990/91 and financed under the 1990 budget). The 1992 budget will be used 
during the 1992/93 school or academic year. The figures relating to the amounts made 
available to the Member States within the scope of this 1992 budget are shown in Table 2a, 
for information and to offer a point of comparison with 1991). 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark Budget 
176,080 ecus 
89,543 ecus Country 
Spain 
France Budget 
495,238 ecus 
689,303 ecus Country 
Luxembourg 
The 
Netherlands Budget 
21,427 ecus 
173,509 ecus 
Germany * 2,071,253 ecus Ireland 62,554 ecus Portugal 164,940 ecus 
Greece 155,088 ecus Italy 912,436 ecus United 
Kingdom 
(* including the exceptional special grant in favour of the five new Lander) 
Table 2 - Action IA - Budget by Country in 1991192 588,629 ecus 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece Budget 
277,610 ecus 
137,670 ecus 
1,739,598 ecus 
255,107 ecus Country 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy Budget 
783,926 ecus 
1,059,587 ecus 
106,728 ecus 
1,107,406 ecus Country 
Luxembourg 
The 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom Budget 
39,923 ecus 
275,500 ecus 
270,578 ecus 
946,369 ecus 
Table 2a - Action IA - Budget by Country in 1992/93 
- The flows of teachers sent and hosted, by country, are indicated in Table 3 below (see also 
Annex 1 - Statistical Overview - at the end of the report). It can be seen from this table 
that, among those countries with more widely used and more widely taught languages, the 
United Kingdom and France hosted more teachers than they sent abroad. Germany 
completely reversed the trend by sending abroad more than five times the number of teachers 
it hosted. Spain is the only country to show a near balance 
For those countries with less widely used la., nges, Denmark and Portugal sent between 18 
and 25 times the number of teachers they hosted, the Netherlands four times and Italy three 
times as many. 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France Teachers 
sent 
202 
98 
2312 
73 
460 
480 Teachers 
hosted 
21 
4 
447 
35 
577 
1,416 Country 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
The 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom Teachers sent 
72 
613 
19 
121 
144 
663 Teachers 
hosted 
114 
189 
1 
29 
8 
2,414 
Table 3 - Action IA - Incoming and Outgoing Flows 
- Through its mobility grants, Action LA of LINGUA has certainly provided a significant 
number of teachers the opportunity of a European experience they would probably not have 
had without the Programme. Teachers were thus able to improve their language skills in the 
foreign country and experience the culture of the countries whose languages they teach. 
This Action also contributes towards developing and strengthening a network of contacts 
between academic establishments abroad, a network which will contribute significantly to the 
setting up of new Joint Educational Projects within the scope of Action IV of the Programme. 
- The administrative problems posed by this Action and brought to the attention of the 
Council of Ministers on 1 June 1992 (see end of paragraph The impact of LINGUA', pages 
11 and 12 in the 'Summary') do not appear to have stemmed the rise in applications for 
training courses in 1992. 
2.2.2. Visits and Exchanges of Young People: Joint Educational Projects 
(Action IV) 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 
Action IV aims to promote the participation of young people, aged between 16 and 25 and 
who follow specialist, technical or vocational training courses, in exchange programmes based 
on pedagogical projects called Joint Educational Projects. 
The Decision specifies that it is up to each Member State to define the concept of specialist, 
technical or vocational training and to limit or expand it as they see fit. As a whole, the 
twelve countries have decided to give the Decision a broad interpretation and involve general 
education schools as well. 
The pedagogical exchanges should be aimed at improving the communication skills of young 
people and at developing their motivation to acquire a working knowledge of foreign 
languages. When the projects involve the countries of the least widely used and least taught 
languages, the participants should be able to reach a minimum survival level in the language 
20 
of the host country, and they should if possible acquire a minimum amount of technical 
vocabulary with regard to the topic of the joint activity. These objectives are achieved by 
setting up educational projects prepared with the utmost care prior to the visit or the exchange 
and which are fully integrated into the participants' school activities. The educational projects 
are technical or cultural in nature, but should all comprise a strong linguistic component. 
b) Review of 1991 Figures 
In the 1991 activity report, the figures supplied by the Member States showed that 4,018 
young people had benefited from grants which generally covered a maximum of 50% of the 
total cost of the projects. 
An analysis of the data provided by the Member States and relating to 3,754 of the 4,018 
participants showed that 1.97% went to Belgium, 4.40% to Denmark, 8.63% to Germany, 
1.84% to Greece, 5.91% to Spain, 12.79% to France, 3.30% to Ireland, 6.05% to Italy, 
0.53% to the Netherlands, 4.26% to Portugal and 50.32% to the United Kingdom. No 
applications were made for Luxembourg. 
c) Development and Results in 1992 
(see also Annexes 3 and 4 in the Statistical Overview at the end of the report) 
The number of beneficiaries increased virtually fivefold in 1992, since 911 projects 
involving 17,891 young people and 1,829 teachers, ie 19,720 people, were set up and 
received LINGUA support. Grants for 811 preparatory visits were also awarded. 
Table 4 below shows, as a percentage, the breakdown of these young people by countries 
visited (see also Annex 3 - Statistical Overview - at the end of the report) and enables a 
comparison to be made with the 1991 figures. As in the case of Action LA, this second series 
of figures is given purely as an indication and should not be used to draw conclusions which 
ignore the obvious incongruities between the numbers compared. 
1991 
Host country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
The 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom % 
01.97 
04.40 
08.63 
01.84 
05.91 
12.79 
03.30 
06.05 
00.00 
00.53 
04.26 
50.32 Rank 
9 
6 
3 
10 
5 
2 
8 
4 
12 
11 
7 
1 1992 
Rank 
7 
6 
3 
11 
4 
2 
8 
5 
12 
9 
10 
1 % 
03.39 
05.61 
08.74 
01.40 
07.85 
21.42 
02.80 
07.13 
00.21 
02.15 
01.42 
37.88 Host country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 1 
France 1 
Ireland 1 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
The 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom 
Table 4 - Action IV - Mobility of Young People - Host Country -
Comparison of 1991 and 1992 Figures 
When participation levels increase and the sample thus becomes more relevant, the percentage 
for the United Kingdom decreases (by 24.72% compared to 1991) while the percentage for 
France increases (by 67.47% compared to 1991). 
In this way, the United Kingdom and France together hosted more than 59% of participants 
in Joint Educational Projects. 
Germany, Spain and Italy are far behind, although, split fairly evenly between them, they host 
almost 24% of the total number of participants. 
Danish, Greek, Dutch and Portuguese - the four least widely used languages of the 
Programme (apart from Irish and Letzeburgesch) - account for almost 11%. The figure is 
still fairly low, but it is no less encouraging. Considering the range of main languages 
offered in the school curricula of the Member States, the LINGUA Programme has every 
reason to be pleased with the contribution it is making in terms of opening up to young 
Europeans the countries where the least widely used and least taught languages are spoken. 
Although the impact is still low, it is clear that nothing would have happened without 
LINGUA. The trend has been set, and only needs now to be strengthened. 
The case of Denmark is extremely interesting since this country has attracted 5.61% of the 
total number of participants. This figure reflects the attraction that Scandinavian countries 
continue to hold for other Member States, and more particularly perhaps for the 
Mediterranean countries. Although Danish has not been the essential language of 
communication during the visits and work meetings, course reports show that some of the 
time has been set aside for the initial immersion of participants in a language that is certainly 
hardly known or used in Europe. 
- The Commission's budget commitments, by country, under contracts covering the 1991/92 
financial year and the forecasts for 1992/93 were as follows: 
(Note: see page 18, first comment in the paragraph on budget commitments relating to 
Action LA. The sums made available to the Member States within the scope of the 1992 
budget are shown in Table 5a, for information and to offer a point of comparison with 1991.) 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany * 
Greece Budget 
159,707 ecus 
102,111 ecus 
1,807,423 ecus 
226,204 ecus Country 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy Budget 
749,280 ecus 
721,006 ecus 
89,544 ecus 
803,226 ecus Country 
Luxembourg 
The 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom Budget 
26,712 ecus 
254,478 ecus 
276,471 ecus 
783,838 ecus 
(* including the exceptional special grant in favour of the five new Lander) 
Table 5 - Action IV - Budget by country in 1991/92 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany * 
Greece Budget 
241,753 ecus 
149,012 ecus 
1,622,662 ecus 
363,423 ecus Country 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy Budget 
1,179,376 ecus 
1,098,546 ecus 
135,399 ecus 
1,552,893 ecus Country 
Luxembourg 
The 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom Budget 
41,807 ecus 
390,650 ecus 
394,053 ecus 
1,230,426 ecus 
Table 5a - Action IV - Budget by country in 1992/93 
- The flows of young people sent and hosted, by country, are shown in Table 6 below (see 
also Annex I - Statistical Overview - at the end of the report). It can be seen from this table 
that most of the 'big' countries (Germany, Spain, France and Italy) sent more young people 
than they hosted. The United Kingdom alone provides an exception to this rule with almost 
three times fewer young Britons leaving than young people coming from other Member 
States. The smaller countries, however, hosted more young people than they sent, except for 
the Netherlands (three times more Dutch young people leaving than other nationalities 
coming). Greece and Portugal have had almost the same number of young people coming 
as going. 
23 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France Young people 
sent 
244 
756 
2,884 
250 
2,589 
4,374 Young people 
hosted 
607 
1,004 
1,563 
251 
l,j.r,i Country 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
The 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
3,83o United 
Kingdom Young people 
sent 
415 
2,260 
0 
1,271 
286 
2,562 Young 
people hosted 
501 
1,271 
38 
385 
253 
6,777 
Table 6 - Action IV - Incoming and Outgoing Flows 
- The dynamics of Action IV are now well in place, even if a few Member States have still 
experienced difficulties in using up their total budget. This Action contributes largely, and 
in an entirely original manner, to the development of language skills and the European 
dimension in very different types of educational establishments. 
The fact that in 1992 the Commission simplified the procedures for the Member States to run 
this Action, by asking the same National Agency to finance both the costs of sending and 
hosting project participants, contributed to the development of new initiatives. 
Reciprocating visits within projects continues to be a problem. Although reciprocity is not 
compulsory, it is strongly encouraged. If the principle of reciprocity were generalized and 
systematized, it would risk creating serious problems for those Member States which are very 
much 'in demand*. The United Kingdom, in particular, would have great difficulty financially 
in reciprocating with all its partner establishments. On the other hand, establishing this 
reciprocity in projects initiated by other countries would risk preventing British establishments 
from encouraging and setting up the kinds of projects they would like. 
- As was the case for Action IA, the administrative problems posed by this Action and which 
were brought to the attention of the Council of Ministers on 1 June 1992 (see end of 
paragraph The impact of LINGUA', pages 11 and 12 of the 'Summary') do not appear to have 
impeded the development of Projects. 
2.3. Centralized Actions 
(Note: unlike the Decentralized Actions, these Actions are run in calendar years and have 
generated projects submitted and supported in 1992.) 
2.3.1. The Network of European Cooperation Programmes 
(Action IB) 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 
The European Cooperation Programmes constitute an entirely new approach to the in-service 
training of foreign-language teachers. 
The main objective of these Programmes is to create an original framework in which teachers 
and trainers can improve their communication skills, their knowledge of the cultural 
environment of the target language and their mastery of various teaching methods not only 
in their national context but also in a transnational environment. 
This priority objective is achieved by means of active cooperation between the in-service 
training establishments of at least two Member States. Innovations in the field of the 
methodologies of teaching and learning foreign languages and the use of new information 
technologies are important aspects to be considered in the joint development of a European 
Cooperation Programme. 
b) Review of the 1991 Figures 
In 1991 (contract period running from 1 September 1991 to 31 August 1992), twelve projects 
received financial support. 
Three projects were coordinated by France, two by Italy, one by Portugal and six by the 
United Kingdom. These four countries also participated as partners in several projects along 
with Germany (seven partner institutions in the projects) and Spain (six partner institutions). 
The languages targeted by the projects were Spanish (six times), German (six times), Greek 
(once), English (seven times), French (ten times), Italian (six times) and Portuguese (twice). 
c) Development and Results in 1992 
- 62 applications were submitted in 1992, bringing together 187 partner institutions. Of these 
62 applications, 25 Programmes (including seven renewed Programmes accepted in 1991) 
were set up (or continued to operate) with LINGUA support for a contract period running 
from 1 September 1992 to 31 August 1993. The amount of support from the LINGUA 
Programme requested by these 25 partnerships amounted to 1,733,187 ecus, and a total 
Community support of 1,431,000 ecus was granted. 
- These 25 Programmes involved 110 different establishments. The most frequent partners 
in the teams were universities or official, national or local teacher training institutions. 
- The languages targeted by the projects were Spanish (10 times), Danish (3 times), German 
(14 times), Greek (6 times), English (14 times), French (18 times), Irish (3 times), Italian (10 
times), Dutch (5 times) and Portuguese (8 times). 
With the sole exception of Letzeburgesch, all Community languages were included in the 
projects and - although German, English and French are still in the lead - the Commission 
has most carefully ensured that, in its selection, the least widely used and least taught 
languages are well represented. 
(5) 
- As shown in the following table, all the Member States were represented in the projects 
either as coordinators (all except for Ireland) or as partners (all except for Luxembourg). 
Country Coordinators Partners 
Belgium 2 1 
Denmark 2 1 
Germany 2 16 
Greece 1 4 
Spain 1 9 
France 5 14 
Ireland 0 5 
Italy 3 9 
Luxembourg 1 0 
The 1 6 
Netherlands 
Portugal 1 10 
United 6 10 
Kingdom 
Table 7 - Action IB - Coordinators and Partners by Country 
- The criteria for selecting new projects were essentially based on: 
. the quality of the applications in terms of potential and original contribution to an 
improvement in the in-service training of foreign language teachers and their trainers 
. the priority given to joint curricula development for the in-service training of foreign 
language teachers and their trainers 
. the importance of transnational partnerships and the effort to have all Member States 
represented as either coordinators or partners. 
- The same criteria were adopted for renewal applications. However, in the absence of final 
phase one reports at the time of selection, (as specified in the contracts, reports were received 
after the period for evaluating applications), renewal applications were examined in the light 
of interim reports and the evaluators' knowledge of results and progress already achieved and 
recorded. 
- The selection of all Programmes supported by the Commission took into account the impact 
these training projects could have on the general quality of the professional development of 
teachers and their trainers, in particular when the content and established partnerships enable 
participants, through the experience they have acquired in the projects, to develop new 
expectations, new attitudes or new strategies with regard to the training of foreign language 
trainers, and enable them to question themselves and to challenge and refocus their own 
expertise. 
26 
- The Commission also selected the European Cooperation Programmes in such a way that 
they could in future begin innovative training activities so as to offer support to grant-holders 
under Action LA of the Programme (see Decentralized Actions). 
- Not much use was made of preparatory visits leading to the setting up of European 
Cooperation Programmes as provided for by the Decision, as only 41 applications were 
submitted in all, of which only four were accepted (most of the rejected applications came 
from language teachers applying for support to follow a training course abroad which fell 
outside the scope of Action LA of the Programme). 
Seven applications for additional visits were submitted by 31 December 1992, of which three 
were accepted. However, these visits were supported by the 1993 budget and are not taken 
into account here. 
These preparatory visits are currently undergoing much promotion. By enabling possible 
future partners to meet and contemplate the advisability and feasibility of a project together, 
the visits serve as a good means of setting up well motivated and suitably prepared European 
Cooperation Programmes in the future. 
2.3.2. The European Network of Inter-university Cooperation Programmes and the 
Mobility of Students and Higher Education Staff (Action II) 
a) Definition and objectives of the Action 
This Action incorporates a set of measures intended to promote the learning of foreign 
languages at university and in other higher education establishments and in particular to 
finance the initial training of future foreign-language teachers. 
More specifically, these measures consist of providing grants favouring the creation of Inter-
university Cooperation Programmes and fostering the mobility of students and teachers. 
Grants are also available to support study visits made by members of teaching and 
administrative staff in higher education. 
The objective of student mobility programmes is to enable students to complete a study period 
in another Member State of at least three months duration fully which is recognized in their 
own Member State. 
The support provided for mobility programmes for foreign-language teachers is intended to 
enable them to practise in another Member State for a period lasting one week to one year. 
The study visit grants should be used by staff for preparing and implementing mobility 
programmes or increasing their competence in language teaching. 
b) Review of 1991 Figures 
In 1991, grants were awarded to 149 Inter-university Cooperation Programmes bringing 
together 627 institutions and involving 4,180 students. 
Of these 149 programmes, 144 were student mobility programmes and 32 teacher mobility 
programmes. 56 study visits were also accepted. 
Of the 149 Inter-university Cooperation Programmes, there were 10 Belgian applications and 
35 participating institutions, 22 German applications and 125 partners, 5 Danish applications 
and 15 partners, 22 Spanish applications and 88 partners, 20 French applications and 88 
partners, 6 Greek applications and 18 partners, 22 Italian applications and 70 partners, 4 Irish 
applications and 29 partners, 10 Dutch applications and 30 partners, 6 Portuguese applications 
and 32 partners and 22 British applications and 96 partners; one Luxembourg institution also 
took part in a programme. 
c) Development and Results in 1992 
(sec also Annex 12 in the Statistical Overview at the end of the report) 
- 232 applications bringing together 1,040 partner institutions were submitted in 1992. Of 
these, 211 programmes (including 162 renewals and 49 new applications) were set up (or 
continued to operate) with LINGUA support for the 1992/93 academic year. The financial 
support permitted for this Action amounted to 7.53 million ecus in 1992. 
- These 211 programmes involved 972 different partner institutions and 6,724 eligible 
students. Given the definition and objectives of this Action, all the partners were universities 
or similar higher education establishments. 
- 54 applications were received for study visits, of which 40 were accepted (nine for 
Germany, eight for the United Kingdom, five for France, four for Spain, three for Denmark, 
Italy and Portugal respectively, two for Greece and one for Belgium, Ireland and the 
Netherlands respectively. 
Special attention was again paid to projects intending to promote the least widely used and 
least taught languages and those relating to the initial training of language teachers. 
As for the preparatory visits for the setting up of Action IB (see 2.3.1.) or Action III projects 
(see 2.3.3.), the study visits for Action II were insufficiently used and a promotional effort 
should be made for the future. 
- In selecting projects for support, preference was systematically given to those concerned 
with the least widely used and least taught languages, and 48 of the 211 projects selected 
were dedicated to them. 
As in previous years, the 1992 selection policy paid particular attention to ensuring that the 
priorities of the LINGUA Programme are scrupulously observed. It confirmed its multiannuai 
commitment to most of the projects accepted for 1991/92, but nevertheless continued to 
encourage universities to develop new inter-university cooperation initiatives. 
The policy also ensured that preference was given to programmes giving an important place 
to the initial training of future language teachers. 53 out of 211 programmes clearly noted 
this specific dimension, and most of them (193 out of 211) indicated the likelihood that the 
participating students would become language teachers. 
The main characteristics of the selection were as follows: 
. the number of programmes accepted increased by 41.6% compared to the previous year 
. there were also considerably more institutions participating in the programmes (55% more 
than in 1991) 
. student mobility programmes increased by 41%, and the number of eligible students by 
61% compared to 1991 
. teacher mobility programmes increased by 81% compared to the previous year. 
23.3. Languages and economic life 
(Action III) 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 
The objective of this Action is to contribute, by means of appropriate strategic measures, to 
developing competence and practice in Community languages in the various sectors of 
economic life and, more particularly, . ii and medium-sized enterprises. The Action 
does not aim to replace the activities tli.it enterprises and various training bodies conduct in 
the field of staff language training, in the strict sense, but rather to give them the means of 
facilitating and optimizing this training. 
The Action provides for the following measures: 
. a language audit, whereby the programme contributes to the design, development and 
dissemination of techniques for analysing the foreign language requirements of economic life, 
particularly the requirements of enterprises, professional organizations and workers; 
. the development of teaching materials to be used on the spot, in distance learning or self-
tuition; 
. the establishment of transnational reference systems to recognize the language skills of those 
involved in economic life, particularly those skills acquired by learners on language training 
courses; 
. the development of mobility for foreign language trainers in economic life, representatives 
of small and medium-sized enterprises and professional organizations concerned with the 
problems of foreign language training by promoting study visits. 
b) Review of 1991 Figures 
In 1991 (contract periods running from 1 July 1991 or 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1992); 
58 projects were awarded grants. 
Two projects were coordinated by Belgium, four by Denmark, ten by Germany, seven by 
Greece, two by Spain, ten by France, two by Ireland, six by Italy, one by Luxembourg, three 
by the Netherlands and 11 by the United Kingdom. No projects were coordinated by 
Portuguese establishments. However, all the Member States without exception were 
represented as partners. 
All of the Community languages were targeted on several occasions: Spanish (12 times), 
Danish (6 times), German (17 times), Greek (11 times), English (20 times), French (24 times), 
Irish (4 times), Italian (14 times), Letzeburgesch (twice), Dutch (9 times) and Portuguese (7 
times). 
c) Development and Results in 1992 
- 170 applications were submitted in 1992 bringing together 774 partner institutions, out of 
which 86 projects (including 34 renewals to projects set up in 1991) were set up (or continued 
to operate) with LINGUA support for contract periods running from 1 July 1992 to 30 June 
1993 for projects submitted during the 15 March 1992 selection round, or from 1 January to 
31 December 1993 for projects submitted during the 15 September 1992 selection round. 
Grants applied for under the LINGUA Programme by these 86 partnerships amounted to 
8,359,193 ecus and total Community support of 7,003,500 ecus was awarded. 
- These 86 projects involved 441 different institutions. 
The universities or university centres conducting research on language teaching were those 
most largely represented (102 institutions), with vocational training institutes in second place 
(74 institutions), followed by adult training centres (53 institutions). Partnerships also included 
small and medium-sized enterprises, Chambers of Commerce and various sectoral 
organizations (47), language centres (43), professional associations and trade unions (32), 
ministries and local and regional authorities (22), publishers and those involved in developing 
and disseminating teaching materials (16), and to a lesser extent language examination 
centres, various teaching and applied linguistics institutes, associations and federations of 
language teachers and various other institutions. 
- The type of projects submitted most often related to teaching materials, distantly followed 
by several projects for auditing and analysing language requirements and for certifying and 
setting up training courses. However, it should be noted that in almost all projects concerning 
teaching materials an initial phase was planned for a thorough analysis of the requirements 
the teaching materials were intended to meet. 
Almost one quarter of the projects involved the use of the media and new information 
technologies and four of them related specifically to distance learning. 
- The languages targeted by the projects were: Spanish (35 times), Danish (15 times), 
German (35 times), Greek (23 times), English (54 times), French (46 times), Irish (5 times), 
Italian (35 times), Letzeburgesch (4 times), Dutch (19 times) and Portuguese (19 times). All 
the Community languages without exception were therefore represented and this time German, 
English and French only amounted to just over 46% of the total compared to almost 48.5% 
in 1991. As in the case of the European Cooperation Programmes, Action III plays its role 
to the full in promoting language diversification and the least widely used and least taught 
languages. 
- As shown in the following table, all the Member States were represented in the projects, 
both as coordinators (except for Luxembourg), and as partners (with no exception). 
Country Coordinators Partners 
Belgium 8 21 
Denmark 8 16 
Germany 10 33 
Greece 7 28 
Spain 3 40 
France 15 68 
Ireland 2 6 
Italy 10 43 
Luxembourg 0 5 
The 5 11 
Netherlands 
Portugal 1 16 
United 17 68 
Kingdom 
Table 8 - Action III - Coordinators and Partners by Country 
- The criteria for selecting projects were essentially based on: 
. the needs, either certified or analysed by the partnerships, for the teaching materials offered, 
. the validity and feasibility of the objectives and their coherence with the criteria and the 
priorities of the Programme as defined in the Decision, 
. the relevance of the partnerships with regard to both their transnationality and the 
complementarity of expertise required and the involvement of the target sectors and groups, 
. the quality of the methodology and the innovative character of the objectives pursued and 
the means used to achieve them, 
. the quality of the product distribution plans and the fields covered. 
- The same criteria were applied to renewal applications. Renewal decisions were again 
based on an analysis of the new applications, project progress reports and the knowledge 
obtained by those evaluating the progress and recorded results. 
- The selection of projects supported by the Commission took into account the impact they 
might have on the various sectors of economic life involved. However, many target sectors 
and groups are still to be covered and, in the light of the initial results of the general audit 
of ongoing projects and other more specific results of analyses carried out within projects for 
the development of teaching materials, the Commission will now be able to hold a more 
proactive attitude and encourage projects and help partnerships to be set up which meet the 
actual requirements of the sectors not covered at present. 
- As for the European Cooperation Programmes and the Inter-university Cooperation 
Programmes, little use was made of the preparatory visits for setting up Action III projects 
(22 applications submitted, of which 12 were accepted; 9 applications for supplementary visits 
were submitted before 31 December 1992, of which 6 were accepted; however, since these 
visits are supported under the 1993 budget, they are not taken into account here). 
No applications were submitted for study visits provided for by the Decision and aiming to 
encourage those directly or indirectly responsible for language training in enterprises to visit 
their counterparts in other countries of the Community in order to compare and mutually 
enrich their experience. 
2.3.4. Complementary measures 
* Part One - Promoting the Objectives of LINGUA 
(Action VA) 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 
This Action aims to encourage the development of transnational exchanges between different 
European structures. One of its tasks consists in promoting the objectives of the Programme, 
encouraging, in particular, those structures concerned with foreign-language teaching. 
Action VA also supports projects aiming to provide synergies with existing LINGUA projects. 
This new dimension given to the Action should make it possible to encourage and support 
the dissemination of results recorded by the Programme. 
b) Review of 199L Figures 
In 1991, eight projects received support. 
Two projects were coordinated by Belgium, one by Spain, one by Italy, one by Luxembourg, 
one by the Netherlands and two by the United Kingdom. 
Given the objectives of this Action and the fields it covers, all of the Community languages 
were present in the projects at different levels, either directly or indirectly. 
c) Development and Results in 1992 
- 22 applications were submitted in 1992, bringing together 95 partner institutions (five 
additional applications were submitted before 31 December 1992, of which two were 
accepted. However, since these projects are supported under the 1993 budget, they are not 
taken into account here). Out of these 22 applications, 14 projects were able to benefit from 
a LINGUA grant. The grants requested under the Programme by these 14 partnerships 
amounted to 231,232 ecus, and a total Community support of 172,392 ecus was awarded. 
- These 14 projects involved 70 different institutions: mostly universities and university 
centres but also foreign-language teachers' associations, cultural foundations and ministerial 
departments, among others. 
- The projects involve.' Specific publication of journals or symposia proceedings, the 
organization of transnational events (symposia on 'languages and economic life', 'languages 
and the European dimension in education' and 'languages and new technologies') or language 
competitions and the promotion of a project supported by the Programme. 
- As in the previous year, and in view of the nature of the Action and its objectives, all 
Community languages were represented in the projects in one way or another. 
- Only five countries coordinated projects but, as shown in the table below, all Member 
States without * xc^ption were represented in the partnerships. 
Country Coordinators Partners 
Belgium 0 7 
Denmark 0 2 
Germany 0 4 
Greece 0 1 
Spain 4 9 
France 1 10 
Ireland 0 2 
Italy 1 6 
Luxembourg 0 1 
The 2 5 
Netherlands 
Portugal 0 5 
United 6 4 
Kingdom 
Table 9 - Action VA - Coordinators and Partners by Country 
- The new guidelines given to this Action during the course of 1992 (see 'Definition and 
Objectives of the Action' above) should give it an extra dimension. 
Since the number of ongoing projects within the scope of other Centralized Actions of the 
Programme is increasing from year to year and there are more and more potential applicants, 
it would be good to give coordinators (and their partners) of existing or potential projects the 
opportunity to meet again - in an Action VA project - to exchange their experiences, report 
on the progress made in their work, compare results and contemplate regroupings or new 
renewed partnerships. All of these activities are sources of potential savings of time, energy 
and money while at the same time generating greater efficiency. 
This Action can now be used to promote, very specifically, the other Actions in the 
Programme as well as the results obtained by current projects included in these other Actions, 
which should also contribute towards the development of this Action. 
* Part Two - General Teaching Materials for the Least Widely Used and Least Taught 
Languages (Action VB) 
a) Definition and Objectives of the Action 
During the initial phase of the Programme, this Action provides support in an experimental 
way to projects aimed at supporting the diversification of foreign language teaching and 
learning in the Community. This financial support will relate to the development and 
exchange of teaching materials to promote the least widely used and least taught languages. 
In practice, the priority means of achieving this objective are: 
. to develop and exchange teaching materials for general purposes (and, as an exception, for 
specific purposes not covered by Action III or by another initiative); and 
. to encourage the innovative use of new technologies as well as self-tuition and distance 
learning methods. 
In pursuing its objectives, Action VB may partially cover a field also covered by Action III, 
since several teaching materials for beginners' use created within the scope of Action III may 
be considered usable material for general purposes and also intended for a larger target group. 
The Commission is particularly vigilant in this regard and ensures that the same products, or 
products of the same type, are not supported twice. 
b) Review of 1991 Figures 
In 1991 (contract periods from 1 July 1991 or 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1992), 15 
projects received support. 
Two projects were coordinated by Belgium, two by Denmark, one by Germany, one by 
Greece, three by France, two by the Netherlands, one by Portugal and three by the United 
Kingdom. No projects were coordinated by Spanish, Irish, Italian or Luxembourg institutions; 
however, all the Member States were represented as partners. 
With the exception of one project relating to the development of teaching materials for the 
11 languages in the Programme, another relating to techniques aiming to make it possible to 
"learn to learn languages" and a third aiming to prepare original video material for teaching 
English and French at primary school (such material does not yet exist for this particular age 
group), all the other projects related to the least widely used and least taught languages: one 
project for Danish, three for Greek, one for Spanish, one for Irish, one for Italian, two for 
Dutch and three for Portuguese. 
c) Development and Results in 1992 
- 52 applications were submitted in 1992, bringing together 191 partner institutions, out of 
which 23 projects (including seven renewals to projects set up in 1991) were set up (or 
continued to operate) with LINGUA support for contract periods running from 1 July 1992 
to 30 June 1993 for projects submitted in the 15 March 1992 selection round, or from 
1 January to 31 December 1993 for projects submitted in the 15 September 1992 selection 
round. The support requested under the LINGUA Programme by these 23 partnerships 
amounted to 1,569,617 ecus and a total Community financial support of 991,500 ecus was 
granted. 
- These 23 projects involved 93 different institutions. 
Those most largely represented, as in the case of the Action III projects (see above), were the 
universities or university centres concerned with research on language teaching (45 
institutions). Publishers came in second position (19) which, in view of the primary aim of 
Action VB, namely the promotion of the least widely used and least taught languages, is 
hardly surprising. Keen to include less widely used languages in their catalogue, publishing 
houses can only engage in a costly operation, which will certainly not bring profits, if they 
receive external financial support. The partnerships also included language centres (12), 
ministries and local and regional authorities (10), associations or federations of language 
teachers (6) and one teacher training institute. 
- As set out in the Decision and in the description of materials developed under Action VB, 
the projects submitted all related to teaching materials and almost 50% of them incorporated 
use of the media and new information technologies or related more specifically to distance 
learning. 
- The languages targeted by the projects were Spanish (three times), Danish (four times), 
Greek (three times), Irish (four times), Italian (five times), Dutch (seven times) and 
Portuguese (6 times). German was targeted twice, English four times and French five times, 
but always as additional languages combined with the least widely used and least taught 
languages. All the languages were therefore represented with the exception of Letzeburgesch, 
and the least widely used and least taught languages were obviously present in all the 
projects, this being the primary aim of the Action. 
- The selection criteria already indicated within the scope of Action III (see above) were also 
applied to this Action. These criteria were in fact entirely relevant to the level of 
requirements for the justification of products to be produced under a clearly defined 
application, a precise definition of the objectives, the validity of the partnerships and the 
quality of the measures taken or anticipated for optimum dissemination of the products once 
they had been produced. 
The fact that the Commission took the Decision in 1992 to align the maximum possible grant 
for this Action with that of Action III certainly contributed to increasing, not the number of 
projects by very much, but at least the quality and scope of these projects. As we have seen, 
half of the projects incorporate into their finished products the use of new information 
technologies which are generally costly to design and develop. This was only possible since 
available financial support had been increased and shows quite clearly that the Commission's 
initiative was well received. 
- These same criteria were applied to the selection of the seven projects applying for a 
renewal. As for the renewal projects under Actions IB and III, the decisions were also based 
on an analysis of the new applications, the progress reports on the projects and the knowledge 
held by those evaluating the progress and results. 
- As shown in the following table, all the Member States, with the sole exception of 
Luxembourg, were represented in the projects both as coordinators (apart from Greece and 
Spain) and as partners. 
Country Coordinators Partners 
Belgium 1 4 
Denmark 2 10 
Germany 4 4 
Greece 0 5 
Spain 0 4 
France 3 10 
Ireland 4 5 
Italy 3 3 
Luxembourg 0 0 
The 2 5 
Netherlands 
Portugal 3 7 
United 1 13 
Kingdom 
1 LJ M—^——^— I —^———— I —— —1 
Table 10 - Action VB - Coordinators and Partners by Country 
2.4. Budget 
The estimated total budget for the first phase of the LINGUA Programme is 200 million ecus. 
This figure is intended to cover all activities organized within the scope of the five Actions, 
as well as the general management of the Programme. 
Six million ecus were used in 1990, 23 million in 1991 and 38 million in 1992. 
These 38 million ecus were broken down as follows (in millions of ecu) : 
. Action IA : 
. Action IB : 
. Total Action I 
. Action II : 
. Action III : 
. Action IV : 7 million ecus 
1.52 million ecus 
8.52 million ecus 
7.53 million ecus 
7.02 million ecus 
8.40 million ecus 
. Action VA : 
. Action VB : 
. Total Action V 0.85 million ecus 
1 million ecus 
1.85 million ecus 
Programme management 
(technical assistance and 
subsidies to the National Agencies) 4.68 million ecus 
3. PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT 
3.1. Selection Procedures in 1992 
3.1.1. Centralized Actions 
- Action IB (European Coopéra ngrammes) asked for proposals and applications to be 
submitted by 15 January 1992. 
- Actions III (projects concerning lanu- es in economic life) and VB (projects concerning 
teaching materials for promoting the least -idcly spread and least taught languages) twice 
asked for proposals and applications to be su omitted by 15 March 1992 for the first selection 
round and 15 September for the second round. 
- The Commission began by evaluating the applications submitted with the help of the 
Technical Assistance Bureau, Bureau LINGUA'. All ineligible applications (eg owing to the 
non-transnationality of the project or the irrelevance of the partnership) were eliminated 
during this initial phase. 
The projects were then the subject of a second in-depth examination by a group of 
independent external evaluators appointed by the Commission on the basis of their expertise 
and their experience with the Programme and on the basis of a rotating representation of the 
Member States. 
At the05vendf this second selection phase, the Commission was able to draw up the final list 
of projects accepted for Community support. 
- Action VA projects (projects aiming to promote the LINGUA objectives) and the 
preparatory visits (for the setting up of Action IB or III projects), could be submitted at any 
time and were the subject of four selection rounds (the first on 31 March, the second on 
30 June, the third on 30 September and the last on 31 December). 
The applications were examined and selected internally by the Commission with the aid of 
the Technical Assistance Bureau, without having recourse to a committee of external 
evaluators. 
3.1.2. Decentralized Actions 
With regard to Actions LA (mobility and language teacher training grants) and IV (visits and 
exchanges of young people by means of Joint Educational Projects), the applications and 
projects were selected and grants allocated to beneficiaries in each Member State. 
3.2. The LINGUA Committee 
In implementing the LINGUA Programme, the Commission is assisted by a committee 
composed of two representatives appointed by each Member State and chaired by the 
representative of the Commission. Committee members can be assisted by experts or 
consultants. 
The Committee coordinates its work with the ERASMUS Programme committee with regard 
to Action II of the LINGUA Programme (Inter-university Cooperation Programmes). The 
Committee is consulted and gives advice on proposed measures concerning the general 
guidelines of the Programme, the financial support granted by the Community and the 
questions relating to the general balance of the Programme. 
The Commission may also consult the Committee on any other question relating to the 
implementation of the Programme. 
The Committee met twice In 1992, once in Brussels on 3 and 4 February and once in Lisbon 
on 2 and 3 June. 
During those working meetings, which proved both intensive and fruitful, the Committee, 
along with the Commission, was able to run through the whole Programme, Action by Action, 
and also approach its problems overall. 
During the meeting in Portugal, in particular, the Committee was able to give valuable advice 
by actively participating in the reflection on the actual operation of the Programme and the 
way to follow-up on it. The Commission was thus able to benefit from the Committee's 
thorough knowledge of the various national bodies and language policies of the Member 
States with which it is most often closely associated and in which it participates. The 
Committee was able to give well-informed advice on how it perceives the problem of 
promoting the communication skills of Europeans at Community level and give 
recommendations on the remedies to be applied and the manner in which the Programme 
should develop. 
The seriousness of approach, the wealth of comments and insightful remarks made by the 
delegates makes each Committee meeting a vital moment in the life of the Programme and 
makes the conceptual task of the Commission much easier. 
3.3. National Agencies 
The Member States have appointed one or more competent structures, called National 
Agencies and specialist agencies, responsible for coordinating at national level the 
implementation of the measures set out in the Council Decision. The situations differ greatly 
from one Member State to another. 
These National Agencies are an essential link between the Commission and Programme users. 
They have numerous tasks to perform and they grow in importance as the Programme 
progresses and develops. All Member States should therefore provide these structures, which 
they themselves have appointed, with sufficient human and financial resources to perform 
their task with the desired efficiency, to supplement the means provided by the Commission 
in the form of annual grants for Programme management. 
The aid provided for these structures by the Member States is all the more desirable as they 
truly lead to Decentralized Actions in each country by assuring the management and most of 
the promotional activities. They contribute tremendously to the success of the Decentralized 
Actions by the information campaigns they conduct and by the technical assistance they 
provide to people or institutions contemplating participating in projects. 
The importance of the National Agencies also lies in the fact that, irrespective of their 
management, promotion and assistance tasks, they now constitute a viable international 
network of administrators and experts in the field of language teaching and learning which 
may, in many cases, enable national officials to benefit from their advice. This entirely 
original network of people who have established close relations and which, outside their 
common working meetings, keep up relations and maintain contact to an ever great extent, 
has now become a truly effective Community unit specializing in the promotion of language 
teaching and learning. Benefiting from transnational inspiration, this network constitutes a 
contribution for the Member States whose opportunities and scope should not be 
underestimated and which entirely justifies an additional investment in human and financial 
resources. 
The importance * ~ Community gain provided by this network cannot be emphasized 
enough. 
The established synergies (which certainly did not exist in the pre-LINGUA days) and the 
benefits each one has reaped, and will reap to an ever greater extent by cooperation that can 
only gain in efficiency, have only been made possible with the link provided by the 
Programme. 
The National Agencies met several times in 1992, both in plenary sessions (on 5 and 6 May 
in Brussels a*.d on 27 and 28 October in York), and in smaller working parties, meeting in 
Brussels and bringing together delegates from several Member States to deal with very 
specific topics ('Young People's Mobility within the Scope of Joint Educational Projects', for 
example, on 29 September, or The Role and Tasks of the National Agencies' on 30 
September). 
3.4. Group of Experts 
Within the framework of the Programme, the Commission has also regularly called upon 
groups of experts meeting either in Brussels or in another Member State, to help take stock 
of certain Programme actions or certain key aspects of its development. 
A group of experts, responsible for ensuring the follow-up to the seminar held in Veldhoven 
at the end of 1991 on the European Cooperation Programmes with regard to in-service 
teacher training, met on several occasions at the beginning of 1992. 
The Commission also organized an important symposium in Perpignan on 4, 5 and 6 June on 
the topic of 'Languages and Economic Life' which brought together experts from the twelve 
Member States, representatives from all the National Agencies concerned with the problem 
and coordinators of current LINGUA Action III projects. 
This symposium was preceded by several meetings of a steering committee bringing together 
experts from various Member States whose task consisted in helping to prepare the 
philosophy and content of the event. 
Meetings of two other multinational steering committees were also organized by the 
Commission in the second half of 1992 in order to prepare for two events to be held at the 
beginning of 1993: one in London on the topic 'Language Teaching and New Information 
Technologies', and the other in Venice on the topic 'Visits and Exchanges of Young People 
within the Scope of Joint Educational Projects'. 
3.5. Technical assistance 
The Commission is assisted, in the operational management of the LINGUA Programme, by 
a technical assistance bureau, an external unit of the Commission, called 'Bureau LINGUA', 
Association Internationale Sans But Lucratif (AISBL), established in November 1990 by a 
consortium composed of the British Council, the Centre International d'Etudes Pédagogiques 
de Sèvres/Alliance Française and the Goethe Institut, and with which adequate contractual 
provisions were established. 
With regard to Action II of the Programme, the Commission is also assisted by the 
ERASMUS Bureau which provides assistance, in addition and more extensively, in the 
operational management of the ERASMUS Programme. 
3.6. Links with other Community programmes 
LINGUA is a programme with two equally important dimensions: 
- one vertical, in which languages, their teaching and learning constitute in themselves an 
object of study and reflection as well as a field of activity, to be approached as a whole and 
coherently. This has quite naturally given rise to a specific programme aiming to promote 
linguistic activities both quantitatively and qualitatively by specific measures incorporated into 
specific, interdependent Actions; 
- the other horizontal, in which languages, the privileged means of communication between 
citizens, are present in all human activities and, on this account, form a significant component 
of all the Community programmes with regard to education, training and youth, even if only 
at the level of the linguistic and cultural preparation of applicants for these programmes. 
The vertical dimension of the Programme is of prime importance since it makes it possible 
to group together all aspects concerning the development of the language skills of Europeans 
to integrate them into a unique strategy making it possible to deal with the whole problem 
of language communication within the Community and assist in promoting and strengthening 
coherent national and Community policies. This vertical dimension clearly has significant 
repercussions on its horizontal dimension: even if only at the level of Community 
programmes other than LINGUA which can only benefit from the research generated by the 
verticality of the Programme, and also, and in particular, by the resulting products. 
LINGUA cooperates with programmes such as COMETT, DELTA, ERASMUS and PETRA. 
The Programme also participates in the general reflection within the scope of other initiatives 
taken by the Task Force, such as those in the field of distance learning, integration of the 
European dimension in schools, education of migrants, and so forth. 
The two LINGUA events planned at the beginning of 1993 will associate the DELTA 
Programme (London event on the topic 'Language Teaching and New Information 
Technologies') and the PETRA Programme (Venice event on the topic 'Visits and Exchanges 
of Young People within the Scope of Joint Educational Projects'). Representatives of these 
two programmes have already taken an active part in the steering committees for these two 
events. 
The LINGUA Programme is a key building block in the construction of Europe. In the years 
to come it will also have to make the results and products of its verticality more available to 
other Community programmes, so as to provide them with specific solutions to the problems 
posed by language communication. 
4. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
4.1. Follow-up, Mo- " ^g and Internal Evaluation 
4.1.1. Follow-up and Monitoring of Projects 
The Commission uses several means of following-up and monitoring projects which receive 
Community grants. 
. Interim and final reports -
Interim reports are carefully examined by the Commission. Essentially, they serve to evaluate 
the state of p.^^^ of the work of the partnerships involved in the projects and enable the 
experts responsible for examining and selecting applications to make solid decisions on the 
validity and justification of renewal applications. In 1992, several renewal applications were 
rejected on the basis of inadequate interim reports, after more specific investigations 
subsequently confirmed the poor development of the project. However, these unfavourable 
cases proved to be the exception. 
In 1992, the final reports solely related to the projects accepted in the first selection round 
of the European Cooperation Programmes in 1991. Like the interim reports mentioned above, 
these reports were carefully examined by the Commission. 
In general, an analysis of these reports showed that the work of the partnerships had been 
carried out according to the work plans initially accepted by the Commission and confirmed 
that use made of the budgets was in keeping with the financial forecasts shown in the 
applications. 
As the organization and setting up of these first ambitious and long-term European has been 
planned over a period of two to three years, the final training modules and teaching materials 
will only be completed in the second half of 1993 or 1994. 
. Meetings -
Meetings attended by a representative of the Commission, project coordinators or partnership 
representatives are called by the Commission and are held in Brussels or in one of the 
Member States involved. These meetings address the content or financial management of 
projects. 
In 1992, these meetings concerned several projects or sets of projects falling under Action lb, 
III or VB. They followed-up on specific inspections in the form of letters, telephone calls 
or meetings with project partners. They enabled the Commission to take stock of the work 
in progress, check the use of Community support and provide technical assistance for 
partnerships. Since the various people involved met in the same place, the operations could 
be conducted efficiently and economically. 
. Conferences -
During conferences, symposia or seminars, presentations and individual or group monitoring 
of the projects represented at these events are organized by the Commission (see Veldhoven 
for projects falling under Action IB, in 1991, Perpignan for projects falling under Action III, 
in 1992, and the two events planned for the beginning of 1993: London for projects falling 
under Actions III and VB in January, and Venice for projects falling under Action IV, in 
February). 
. Prospects for 1993 -
As the Programme was still in its early days, projects did not advance very far in 1992 and 
did not permit or warrant intensive monitoring. In 1993, however, far more projects will have 
moved forward. The Commission therefore proposes that at least ten per cent of all ongoing 
projects will be followed-up and monitored, along with all the projects it thinks require 
special attention and warrant a specific inspection of their activities and costs (content audit 
and financial audit). 
In letters to each coordinator of an ongoing Centralized Action project sent out as of the end 
of 1992, the Commission also asked to receive the timetables for meetings with partnership 
representatives, indicating in particular the meetings for group evaluation on the work 
undertaken. This will enable the Commission to draw up its own timetable of measures with 
regard to individual monitoring of projects on the basis of prime time in the activities 
undertaken by partnerships. 
In following-up and monitoring projects, the Commission also has to ensure that the teaching 
materials developed with the grants awarded by LINGUA, which will start appearing on the 
market as from 1993, correspond to the description provided in the initial application or in 
the various progress reports. The Commission also has to ensure broad dissemination of these 
products. 
4.1.2. Internal Evaluation of the Programme 
In addition to the external evaluation (see 4.2. below) which, at a given period in time, takes 
stock of the activities generated by LINGUA and provides information on the manner in 
which these activities are generated, the Commission makes a continuing internal evaluation 
of the Programme and its applicability to the Member States, drawing on the various means 
it has available: 
. meetings of the LINGUA Committee and the National Agencies. Each meeting helps to 
provide the Commission with valuable and relevant information on the operation of the 
Programme and, in particular, on that of the Decentralized Actions, provided by those 
nationally responsible for them. This information is presented in the form of minutes of 
meetings; 
. working parties on specific topics. Among other things, these groups enable experts to 
inform the Commission on the way in which a given aspect of the Programme is developing. 
The information is again presented in the form of minutes of meetings. 
. questionnaires on the Decentralized Actions of the Programme. Together with the National 
Agencies, the Commission has drawn up questionnaires intended for participants in Actions 
IA and IV which were distributed to participants by the National Agencies until October 
1992. The Agencies also ensured the centralization of completed questionnaires. The 
responses to these thousands of questionnaires will be processed and analysed during the first 
half of 1993 and a summary of the results will be prepared. 
. visits by the Commission to the National Agencies of certain Member States. 
4.2. External evaluation 
In 1992, the Commission issued an invitation to tender for the external evaluation of the 
Programme, its structures and its effects on the twelve Member States. The firm to which 
the task is assigned will carry it out in two phases. 
Phase 1 of the evaluation will essentially relate to the efficiency of the management and 
coordination methods and the structures and procedures set up to implement the Programme 
in the Community and participating Member States. It will also include a preliminary 
evaluation of the Programme. 
Phase 2 will make an in-depth study of the overall efficiency of the Programme from the 
points of view of its design and each field covered by the various Actions. 
The final version of the report will be available in November 1993. 
Action II of the Programme relating to the Inter-university Cooperation Programmes will be 
the object of a separate evaluation. 
The information provided by part one of the study already shows that the Programme is 
enthusiastically received by the Member States and that this enthusiasm is shared by all 
Programme operators. 
Although users often pay tribute to the generous nature of the initiatives taken within the 
LINGUA Programme overall and appreciate in particular the grants which, still limited to the 
provisions of the Decision and falling short more often than not, generally enable partnerships 
and individuals to work in good conditions, all those involved in the Programme agree that 
the support provided by LINGUA does not in any way replace the financial support that 
Member States should invest to promote languages. Indeed Community aid only helps finance 
activities that would not take place without it. The Community clearly gains from it and this 
gain, along with the great multiplier effect of most of the actions and projects undertaken 
within the scope of the Programme, is a clear sign of a good cost-benefit ratio. 
5. INFORMATION AND PROMOTION 
Responsibility for disseminating the information and promoting the Programme at national level should, 
for the most part and as a priority, involve the LINGUA structures established in each Member State. 
These structures are have the most direct contact with users of the Programme, whether they be students, 
pupils or the various institutions for which the Programme is intended. The majority of these national 
structures also wish for a greater decentralization of information. 
Even if the role of the agencies assumes prime importance and even if they are the ones best placed to 
conduct effective work in providing information and promoting the Programme in their respective countries, 
in most cases the limited human and financial resources placed at their disposal by the Member States have 
prevented them from undertaking large-scale actions. However, there is no need to cast gloom on the 
situation and make harmful generalizations. Despite the lack of available support (which has meant that 
the impact of the Actions undertaken has been less noticeable and less noticed than it might have been had 
the structures been more solid) and despite the very great diversity of situations, strategies and 
achievements from one Member State to another, the Programme has still made itself visible in many ways: 
meetings organized by the National Agencies, participation of these agencies at meetings or events 
organized by other institutions, production of additional information, publications issued by specific or 
regular liaison agencies (of the 'LINGUA Letter' type), etc. 
The Commission has continued its work of providing information on and promoting the Programme at two 
levels: 
firstly, by continuing to cooperate with the National Agencies to help them define and implement 
a coherent, realistic and effective strategy on the information to be provided in each Member State; 
secondly, by continuing along the lines of its own objectives, by organizing or attending many 
events (language fairs, student fairs, exhibitions, colloquys, symposia, etc.), by various publications 
(1992 edition of the Applicant's Guide, compendium of projects accepted in 1991, preparation of the 
compendium of projects accepted in 1992, documents prepared by the Veldhoven symposium, 
preparation of documents for the Perpignan seminar, various notices and brochures, publication and 
dissemination of a collection of press cuttings relating to language teaching and learning, and the 
LINGUA Programme more particularly, preparation of an information folder to be made available 
to all those responsible for promoting the Programme, etc.) and by continuing to establish the 
'EUROKOM* electronic mail and database network for distance consultation. This network already 
links most of the National Agencies and will, among other things, as from the beginning of 1993, 
permit direct consultation of the results of the various selection rounds for Centralized Action 
projects as well as distance consultation of the Compendium of LINGUA projects, ie all ongoing 
projects. 
The Commission has also continued to define and implement a strategy in favour of a concerted action 
with regard to information and promotional activities. This action affects all Community programmes 
managed by the Task Force, including LINGUA. 
SSISH CONCLUSION 
Added Value of the Programme 
In 1992 the Commission drafted a report on the evaluation of the results and achievements of Community 
education and training programmes (1986-1992). 
The LINGUA Programme has effectively contributed to providing added value in the following sectors, 
in particular: 
transnational transfer of know-how and expertise (at the level of in-service training for language 
teachers, visits and exchanges of young people, language learning techniques in general and the use 
of new information technologies), 
creation of original structures to strengthen European cooperation with regard to language teaching 
(at the level of established partnerships), 
assisting in the promotion of a European qualifications and training market (at the level of reflection 
and projects concerning certification in languages and recognition of language skills acquired as well 
as the setting up of training courses), 
value for other Community policies and activities in Europe (through the assistance provided with 
regard to promoting a multilingual and multicultural Community), 
improvement in European competitiveness (by strengthening the communication skills of citizens 
and, in so doing, their ability to communicate and work more easily together), 
economic and social cohesion (by enabling citizens to exercise their professional mobility efficiently, 
thus contributing to promoting equal opportunities, and ensuring that Community support for better 
language communication is shared evenly), 
promoting European citizenship (through the assistance provided for citizens in terms of learning 
and acquiring several Community languages and by the mobility actions), 
increased mobility in education and training environments (not only with regard to mobility actions 
specific to the Programme, but also by the assistance it provides for the linguistic preparation of 
applicants for other Community training programmes). 
The Programme also contributes to providing added value in the fields of better-quality education and 
training and contributes to the convergence of language training systems aiming to provide greater 
effectiveness. It thus ensures an excellent financial synergy and a very good cost-benefit ratio. 
LINGUA'S overall impact in terms of added value has been all the more noticeable in 1992 as the 
Programme has made real progress in all fields. 1992 has in fact been a year of positive development, a 
year of improvement practically across the board. 
The Quantitative Aspect 
Quantitatively, it has been seen that the number of teachers receiving Community grants has increased 
tenfold compared to the previous year. Young people participating in Joint Educational Projects have 
increased fivefold. The partnerships established and the number of institutions participating in the 
Programme's Centralized Actions have more than doubled. The Inter-university Cooperation Programmes 
have increased by 40%. And the list of increases compared to 1991 continues, as shown in the 
'Development' section of this report. Nonetheless, this development and improvement have not only been 
in terms of quantity. 
77ie Qualitative Aspect 
The Programme also made substantial qualitative strides in almost all its activities in 1992. 
Language teachers following in-service training courses have been more selective overall in the choice of 
institutions at which they have conducted their training. In particular, the training courses established 
within the scope of the European Cooperation Programmes, implemented under the LINGUA Programme, 
have made it possible to provide more original answers which are targeted more to training requirements 
and, overall, have constituted an approach better suited to the needs of users. 
The pedagogical content of Joint Educational Projects has been considerably improved compared to 1991 
and the nature of the projects was more specifically directed towards LINGUA requirements than in the 
previous year. The linguistic dimension, in particular, has been incorporated far more clearly and more 
satisfactorily into most of the work programmes. There has also been a considerable development towards 
longer and more complete project preparation phases, preparatory visits and exchanges. 
The Inter-university Cooperation Programmes made a greater contribution in 1992 to the development and 
promotion of the least widely used and least taught Community languages in higher education and 
facilitated a greater and better integration of languages in non-language university courses. As many of 
these programmes were clearly intended for future language teachers, the value and relevance of student 
mobility as well as its impact in the longer term increased. 
Projects set up to develop materials for language teaching and learning needs in economic life and society 
in general made qualitative progress in 1992 as well. Not only were more partnerships set up but more 
particularly these partnerships were larger, thus ensuring greater transnational and technical 
complementarity. The projects themselves were better targeted, covering sectors or groups not yet or too 
little accounted for. The integration of new information technologies in an ever growing number of 
projects has certainly provided greater efficiency. Above all, these technologies offer more flexibility in 
the use of products, enabling them to be disseminated far more extensively. 
It can be seen that the results for 1992 have been entirely encouraging overall. This satisfactory 
development of the Programme was, however, accompanied by certain problems in several specific sectors. 
Grey areas 
With regard to the content of the Programme itself, problems continued to be posed by the quantity and 
quality of projects submitted by associations within the scope of the assistance they can provide in 
promoting the objectives of LINGUA (Action VA), as well as the applications for study visits or 
preparatory visits to set up European Cooperation Programmes or projects concerning languages in 
economic life. The few projects supported in 1992 were interesting and of high quality, but there arc still 
too few of them. Aware of the problem, the Commission and the Member States are looking for solutions 
and, in 1993, will propose means of action to add dynamism to these two sectors. 
Even if the situation has improved since 1991, four points on a more general level deserve to be mentioned 
again. 
On the one hand, the National Agencies are often in need of greater integration. In view of the important 
role they play in the correct operation and promotion of the Programme, it is desirable for certain Member 
States to make a greater effort to support them in terms of human and financial resources. 
On the other hand, there is a problem of replacing teachers in schools when the teachers wish to follow 
in-service training during the school year. Since such replacements are rarely provided for in school 
budgets, the teachers are once again forced to follow their training during the holidays. 
Also problematical is the fact that Joint Educational Projects could have been more integrated in the 
courses and, in so doing, have generated visits or exchanges during term time and not taken out of young 
people's holidays. Psychologically, this greater integration could only have benefited the projects really 
considered by the participants to be activities assuming as much importance and having the same status 
as the other more usual educational activities. 
Finally, problems arose in promoting the Programme among certain categories of barely or misinformed 
potential beneficiaries, these categories possibly varying from one country to another and concerning, in 
one Member State, one or more target groups which were neglected or difficult to reach, and, in another, 
a particular sector or economic region that would require more specific support. 
The Commission's priorities in 1993 
On all these issues, as for the promotion of projects falling under Action VA and the preparatory visits 
mentioned above, the Commission and the Member States will take all necessary measures in 1993 to 
resolve the problems. The Commission will ensure, in particular, that it is globally more effective in its 
approaches to and management of the Programme. The Member States need to ensure that they take 
measures to implement the Programme, at their level, within the scope of the subsidiarity principle. 
The Commission and the Member States will also ensure that the positive points in 1992 are strengthened 
in 1993. 
In this spirit, the Commission and the Member States need to contribute to an even greater development 
and dissemination of all the activities of the Programme and bolster the necessary synergy between the 
different Actions. They need to move quickly to simplify application and selection procedures for projects 
and provide greater transparency to Programme management. They also need to strengthen cooperation 
between the National Agencies. Finally, the Commission needs to strive to develop its cooperation with 
the Member States even further so that the impact of LINGUA is as broad and effective as possible. 
ANNEXES 
STATISTICAL OVERVIEW 
1992 
Annexes 1 to 4 relate to Decentralized Actions LA and IV 
Annexes 5 to 11 only relate to Centralized Actions IB, III, V and preparatory visits 
Annex 12 relates to Action II 
47 
UNGUA ANNEX 1 - ACTION IA - MOBILITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHERS PER MEMBER STATE 
s 
E 
N 
D 
1 
N 
G 
C 
0 
U 
N 
T 
R 
Y Bfr 
Bvl 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
1 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
Total 
% 
Rang HOST COUNTRY 
Bfr 
4 
5 
10 
19 Bvl 
2 
2 
21 
0.36 | 0.04 
0.40 
9 DK 
2 
2 
4 
0.08 
11 D 
45 
19 
1 
19 
109 
17 
43 
1 
18 
24 
151 
447 
8.5 
4 
B i DK D GR 
3 
1 
13 
13 
2 
3 
35 
0.67 
7 
GR E 
5 
5 
25 
228 
22 
78 
16 
9 
11 
178 
577 
11 
3 
E F 
37 
15 
645 
49 
101 
30 
145 
13 
26 
61 
294 
1416 
26.9 
2 
F IRL 
3 
1 
42 
14 
14 
39 
1 
114 
2.17 
6 
IRL 1 
2 
1 
131 
4 
15 
9 
2 
1 
24 
189 
3.6 
5 L 
1 
1 
0.02 
12 
I L NL 
26 
1 
2 
29 
0.55 
8 
NL P 
2 
1 
1 
1 
3 
8 
0.15 
10 
P UK 
32 
41 
38 
1256 
23 
277 
248 
377 
3 
63 
58 
2416 
46 
1 
UK 
HOST COUNTRY TOTAL 
66 
136 202 
98 
2312 
73 
460 
480 
72 
613 
19 
121 
144 
663 
5257 
100 % 
1.26 
2.59 3.84 
1.86 
43.98 
1.39 
8.75 
9.13 
1.37 
11.66 
0.36 
2.30 
2.74 
12.61 
100 Rang 
6 
9 
1 
10 
5 
4 
11 
3 
12 
8 
7 
2 Bfr 
Bvl 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
1 
L 
NL 
P 
UK s 
E 
N 
D 
1 
N 
G 
C 
O 
U 
N 
T 
R 
Y 
ANNEX 2 - ACTION IA - SENDING AND RECEIVING FLOWS PER MEMBER STATE 
TEACHERS SENT TEACHERS RECEIVED 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
P 
UK KSÎSSSSÏ 
2G ï:$5S?#SS:SSSSvi 
00 15 J&SSSKSSi&SSS 
00 1C l£& mm 
M 
m 
fe&Sî&SSSSS:: 
mmmm 
m 
wmmxm 
I 
m 
E3S8 
15BS8 &$8S8883â&333& 
loo 5C \o I 
u 
-
5C lo idoo istoo 2Ô00 
UNGUA/RAP92/AN. 1/2 
UNGUA 
ANNEX 3 - ACTION IV - MOBILITY OF YOUNG PEOPLE PER MEMBER STATE 
H 
0 
S 
T 
C 
0 
U 
N 
T 
R 
Y Bfr 
Bvl 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
1 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
Total 
% 
Rang HOST COUNTRY 
Bfr 
68 
89 
34 
21 
75 
131 
418 Bvl 
56 
42 
54 
17 
20 
189 
607 
2.34 | 1.06 
3.39 
7 
B DK 
160 
45 
95 
144 
215 
66 
279 
1004 
5.61 
6 
DK D 
27 
196 
468 
57 
153 
192 
39 
431 
1563 
8.74 
3 
D GR 
84 
61 
36 
15 
16 
39 
251 
1.4 
11 
GR E 
57 
258 
630 
25 
76 
107 
16 
235 
1404 
7.85 
4 
E F 
9 
149 
600 
45 
764 
18 
222 
717 
193 
131 
985 
3833 
21.4 
2 
F IRL 
12 
14 
21 
141 
126 
47 
140 
501 
2.8 
8 
IRL I 
64 
130 
123 
67 
148 
342 
60 
209 
132 
1275 
7.13 
5 
I L 
18 
20 
38 
0.21 
12 
L NL 
10 
32 
46 
26 
123 
148 
385 
2.15 
9 
NL P 
56 
40 
20 
72 
23 
42 
253 
1.41 
10 
P UK 
97 
38 
340 
1292 
53 
1148 
2466 
850 
429 
64 
6777 
37.9 
1 
UK 
HOST COUNTRY TOTAL 
119 
125 244 
756 
2884 
250 
2589 
4374 
415 
2260 
0 
1271 
286 
2562 
17891 
100 % 
0.67 
0.70 1.36 
4.23 
16.12 
1.40 
14.47 
24.45 
2.32 
12.63 
0.00 
7.10 
1.60 
14.32 
100 Rang 
11 
7 
2 
10 
3 
1 
8 
5 
12 
6 
9 
4 Bfr 
Bvl 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
1 
L 
NL 
P 
UK H 
O 
S 
T 
C 
O 
U 
N 
T 
R 
Y 
ANNEX 4 - ACTION IV - SENDING AND RECEIVING FLOWS PER MEMBER STATE 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
i 
l 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
60 [;•;• 
00 40 YOUNG PEOPLE SENT 
L 
t 
I | 
M • 
m 
:^ii:i;:;::i:::<iiw!î^::i:^:;i! 
m®^mmmmm®m 
bô 20 brj • 
mmmm 
m YOUNG PEOPLE RECEIVED 
2ÔÔÔ 4ÔÛÔ 6ÛTJÔ 
LINGUA/RAP 92/AN. 3/4 
UNGUA 
ANNEX 5 - CENTRALIZED ACTIONS - PROJECTS RECEIVED AND PROJECTS ACCEPTED IN 1992 PER MEMBER STATE 
STATE 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
TOTAL PROJECTS RECEIVED 
IB 
2 
2 
3 
1 
3 
9 
1 
27 
1 
1 
2 
10 
62 III 
13 
10 
12 
30 
8 
27 
6 
22 
0 
6 
4 
32 
170 VA 
0 
0 
1 
3 
6 
1 
0 
2 
0 
2 
0 
7 
22 VB 
1 
4 
4 
9 
0 
5 
12 
6 
0 
2 
4 
5 
52 VISIT 
2 
1 
5 
5 
5 
5 
4 
19 
0 
1 
3 
13 
63 TOTAL 
18 
17 
25 
48 
22 
47 
23 
76 
1 
12 
13 
67 
369 
STATE 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
TOTAL PROJECTS ACCEPTED 
IB 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
5 
0 
3 
1 
1 
1 
6 
25 III 
8 
8 
10 
7 
3 
15 
2 
10 
0 
5 
1 
17 
86 VA 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
1 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
6 
14 VB 
1 
2 
4 
0 
0 
3 
4 
3 
0 
2 
3 
1 
23 VISIT 
0 
1 
1 
2 
-1 
1 
3 
0 
0 
1 
1 
5 
16 TOTAL 
11 
13 
17 
10 
9 
25 
9 
17 
1 
11 
6 
35 
164 
UNGUA/RAP 92/AN. 5 
ANNEX 6 - CENTRALIZED ACTIONS - 1992: BREAKDOWN OF PROJECTS BY REGION 
: Norc*heln-Westfalen. 
R16: Hessen. R17: Rhelrtanc^Pralz. R18: Baden-Wûrttemberg. 
R19: Bayem. R1A: Saaflanct R1& Bein, RIG Brandenburg. 
RID: Mecktentxig-NAxpommern. R1E: Sachsen. 
R1F: SachservAnhalt. RIG: Thûrlngen 
\R2:FRANCE :Tatdl=25 I R21:ftecte France. R22:Bass*i Parisien. 
R23: Nord - Poxie<***. R24: Esf. R25: Ouest. R26:SudOuest. 
R27: Centre-fet. R28: Môdrrerrannée, R29: Dôpartem cTOutre-
R31 : Nord Ovest. R32: Lombardla. R33: Nord Est, 
R34: En*>Bomagna. R35: Cenlro, R36: Lazto. R37: Campanic 
R38: AbruzzHvtotee. R39: Sud. R3A Sldïa, R3B: Sardegna 
ANNEX 7 - CENTRALIZED ACTIONS - PROJECTS ACCEPTED IN 1992 - DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO TARGET LANGUAGE 
Language 
ES 
DA 
DE 
GR 
EN 
FR 
IR 
IT 
LE 
NL 
PT ACTIO 
IB 
10 
3 
14 
6 
14 
18 
3 
10 
5 
8 III 
35 
15 
35 
23 
54 
46 
5 
35 
4 
19 
19 N 
VB 
3 
4 
2 
3 
4 
5 
4 
5 
7 
6 TOTAL 
48 
22 
51 
32 
72 
69 
12 
50 
4 
31 
33 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 
UNGUA/RAP 92/AN. 7 
UNGUA 
ANNEX 8 - CENTRALIZED ACTIONS - PROJECTS ACCEPTED IN 1992 - NUMBER OF COORDINATORS AND PARTNERS PER MEMBER STATE 
State 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
1 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
Total IB 
Coor 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
5 
0 
3 
1 
1 
1 
6 
25 Part 
1 
1 
16 
4 
9 
14 
5 
9 
0 
6 
10 
10 
85 1 
Coor 
8 
8 
10 
7 
3 
15 
2 
10 
0 
5 
1 
17 
86 I 
Part 
21 
16 
33 
28 
40 
68 
6 
43 
5 
11 
16 
68 
355 VA 
Coor 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
1 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
6 
14 Part 
7 
2 
4 
1 
9 
10 
2 
6 
1 
5 
5 
4 
56 VB 
Coor 
1 
2 
4 
0 
0 
3 
4 
3 
0 
2 
3 
1 
23 Part 
4 
10 
4 
5 
4 
10 
5 
3 
0 
5 
7 
13 
70 Vis 
Coor 
0 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
3 
0 
0 
1 
1 
5 
16 Part 
2 
0 
5 
0 
4 
12 
1 
9 
0 
0 
2 
4 
39 Total 
Coor 
11 
13 
17 
10 
9 
25 
9 
17 
1 
11 
6 
35 
164 Part 
35 
29 
62 
38 
66 
114 
19 
70 
6 
27 
40 
99 
605 B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
P 
UK P TOTAL 
50 100 150 
IB 
-
DK * 
D i =3 
GR ^ 
IRL '=3 
NLt1^ 
UK — ' 
0 10 20 III 
DK ^ 
D ^^ 
GR i=3 
F » ' 
IRL ? 
l'i=> 
LP 
NL t 
P'P , 
UK — ' 
50 100 VA 
B I 
DK =J 
D'=I 
GR ^ 
F , =l 
IRL '=! 
L'=3 
K" — 1 
p i 
10 VB 
BP 
DK m ' 
D ^J 
GR '=3 
E I 
F — ' 
IRL ^ 
L 
NL 
P 
UKf 
10 20 VISITS 
BP 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL | 
P 
UK k 
10 20 
UNGUA/RAP 92/AN. 8 
ANNEX 9 - CENTRAUZED ACTIONS - BREAKDOWN OF PARTNERS IN 1992 BY REGION K): tab bÈUYèÔhlLANb : Total = 62l 
Rl 1: Schleswlg-Holstein. R12:Hambyra 
R13: Nledersachson. R14: Bremen. Rio: Nordrhein-Westfalen, 
R16: Hessen, R17: Rhelnland-Pfalz. R18: Baden-WOrttemberg. 
R19: Bayern, R1A: Saarland, RIB: Berlin, R1C: Brandenburg, 
RID: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, R1E: Sachsen, 
RlF: Sachsen-Anhalt. RIG: Thûrlngen 
Ï&: FRANCE : total =\U I 
R21 : lie de Ranee, R22: Bassin Parisien. 
R23: Nord - Pas-de-Calais, R24: Est, R25: Ouest, R26 .Sud-Ouest. 
R27: Centre-Est. R28: Médterrannée, R29: Départem. d'Outre-
K3: ITALIA :TofaT^7CT 
R31: Nord Ovest, R32: Lombardia. R33: Nord Est, 
R34: Emllla-Romagna, R35: Centra, R36: Lazio, R37: Campania 
R38: Abruzzi-Mollse, R39: Sud, R3A: SicBia, R3B: Sardegna 
M: NÊÙMLANÙ : Tnl^^T 
R41 : Noord-Nederland, R42: Oost-Nederland, 
R45: Zuid-Nederland, R47: West-Nederland 
lf?fr gflg/WE-gflg/f ,• Total = 3&I 
R51 : Vlaams Gewest, R52: Région Wallonne, 
R53: Bruxelles-Brussel 
_pgs; 
** JS Guadeloupe (F) 
" ~~^ 
RC2 Açores (P) Marrr!ïa,ue (F) 
RC3 Madeira (P) Réunion (F) 
RB7 Canarias (E) Guyane (F) lQtQ\ = 99 R71 : North, R72: Yorkshire and Humberside, 
R73: East Midlands. R74: East Anglia, R75: South East, 
R76: South West. R77: West Midands. R78; North West. 
R79: Wales, R7A: Scotland, R7B: Northern Ireland 
LINGUA 
ANNEX 10 - CENTRALIZED ACTIONS PROJECTS ACCEPTED IN 1992 DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO TYPE OF COORDINATOR AND PARTNER 
Type of Coordinator/Partner 
1 Universities/iResearch institutes 
2 Institution for Inlttal/ln-service training/training org. for SMEs 
3 Training institutions for adults and workers 
4 Other establishments (eg. language centers) 
5 SME/SMEs organizations/ICC/sectoral organizations 
6 Professional org./federations of workers (eg: trade unions) 
7 Editors and producers of software 
8 Certification authorities 
9 Ministries/government departments/education authorities 
10 Institutes for teacher training/linguistics/INSET/ 
11 Universities/higher education/polytechnics 
12 Associations/federations of foreign language teachers IB 
C 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
14 
2 
7 
0 
25 P 
17 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
25 
10 
26 
3 
83 III 
C 
14 
15 
12 
6 
10 
8 
3 
2 
6 
0 
7 
0 
83 P 
65 
59 
41 
37 
37 
24 
13 
4 
16 
2 
16 
1 
315 VA 
C 
6 
1 
0 
2 
0 
2 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
2 
14 P 
18 
6 
0 
8 
0 
0 
1 
0 
9 
2 
0 
7 
51 VB 
C 
11 
0 
0 
4 
0 
0 
5 
0 
2 
0 
0 
1 
23 P 
32 
1 
0 
8 
0 
0 
14 
0 
8 
0 
2 
5 
70 Visits 
C 
3 
5 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
1 
16 P 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 Total 
C 
34 
22 
13 
14 
12 
10 
8 
2 
23 
2 
17 
4 
161 P 
132 
66 
42 
54 
37 
24 
28 
4 
58 
14 
44 
16 
519 
Note: 89 institutions could not be classified according to these twelves categories 
UNGUA/RAP 92/AN. 10 
UNGUA 
ANNEX 11 - CENTRALIZED ACTIONS - PROJECTS ACCEPTED IN 1992 
GRANTS REQUESTED AND GRANTS AWARDED PER CONTRACTING MEMBER STATE 
STATE 
B 
DK 
D 
GR 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
TOTAL GRANT 
REQUESTED 
952,336 
1,012,789 
915,161 
830,605 
528,222 
2,115,910 
556,941 
1,329,407 
116,474 
661,973 
591,054 
2,322,981 
11,933,853 GRANT 
AWARDED 
851,000 
855,400 
777,100 
638,600 
393,892 
1,691,700 
393,541 
1,043,000 
102,000 
550,500 
302,600 
2,033,635 
9,632,968 APPLIED AWARDED 
• REQUESTED 
• AWARDED 
B DK D GR E F IRL L NL P UK 
UNGUA/RAP 92/AN. 11 
ICP participants 
ICP 
SM-Participants 
Students 
Student months 
SM-programme 
TS-programme 
CD-programme 
IP-proqramme 
ICP participants 
ICP 
SM-Participants 
Students 
Student months 
SM-programme 
TS-programme 
CD-programme 
IP-proqramme 
ICP participants 
ICP 
SM-Participants 
Students 
Student months 
SM-programme 
TS-programme 
CD-programme 
IP-programme ANNEX 12 - ACTION II - GENERAL OVERVIEW 
Total grant applications 
received 
1040 
232 accepted 
972 
211 
Total grant application» 
received 
1034 
7245 
51791 
229 
118 
23 
16 
Renewal a 
received 
816 
165 accepted 
944 
6724 
48326 
204 
58 
0 
0 
ppllcations 
accepted 
800 
162 
Pluriannual activities 
received 
801 
5787 
41286 
160 
44 
0 
0 accepted 
785 
5697 
40664 
157 
42 
0 
0 
New applications 
received 
224 
67 accepted 
172 
49 
New applications 
received 
222 
1434 
10361 
66 
21 
3 
6 accepted 
155 
1003 
7518 
46 
5 
0 
0 acceptance 
rate (%) 
93.46% 
90.95% 
acceptance 
rate (%) 
91.30% 
92.81% 
93.31% 
89.08% 
49.15% 
0.00% 
0.00% 
acceptance 
rate (%) 
98.04% 
98.18% 
acceptance 
rate (%) 
98.00% 
98.44% 
98.49% 
98.13% 
95.45% 
0.00% 
0.00% 
acceptance 
rate (%) 
76.79% 
73.13% 
acceptance 
rate (%) 
69.82% 
69.94% 
72.56% 
69.70% 
23.81% 
0.00% 
0.00% accepted in 
1991/92 
627 
149 
accepted In 
1991/92 
613 
4180 
28771 
144 
32 
0 
0 Increase (%) 
in 92/3 
55.02% 
41.61% 
increase (%) 
in 92/3 
54.00% 
60.86% 
67.97% 
41.67% 
81.25% 
0.00% 
0.00% acceptance rate 
(%) tor 92/3 
91.00% 
84.18% 
acceptance rate 
(%) for 92/3 
90.81% 
95.15% 
95.90% 
83.72% 
40.00% 
0.00% 
0.00% 
new activities within renewal applications 
received 
11 
24 
144 
3 
53 
20 
10 accepted 
4 
24 
144 
1 
11 
0 
0 acceptance rate (%) 
36.36% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
33.33% 
20.75% 
0.00% 
0.00% 
New applications + new activities within renewal applications 
received 
233 
1458 
10505 
69 
74 
23 
16 accepted 
159 
1027 
7662 
47 
16 
0 
0 acceptance rate (%) 
68.24% 
70.44% 
72.94% 
68.12% 
21.62% 
0.00% 
0.00% 
Note: 
SM = student mobility 
TS - teacher mobility 
CD = joint development of new curricula 
IP = intensive programme 
UNGUA/RAP 92/AN. 12 
-"»•*-
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 194 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 16 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-221-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-55646-3 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg