EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 18.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2444 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the   
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and  
a shared commitment  
   
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 566 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2443} {SEC(2008) 2445} 
  
This report commits only the Commission's se rvices involved in its preparation and does 
not prejudge the final form of any deci sion to be taken by the Commission 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 4 
Modifications following the Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.................................... 8 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES. 10 1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................. 10 1.2. Consultation process .................................................................................................. 11 1.2.1. Consultation of Member States.................................................................................. 11 1.2.2. Expert Group............................................................................................................ .. 12 
1.2.3. Consultation of other European Institutions .............................................................. 12 1.2.4. Consultation of stakeholde rs and European Citizens................................................. 13 
1.2.5. Consultation within the Commission......................................................................... 13 1.2.6. External expertise...................................................................................................... . 13 
1.2.7. Main conclusions of the consultation process............................................................ 14 2. DEFINING THE PROBLEM – WHAT I SSUE/PROBLEM IS THE PROPOSAL 
SUPPOSED TO TACKLE?....................................................................................... 16 
2.1. What is the issue or proble m that may require action? .............................................. 16 
2.1.1. Europeans have not yet acquired skills in  mother tongue plus two other languages. 16 
2.1.2. European citizens, companies and service providers are not fully aware of linguistic 
diversity in Europe, its challe nges and its advantages. .............................................. 18 
2.2. What are the underlying drivers of the Problems?..................................................... 18 2.3. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent.................................................... 19 2.4. How would the problem evolve , all things being equal............................................. 21 
2.5. Subsidiarity and proportionality................................................................................. 22 3. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 22 3.1. What are the general policy objectives?..................................................................... 22 3.2. What are the more specific/Operational objectives?.................................................. 23 4. WHAT ARE THE MAIN OPTIONS  AVAILABLE TO  ACHIEVE THE 
OBJECTIVES? .......................................................................................................... 23 
4.1. Option 1: no action with Member Stat es, no strategic use of EU programmes 
(mainstreaming) ......................................................................................................... 23 
4.2. Option 2: Use regulatory instruments ........................................................................ 24 
 
EN 3   EN 4.3. Option 3: Use of the Open Method of  Coordination: i ssuing a Commission 
Communication setting the ground for coopera tion with Member States and have it 
endorsed by the other European Institutions . Mainstream multili ngualism in current 
EU programmes and initiatives.................................................................................. 24 
4.4. Which options have been discarde d at an early stage and why?................................ 26 
5. ANALYSIS OF THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE OPTIONS
............................................................................................................................... ..... 26 
5.1. Advantages and disadvantages  of Option 1: no action .............................................. 26 
5.2. Advantages and disadvantages of Op tion 2: Use regulatory instruments.................. 27 
5.3. Advantages and disadvantages of Option 3: Use the Open Method of Coordination: 
issuing a Commission Communication to lay the ground for cooperation with 
Member States and have it endorsed by the other European Institutions .................. 27 
5.3.1. Sub-option 1 (national languages / migrant, minority languages) ............................. 28 
5.3.2. Sub-option 2 (linguistic dive rsity and its link to active ci tizenship and prosperity).. 29 
5.3.3. Sub-option 3 (the external dimension of multilingualism) ........................................ 29 6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS ................................................................................. 30 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 32 
7.1. Monitoring................................................................................................................ .. 32 
7.2. Evaluation ................................................................................................................ .. 33 
ANNEX.......................................................................................................................... .......... 34 
Interservice Group on Multilingualism.................................................................................... 34 
 
EN 4   EN EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
This Impact Assessment Report presents the stat e of play in relation to multilingualism policy 
and proposes to reinforce action in this field. It accompanies the proposal for the Commission 
Communication “Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment” 
(n°2008/EAC/004 in the Agenda Planning).  
Linguistic diversity is a key long-term feat ure of the European Union, whose 500 million 
citizens speak 23 different official languages along with 60 other languages spoken only in 
specific regions or by specific groups, not to mention the over 300 different languages that 
our immigrants bring with them. It is estima ted that currently citi zens from at least 175 
nationalities are living within the boundaries of th e European Union. Migration flows added 
to the already existing patchwork of national minorities and cultural. In such a context, 
interaction between speakers of  different languages has increase d steadily over recent years, 
because of increasing intra-European mobility ; migration flows from third countries and 
globalisation. This trend is likely to continue and to further increase in the years to come. 
Against this background, the two problems hi ghlighted in this Impact Assessment are:1 
(1) Knowledge of foreign languages remains insu fficient. Europeans have not yet acquired 
skills in two additional languages to their mother tongue, as called for by the 
Barcelona Council; 
(2) European citizens, companies and service pr oviders are not fully aware of assets as 
well as of challenges of lingui stic diversity in Europe.  
The problem definition is supported by data a nd feedback received during the follow-up of 
two previous Communications on multilingualism2 (2007) and the 9 month-long consultation 
process (2007-2008). 
Previous Communications on multilingualism and language diversity set out an agenda of 
actions up to 2006-2007, and called for a review  and possible further action. The assessment 
of progress and implementation carried out in  2007 shows that while there is evidence of 
progress (particularly in la nguage learning in primary and secondary education), 
implementation needs to continue and should be reinforced in a lifelong learning perspective, 
with much attention given to informal language  learning and linguistic diversity in the local 
environment.  
As for the consultation process , Member States, European institutions and stakeholders 
shared the following views:  
On the scope of multilingualism policy:  
                                                 
1 Institutional multilingualism (i.e. languages used  by the European Commission to communicate 
internally and with the citizen: publications / transla tion / interpretation) is out of the scope of this 
Impact Assessment and related po licy initiatives. Although instituti onal multilingualism deals with 
languages, it has different problems, objectives and options and decision was taken not to tackle them 
together 
2 COM(2003) 449 final, COM(2005) 596 final, COM(2007) 554 final/2 
 
EN 5   EN • Linguistic and cultural divers ity is perceived as a long- term feature of European 
society: most people value it while acknow ledging the need to manage it in an 
effective and prudent way. Shifting to a si ngle language is not  an option for the 
majority of respondents.  
• A language policy promoting only the learni ng of EU official languages is too 
limited for present-day society, where citizens (and residents) speaking many 
different languages are in daily contact.  
• Language learning should be pl aced in a lifelong perspective. 
• Multilingualism is a transversal issue th at has an impact on competitiveness and 
European citizenship and which should be  mainstreamed in a range of policies 
going beyond the field of education. 
• Promoting linguistic diversity should not ai m at preserving languages as an end in 
itself, on the contrary, it should emphasise dialogue between languages and 
communities.  
• Every citizen needs a different set of language skills, which depend on individual 
interests and where one lives, as well as family and professional background. 
On Methods: 
• Member States and the Commission s hould develop a language policy which 
favours linguistic diversity and promot es a language friendly environment, 
through widening the range of languages taught, valuing and maintaining the 
language skills of their citizens, a nd motivating them to learn more.  
• Lifelong language learning is  key to acquiring language sk ills: start early, sustain 
motivation through schooling and initial training, and go on learning languages 
throughout adult life. 
• Informal language learning should be be tter exploited, by increasing access to 
multimedia, virtual or physical mobility  and cultural exchanges. Learning 
languages in this way is effective allowing people to learn when, where and how 
they like and enabling people from diffe rent backgrounds to communicate, to 
discover and compare different mindsets. 
• Local communities, service pr oviders and companies should take into account that 
they often serve citizens and customers who speak different languages and they 
should develop strategies to cat er for their language needs. 
The added value of the new Communicat ion will be: 
• to sustain the efforts towards mother tongue pl us two by giving cleare r indications on areas 
and target groups lagging behind  (students in voca tional trainings, low- skilled adults and 
migrants) and less tackled by the previous Communications 
• to anchor multilingualism in the wider context of “Growth and Jobs process” by raising 
awareness on the assets of li nguistic diversity and on their ef fects on intercultural dialogue. 
 
EN 6   EN In this context multilingualism is also emerging as a component of EU external policies, as 
recently highlighted by the Euromed Culture Summit.3. 
• to mainstream multilingualism in relevant policies at European level and work in 
partnership with Member States and stakeholde rs to ensure that objectives are shared and 
met at the most appropriate level 
Consequently the two general objectives of multilingualism policy are: 
(1) to enable citizens to be fluent in two languages in addition to their mother tongue (in 
short: "mother tongue-plus-two") 
(2) to raise awareness of the linguistic diversity  of European society and turn it into an 
asset for intercultural dialogue and competitiveness.  
Coming to implementation , the first operational objective will be to ensure that 
multilingualism is consistently promoted across the above-mentioned European policies, using a mainstreaming approach  and making the best use of financial support available 
under existing European programmes.  According to the subsidiarity  principle, Member States 
are key decision-makers on these matters, while several stakeholders (educational providers, 
social partners, the media, local authorities, etc.) are essential to implementation. Therefore 
the second operational objective will be to work in partnership with Member States and 
stakeholders  and support them in achieving the common objectives and adopting a 
mainstreaming approach at their level.  
Different options have been taken into consideration to achieve the objectives:  
(1) No further action with Member States and no strategic us e of EU programmes 
(mainstreaming) 
(2) Use of regulatory instruments (a Recommendation) 
(3) Use of the Open Method of Coordina tion: issuing a Commission Communication 
paving the way for cooperation with Member  States and having it endorsed by the 
other European Institutions. Mainstreaming multilingualism in current EU programmes and initiatives. 
DG Education and Culture, in comparing the st rengths and weaknesses of the above options, 
has elected to propose option 3
, which would enable the Commission – with the co-operation 
of the Member States and the stakeholders – to address the identified challenges to multilingualism and find appropriate solutions. This option, which also corresponds most closely to Member States’ and stakeholders’ expectations, co mplies with the subsidiarity 
principle, and would provide the best basis for raising awareness of the challenges and 
problems and achieving real progr ess towards their solution. 
                                                
 
3 Agreed Conclusions of the third Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Culture Athens, 29 – 
30 May 2008, ; Presidency Declaratio n at the Conference New Paradigms, New Models — Culture in 
the EU External Relations, Ljubljana, 13 -14 May  
http://www.mzz.gov.si/si/zunanja_ politika/kulturno_sodelov anje/nove_paradigm e_novi_modeli_kultur
a_v_zunanjih_odnosih_eu/ .  
 
EN 7   EN As for the way multilingualism should be promoted by Commission policies and programmes, 
the option of an expenditure programme  for multilingualism was discarded because 
multilingualism is a transversal objective of very  different policies (education, culture, media, 
employment, social inclusion, research...) and supporting them outside th eir natural contexts 
does not seem to be either appropriate or eff ective. Therefore the approach of mainstreaming 
multilingualism in relevant Commission policie s and programmes seemed a viable answer. 
Chief among these programmes are: all st rands of the Lifelong Learning Programme, 
language training support given through structural funds, langua ge integration courses for 
immigrants supported by JLS, Youth in Actio n, Citizens for Europe, Literary translations 
supported by the Culture programme, Medi a programme, Research Programme and 
Information technology. 
In the light of observations made and consider ing the limited scope for direct action of the 
Commission, these are the economic and social im pacts the chosen option is likely to have, 
depending on the determination with which Memb er States and stakeholders will implement 
the recommended strategy: 
• Economic impacts: through the impact of langu age skills on citizens' employability and 
competitiveness, the new strategy defined in the Communication is likely to have a 
positive impact on international trade and cr oss-border investments; technological 
development and innovation; th e number and quality of jobs ; third country and overseas 
relations. 
• Social impacts: the strategy is likely to have  a positive impact on social inclusion, as well 
as governance and participation since language skills are a prerequisite for intercultural 
dialogue. 
As for costs: at Commission level the implem entation of the actions recommended in the 
Communication will not entail a budget increase. It  is aimed at making more effective use of 
existing programmes to promote mu ltilingualism, notably by ensuring: 
• a more consistent approach (i.e. pass on a co nsistent message in support of linguistic 
diversity, give attention to language issues in projects and initiatives) 
• more synergy between Member States (i.e. support them to achieve  shared objectives, 
through Commission initiatives and th e exchange of good practices).  
As for Member States, the Communication, in line with the already agreed EU objectives 
such as the Barcelona target of "mother t ongue plus two" will recommend general and 
operational objectives and suggest ways of achieving them, while the implementation will 
remain the competence of the Member States . A general principle to be conveyed by the 
Commission Communication will be to recommend that action is taken close to citizens, 
taking into account local language needs and pooling the resources  of business, civil society 
and local authorities so as to us e them in the most effective way. 
Concerning monitoring, the already existing In ter-service Group on Multilingualism could be 
used to ensure a coordinated approach with the Commission and to mainstream 
multilingualism in relevant European progra mmes and initiatives, through interventions at 
programme level (thematic pr iorities, budget for linguistic preparation and linguistic 
activities, adequate monitoring, etc.). Follow-up with Member States will be ensured through 
a Working Group of High Representatives of Me mber States, based on the existing Working 
 
EN 8   EN Group on Languages. To maintain focus on multili ngualism policy and to ensure a periodic 
review of its progress, the Commission will r ecommend that the European institutions devote 
an annual slot in their agenda to its discussi on. In the case of the Council, it will suggest the 
inclusion of multilingualism in the rolli ng agenda of the Education Council.  
The Commission will regularly update available i ndicators and consider the possibility of 
funding surveys of less charted areas (like business and service providers). As far as 
mainstreaming is concerned, the Commission should ensure that language issues are 
adequately taken into account  while evaluating relevant EU programmes and policies. The 
Commission will encourage Member  States and stakeholders to include language as an issue 
in the evaluation of policies and strategies at their level. The Commission will carry out a global review of progress in 2012 and report to the European Parliament and the Council on 
the experience gained. To this end, Member Stat es will be invited to  report on their progress 
by end 2011. 
M
ODIFICATIONS FOLLOWING THE OPINION OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT BOARD  
Following the opinion of the impact assessment board some changes have been made to the 
impact assessment.  
In particular the analysis of the root causes behind the problem drivers has been expanded . 
Insufficient awareness of the importance of la nguage skills seems to be the main driver 
behind the patchy implementation of Mother-ton gue-plus-two in a number of Member States. 
Political pressure and close monitoring, as s uggested in chap.7 (Monitoring and evaluation) 
should help them progress. The root causes linke d to the demand side remain instead more 
difficult to pinpoint, as they  concern mainly perceptions . On the basis of the 2006 
Eurobarometer survey quoted in the text, most  citizens are persuaded of the importance of 
being fluent in more languages, bu t they still think the task is too difficult for them or that it is 
too late. Awareness-raising campa igns with the involvement of  media, national and regional 
stakeholders are envisaged to change people perceptions on linguistic diversity and on the 
need of language skills for all. As a comp lement, increased support to informal language 
learning and E-learning is called for, so to give more chances to those out of school. 
The text now makes it clearer that  linguistic diversity can be a s ource of benefit and richness, 
but also that in the absence of adequate polic ies, increasing diversity entails several risks, 
namely: 1) widening the communication gap between people with different linguistic 
backgrounds 2) hindering mobility and increas ing the divide between the multilingual who 
has access to better living and working opportunities an d the monolingual who are excluded 
from them; 3) making it difficult for European co mpanies to fully exploi t the opportunities of 
the internal market and possibly losing their competitive edge abroad. Examples now substantiate these three risks, in par ticular in the case of the low-skilled. 
The analysis of the options has also been expanded; in particular the r easons why option 2 (a 
"soft law" instrument) has been discarded are now presented more in detail. Option 3 – the 
preferred one – is now analysed also in terms of  the different levels of ambition that can be 
envisaged.  
On the value added of the new Communication,  the text now points out more clearly that  
previous Communications on multilingualism and la nguage diversity set out an agenda of 
actions up to 2006-2007, and called for a review  and possible further action. The assessment 
 
EN 9   EN of progress and implementation carried out in 2007 showed that while there is evidence of 
progress (particularly in la nguage learning in primary and secondary education), 
implementation needs to continue and should be reinforced in a lifelong learning perspective. 
At the same time the consultation process se nt clear feedback on the need of raising 
awareness of linguistic diversity, to make it an asset for intercu ltural dialogue and prosperity.  
Therefore the added value of the new Communication will be: 
(1) to sustain the efforts towards mother tongue  plus two by giving cl earer indications on 
areas and target groups laggi ng behind (students in vocat ional trainings , low-skilled 
adults and migrants) and less tackle d by the previous Communications 
(2) to anchor multilingualism in the wider context of “Growth and Jobs” by raising 
awareness on the assets of linguistic dive rsity and on their effe cts on intercultural 
dialogue thereby also allowing for an ex ternal dimension of multilingualism, as 
recently highlighted by the Euromed Culture Summit4 
(3) to mainstream multilingualism in relevant pol icies at European level and work in 
partnership with Member States  and stakeholders to ensure that objectives are shared 
and met at the most appropriate level. 
                                                 
4 Agreed Conclusions of the third Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Culture Athens, 29 – 
30 May 2008, ; Presidency Declaratio n at the Conference New Paradigms, New Models — Culture in 
the EU External Relations, Ljubljana, 13 -14 May  
http://www.mzz.gov.si/si/zunanja_ politika/kulturno_sodelov anje/nove_paradigm e_novi_modeli_kultur
a_v_zunanjih_odnosih_eu/ .  
 
EN 10   EN 1. PROCEDURAL  ISSUES  AND  CONSULTATION  OF INTERESTED  PARTIES 
1.1. Organisation and timing 
This report accompanies the proposal for th e Commission Communication “Multilingualism: 
an asset for Europe and a shared commitm ent”. The Communication is n°2008/EAC/004 in 
the Agenda Planning and is listed among th e Priority Initiativ es in the Commission 
Legislative and Work Programme 2008. 
Previous Communications on multilingualism and language diversity set out an agenda of 
actions up to 2006-2007, and called for a review and possible further ac tion. Preparation of 
the new Communication and assessment of its potential impact started in September 2007 
with the release of two substa ntial documents providing inform ation on the past three years 
and highlighting gaps to be tackled:  
• The Report on the implementation of the Acti on Plan “Promoting language learning 
and linguistic diversity. 2004-2006 ”5. The Action Plan6 was the first policy document in 
the field of languages: it set strategic ar eas and concrete actions mainly for the 
Commission, with recommendations to Member States to work along the same lines. The 
report on its implementation gathers informa tion from various European programmes and 
from national reports to show progress made  and trends in promoting language learning 
and linguistic diversity in 2004-2006. 
• The Final Report of the High Level Group for Multilingualism7 set up as a follow-up to 
the Communication “A new Framework Strategy for Multilingualism” of 20058 to tackle 
several aspects related to mu ltilingualism, in education, media, research, motivation, 
translations. 
In a nutshell, these are their findings wh ich have implications for future action: 
– On policy context : Firstly, promoting the teaching of of ficial languages of the European 
Union is not enough in today's society, wher e many languages are spoken and needed in 
the local environment. Th e multilingualism policy needs to address all languages, 
including national languages ta ught as second language to immigrants and minorities, 
regional, minority and migrants' languages,  and languages of non European trading 
partners. Secondly, linguistic and intercultu ral skills are of paramount importance for 
competitiveness and to foster social inclusions and dialogue between different cultures. Furthermore languages are learnt  in a variety of informal settings: in the family, by 
spending time abroad, through new technologie s, media and leisure activities. Therefore 
citizens' linguistic skills cannot be tackled from an educati onal angle only: it requires a 
comprehensive policy, where lifelong learning is the main driver and a wider range of 
stakeholders and options are involved. 
                                                
 
5 COM(2007) 554 final/2 
6 COM(2003) 449 final of 24.07.2003 "Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An 
Action Plan 2004-2006" 
7 http://ec.europa.eu/education/polic ies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf  
8 COM(2005) 596 final of 22.11.2005 
 
EN 11   EN – On trends : Member States have made some prog ress on promoting early language learning 
and on encouraging students to speak two fore ign languages, although this trend is uneven 
across Member States. Often as  a consequence of such refo rms, many Member States are 
confronted with the challenge of  upgrading language teaching skills , through ini tial and in-
service teacher training. Progress is noted  mainly in primary and secondary level 
education. Vocational education and training and adult educa tion systems have not been 
mobilised, although they cater fo r that part of population most in need of language skills, 
nor are countries offering an ade quately wide range of languages. 
– On methods : the effort of the European Commissi on to set strategic areas and concrete 
actions to promote languages has been appreciated: most Member States have worked along the agreed lines at nati onal level and exchanged information and good practices at 
European level. The European Commission ha s complemented their work by gearing EU 
educational programmes towards the same priori ties, and enabling rele vant groups to meet 
and work together. The Open method of coor dination and strategic use of EU programmes 
are appreciated by Member States and there is scope for further improving their effectiveness in this context. 
1.2. Consultation process 
The above-mentioned findings have underpinned th e policy shaping proce ss leading to a new 
policy step, i.e. the proposed Communicatio n. The definition and implementation of a 
multilingualism policy rely on several actors at European, national and local level. For these 
reasons, a wide-ranging consulta tion process was launched, invol ving Member States, other 
European Institutions and stakeholders. In order to receive comprehensive and transparent feedback, the same set of topics has been submitted for deliberation to the different target groups consulted. They concerned: 
• improving language teaching and learning and divers ification of languages at all levels of 
education 
• the extent to which linguistic diversity matters  to the local environment (access to services, 
health, law, etc.) 
• languages in a business context, includ ing vocational education and training 
• the extent to which immigrants  should maintain and pass on th eir heritage languages, while 
learning the language of the host country 
• the extent to which linguistic diversity is reflected in the media 
• multilingual communication between EU institutions and the citizen
9 
1.2.1.  Consultation of Member States 
The Commission strongly associated the Council to the policy shaping process, as Member 
States hold the responsib ility in the field of languages. Firstly, Commi ssioner Orban presented 
                                                 
9 More details can be found in the question paper released for the online consultation, which served as a 
basis for consulting the other target groups  
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/news/index_en.html   
 
EN 12   EN the findings of the Report on Impl ementing the Action Plan to the Education Council 
(November 2007), where Member States held an  exploratory discussi on on which challenges 
they see ahead and how they plan to tackle them. 
Secondly, 29 national delegations (Member St ates, Norway and Iceland) gathered on 15 
February 2008 in Brussels for a Ministerial Conference on Multilingualism, organised and 
chaired jointly by the Commission and by the Slov enian Presidency. Member States discussed 
and gave further indications on priority in th e field of multilingualism. The Education Council 
of May adopted Council Conclusions conveying the main message s of the Ministerial 
Conference and inviting the Commission to go ah ead with concrete proposals. The French 
Presidency is currently planning political in itiatives (Council Conclu sions) to endorse the 
Commission Communication and to commit Member States to its implementation. 
1.2.2.  Expert Group 
A number of technical working groups of Member States representatives were invited to 
discuss how to implement multilingualism: 
• The Working Group on Languages  composed of officials in charge of language teaching 
and learning policies in Member States10  
• The European Network of Inspectors of Fo reign Language Education and Training , 
in which language inspectors exchange good practices. 
• Furthermore, a Hearing of high level national offi cials working with multilingualism 
policies  took place on 17 January 2008. Its aim wa s to discuss new developments in 
multilingualism policy and practice, including the teaching of national languages as second 
languages to immigrants and minorities, as well as promoting the use and learning of 
heritage languages and third country languages. 
1.2.3.  Consultation of other European Institutions 
The European Parliament  followed up closely the polic y shaping process through a 
structured dialogue between Co mmissioner Orban and the Culture and Education Committee. 
Its Chairperson, Ms Batzeli, pa rticipated in the Ministeria l Conference and Commissioner 
Orban presented the results of the Ministerial Conference and of the online consultation to the 
Committee on 31 March 2008. The Parliament shared  his views that more action was needed 
to promote multilingualism. It drew attention es pecially to the need for an inclusive policy 
encompassing languages spoken in Europe (i ncluding regional, minority and migrant 
languages), for quality language teaching, and the languages and educational needs of mobile 
Europeans and their families. 
The Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee are in 
the process of adopting  Outlook Opinions. In a nutshell, thei r draft texts highlight respectively 
the importance of answering to linguistic needs of citizens and encourage companies to invest 
in language skills. Both recommend to promot e informal language learning through the media 
and through new technologies and to work in partnership with local stakeholders and social 
partners. 
                                                 
10 This Group was set up in the framework of the "Education and Training 2010 work programme on the 
follow-up of the objectives of Education and training systems in Europe" (2002/C 142/01) 
 
EN 13   EN 1.2.4.  Consultation of stakeholders and European Citizens 
From 14 September to 15 November 2007 an online consultation gathered comments and 
proposals from citizens and stakeholders. It was based upon a questionnaire available in 22 
languages and received 2,419 comple te answers, coming from all Member States as well as 
from third countries. The analysis of the onlin e consultation results (annexed) was presented 
to the Ministerial Confer ence of 15 February 2008.  
The results of the online consultation were fu rther discussed in the framework of a public 
hearing (Brussels, 15 April 2007). It assembled around 200 stakeholders from associations of 
teachers and students, local and regional author ities, language organisations and social 
partners. 
As the new direction of multilingualism policy envisages a closer link with competitiveness 
and citizenship, two temporary advisory  groups were set up in these areas: 
• the Business Forum , chaired by Mr E. Davignon and composed by CEOs and prominent 
business representatives. Its mandate was to  put forward recommendations and concrete 
measures on how to fill language skill gaps to foster competitiveness and employability.11 
• the Group of intellectuals for intercultural dialogue  was chaired by Mr A. Maalouf and 
composed of European writers and journa lists. Its mandate was to come up with 
recommendations to highlight the role of la nguages in the dialogue  between cultures and 
propose concrete actions.12 
1.2.5.  Consultation within the Commission 
The Inter-service Group on Multilingualism chaired by DGEAC and comprising one 
Commission official per DG, me ets regularly to discuss coordination issues linked to 
multilingualism. The Group discussed in va rious meetings the multilingualism policy 
approach, included the drafting of the Impact  Assessment Report. It has also provided 
information on other DGs actions promoting mu ltilingualism, as a basis for mainstreaming 
multilingualism across relevant Commission actions.  
1.2.6.  External expertise 
Although most of the work has been conducte d in house and through the consultation fora 
already described, some specific findings are based on the results of the following studies: 
• Report on the diversity of language  teaching offered in the EU 
• LACE - Intercultural competences t aught during foreign language teaching in 
compulsory level education and training 
• ELAN- Effects on the European Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills 
in Enterprise13 
                                                 
11 Final report expected by June 2008 
12 Final report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/maalouf/report_en.pdf   
13 The three studies are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/key/studies_en.html   
 
EN 14   EN • Study on the needs and practice of the Eur opean audiovisual industry in respect of 
dubbing and subtitling14 
1.2.7.  Main conclusions of th e consultation process 
There was a striking convergence of views refl ected in the feedback  throughout the various 
strands of the consultation process.15 Member States and stakeholders shared the following 
views:  
On the scope of multilingualism policy: 
• Linguistic and cultural divers ity is perceived as a long- term feature of European 
society: most people value it while acknow ledging the need to manage it in an 
effective and prudent way. Shifting to a si ngle language is not  an option for the 
majority of respondents. English is perceived as a useful lingua franca , but people 
are aware of its limitations: if  they wish to go beyond a firs t contact, in order to do 
business or to live in another country, they need to use the language of their 
interlocutors.  
• A language policy focussed on the learning of EU official languages is too limited 
for present-day society, where citizen s (and residents) speaking many more 
different languages are in daily contact . Multilingualism policy should eliminate 
barriers between languages and encomp ass all languages present in the 
community, including the official language  of the country taught as a second 
language to foreigners and immigrants, regional, minority and migrant languages. 
• Language learning should be pl aced in a lifelong perspective: firstly, more effort 
is needed to deliver quality language teach ing in primary and secondary education 
and to better value different mother  tongues; secondly, language learning for 
adults should be reinforced - more langua ges should be taught  through initial and 
continuing vocational training and informal  ways of learning (through the media, 
new technologies, leisure and cultural activit ies, etc) should be made available. 
• Multilingualism is a transversal issue th at has an impact on competitiveness and 
European citizenship: it shoul d be mainstreamed in a ra nge of policies wider than 
                                                 
14 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media/overview/evaluation/studies/index_en.htm  
15 More detailed feedback can be found in our webpages: 
 Outcomes of the European Commission’s public co nsultation on multilingualism: full report published 
in February 2008 http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/news/news1466_en.htm# 
 Report of the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue and the Recommendations of the High 
Level Group on Multilingualism: http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/archive/languages_en.html# 
 Public Hearing of 15 April http://ec.europa .eu/education/languages/news/news1466_en.htm# 
 Ministerial Conference of 15 February: SEC(2008) 252: Commissioner Orban's Note to the College on 
the outcomes of the Ministerial Conference on Multilingualism and Council Conclusions on 
Multilingualism of 22 May 2008 
http://www.eu2008.si/en/News_and_Documen ts/Council_Conclusions/May/0521_EYC-
MULTILIN.pdf  
 Outlook Opinions of the Committee of the Regions (http://www.toad.cor.europa.eu/CORBRowse.aspx ) 
and of the European Econom ic and Social Committee: 
http://www.toad.eesc.europa.eu/EESCBrowse.aspx  
 
EN 15   EN education (lifelong learning, social incl usion, employment, competitiveness, 
media, research). 
• Promoting linguistic diversity should not ai m at preserving languages as an end in 
itself. On the contrary it should emphasise dialogue between language 
communities and their different visions of the world.  
• Every citizen needs a different set of  language skills, according to his/her 
interests, location where he/she lives, as well as family and professional 
background. 
On Methods: 
• Member States and the Commission s hould develop a language policy which 
favours linguistic diversity, through wide ning the range of  languages taught, 
valuing and maintaining language skills of their citizens, motivating them to learn 
and promoting a language friendly environment.  
• The lifelong language learni ng perspective is key to acquiring language skills: 
start early, keep motivati on through initial educati on, go on learning languages 
throughout adult life. 
• Informal language learning should be be tter exploited, by increasing access to 
multimedia, virtual or physical mobility  and cultural exchanges. Learning 
languages in this way is eff ective and enable people from different backgrounds to 
communicate, to discover and compare different mindsets. 
• Local communities, service pr oviders and companies should take into account that 
they often address citizens and customer s who speak different languages and they 
should develop strategies to cat er for their language needs. 
On main actors:  
• Multilingualism needs to be promoted by actors at all level (European, national, 
local and sectoral) to become a transversa l feature of a wide range of policies. 
• As citizens have different la nguage needs, the local level has a significant role to 
play to:  
– meet specific language needs (cater fo r people speaking different languages, 
develop language skills used acros s the border and by local companies); 
– value language resources in the immediate environment (minorities, expatriates, 
immigrants);  
– promote intercultural dialogue amon g citizens of different backgrounds. 
We consider that the above mentioned c onsultation process has met the Commission's 
standards for consultation of stakeholders as fa r as it concerns the clear  content of  publication, 
 
EN 16   EN consultation of relevant target groups, publ ication and dissemination of information, time 
limits for participation; acknowledgement and feedback.16. 
2. DEFINING  THE  PROBLEM  – WHAT  ISSUE/PROBLEM  IS THE  PROPOSAL  
SUPPOSED  TO TACKLE? 
2.1. What is the issue or proble m that may require action? 
Linguistic diversity is a key feature of the European Union, whose 500 million citizens speak 
23 different official lang uages along with 60 other languages confined to specific regions or 
groups, not to mention the over 300 different languages that our immigrants bring with them. 
It is estimated that currently  citizens from at least 175 nati onalities are living within the 
boundaries of the European Union. Migration fl ows added to the already existing patchwork 
of national minorities and cultural. In such a cont ext, interaction between speakers of different 
languages has increased steadily over recent y ears, because of incr easing intra-European 
mobility; migration flows from third countries and globalisation. This trend is likely to 
continue and to further increase in the years to come.17 From 2010 natural population will 
decline in Europe, but immigrati on flow is expected to keep the balance, at least until 2025.18 
Against this background, the two problems a ddressed in this Impact Assessment are: 
(4) Europeans have not yet acquired skills in two additional languages to their mother 
tongue, as called for by the Barcelona Council; 
(5) European citizens, companies and service providers are not fully aware of the assets as 
well as of the challenges of li nguistic diversity in Europe.  
Institutional multilingualism (i.e. languages used by the European Commission to 
communicate internally and with the citizen: publications / transl ation / interpretation) is out 
of the scope of this Impact Assessment and related policy initiatives. Institutional multilingualism has specific challenges, objectives  and options, thus reducing the added value 
of tackling these issues together. Therefore the Commission has decided not  to tackle together 
institutional multilingualism and multil ingualism of the European society. 
2.1.1.  Europeans have not yet acquired skills in  mother tongue plus two other languages 
The fact that citizens po ssess insufficient language skills has been considered as a problem to 
be tackled since the setting of the Lisbon stra tegy: "improving language skills" was one of the 
objectives of the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme. In 2002 the European 
Council of Barcelona ( 2002) called for teaching two foreign languages from an early age and 
for developing an indicator of language competence. This Indicator is under development and 
                                                
 
16 An overview of the consulta tion process is available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/news/index_en.html   
17 Eurostat, "Europe in Figures: Eurostat Yearbook 2006-2007" Luxembourg 2007 
18 NIDI, "Demographic Trends, Socio-Economic Imp acts and Policy Implications in the European 
Union", 2007 (Report to the European Commission, DG EMPL) 
 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_situation/2007_mon_rep_demo.pdf   
 
EN 17   EN is expected to be tested in 201019: it will test competence of students in two foreign languages 
at the end of compulsory education.  
As for the general population, a 2006 Eurobarome ter survey shows quite mixed results: the 
countries where a significant majority of the population speak at l east two languages, in 
addition to the mother tongue, are: Luxembour g (92%); the Netherla nds (75%); Slovenia 
(71%); Malta (68%); Belgium ( 67%); Denmark (66%). In the Baltic countries about half of 
the population speak two foreign languages, and this  is also the case of Finland. On the other 
hand, in the following countries a wide ma jority of respondents declared having no 
competences in any foreign language: in Irel and (66%), the UK (62%); Italy (59%); in 
Hungary and Portugal (58%).  
Indeed, while more severe in some Member States, lack of linguistic skills is an issue in most 
Member States: there already exist a “multilingua l” European that is likely to be young, well-
educated or still studying, and use foreign la nguages for professional reasons, and be 
motivated to continue to learn. In this respect it can also be mentioned that participants in the 
Erasmus exchange programme ranked improved knowledge of foreign languages as the most 
important outcome of their period aboard in terms of future employability. But this picture excludes a big part of the population – and goes a long way towards e xplaining the lack of 
professional cross-country mobility in Europe. 
The following issues, tackling the supply side, show  in what respects the targets have been 
only partially met. 
1. The range of languages offered in primary and secondary education has 
not increased  in line with the Barcelona commitment. Between 1999 and 2005 
language learning increased in 21 Member States in primary education and in 8 
Member States in secondary education. This concerned mainly English. Little 
progress has been made in the number a nd variety of languages taught. In 2006 the 
target of teaching two additional languages to  virtually all pupils  in lower secondary 
education was reached only by 9 Member States. In upper-secondary education two 
languages were taught to two thirds of students in 11 Member States. During the 
same period the number of languages taught re mained stable or even decreased at 
lower-secondary level in 17 Member States and at upper secondary level in 7 Member States.
20 
2. Very limited language provision, if any, is offered in initial vocational 
education and training . According to CEDEFOP country reports, the teaching of at 
least a foreign language as a core subject is mentioned by 3 countries (LT,LV and 
Wales) in lower secondary vocational edu cation and by 8 countries (A, CZ, DE, FI, 
EL, LT, PL and SV) in upper s econdary vocational education.21 
3. There is no evidence indicating an  increase in language provisions for 
adults . On the contrary, lack of language skil ls is reported as the first reason for not 
                                                 
19 COM(2005) 356 final; COM(2007) 184 final 
20 M. Strubell et alii, "The diversity of language t eaching in the European Uni on" 2007 (Report to the 
European Commission, DG EAC) http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/key/studies_en.html  
21 Cedefop Thematic Overviews, 
 http://www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/Inform ation_resources/NationalVet/Thematic/   
 
EN 18   EN working abroad.22 A special Eurobarometer23 carried out in 2005 reported that 44% 
of EU-citizens are not able to hold a conversation in any language but their mother 
tongue.  
2.1.2.  European citizens, companies and service prov iders are not fully aware of linguistic 
diversity in Europe, its cha llenges and its advantages.  
This second problem deals with the demand side . Member States, stake holders and citizens 
responding to the consultation converged in affi rming that there is widespread lack of 
awareness of the linguistic dive rsity of our society. This enta ils an underestimation of the 
challenges and skills required to  interact with peopl e with different linguistic and cultural 
backgrounds :  
4. Individuals lack motivation to learn languages . According to the above-
mentioned Eurobarometer, only about 1 in 5 Europeans intended to improve or learn 
a new foreign language in the following year. 
5. Companies lose business opportunities because of lack of language skills . It 
is estimated that 11% of exporting Eu ropean SMEs (945,000 companies) may be 
losing business because of lack of language skills. A sample survey on 2000 exporting SMEs from 29 EU countries showed  that 46% of businesses plan to enter 
new export markets in the next three year s, which will only magnify the demand for 
language skills.. 6. Service providers (i.e. private and public services interacting 
with citizens: school, health se rvices, local authorities, poli ce, media, infrastructures) 
are confronted with the challenge of communicating effectively with people 
speaking different languages . Feedback received duri ng the consultation reported 
that in our increasing multicultural society service providers are often not aware of 
communication pitfalls while addressing peopl e from different linguistic and cultural 
backgrounds. This seems due to lack of in tercultural skills along with shortage of 
language skills among staff. 
2.2. What are the underlying drivers of the Problems? 
The underlying drivers relate respectively to e ach of the six points mentioned in paragraph 
2.1: 
1.-2. Member States appear not to be fully consistent with the commitment taken in 
Barcelona and slow in reforming thei r educational and vocational systems. 
Insufficient awareness of the importance of  language skills seems to be the main 
driver (see also points 4-6)  
3. Although Member States play a role in adult learning provisi ons (for instance 
through awareness raising campaigns, voucher and incentiv es to take up 
languages...), this sector is more directly driven by demand. In addition to the Member States' role, drivers quoted under points 4, 5 and 6 should be taken into 
consideration. 
                                                
 
22 "Action Plan on workers mo bility" COM(2007) 773 final 
23 "Europeans and their  languages ", http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_sum_en.pdf  
 
EN 19   EN As we come to the demand side, indivi dual representations (i.e. beliefs and 
perceptions) and a variety of environmental f actors (like the role of the media) seem 
to be the main drivers:24 
4. The perception that there is no need to be skilled in more languages: getting by 
in English is enough. The belief that skills  in more languages are only for gifted 
students and elites. The perception that cer tain languages have no practical value, 
leading for instance to neglecting family bilingualism and to considering that a 
different mother tongue is mo re a burden than an asset.  
5. The perception that conducting business in English is enough, in Europe and 
abroad, the scant attention paid to linguistic  diversity in the workplace. This leads, 
for instance, to neglecting communication pr oblems for lack of intercultural skills 
and to undervaluing language skills of the workforce. 
6. The perception that people living in the local community share the same 
mother tongue and cultural background. As  a result, tourists, minority groups and 
newcomers from other Member States and third countries may experience difficulties in interacting within the local community  and in accessing basic services (health, 
school, social provisions, justice and infrastructure). In the ca se of tourists this entails 
an economic loss. In the case of minority groups and newcomers it may be a source 
of discrimination and an obsta cle to long term integration. 
We conclude by outlining an additional di fficulty encountered in promoting language 
skills and linguistic diversity:  there is no straightforwar d answer to the question: 
Which languages should EU citizens learn?  Given Europe's linguistic and cultural 
diversity, nearly every citizen needs a diffe rent set of languages. There is agreement 
on the fact that being fluent in three langua ges is a key skill, but  individuals should 
decide on their own which languages to ta ke up, also valuing existing skills in 
heritage / family languages. 
2.3. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent 
The above-mentioned Eurobarometer
 showed that: 56% of citizens in the EU Member States 
believe that they can hold a conversation in one  language apart from their mother tongue and 
28% of the respondents state that they speak  two foreign languages well enough to have a 
conversation. From the socio-economic point  of view, the Eurobarometer found that a 
“multilingual” European is likely to be young, well-educated or stil l studying, born in a 
country other than the country of residence, who uses fore ign languages for professional 
reasons and is motivated to lear n. Relating affected target groups  to the issues mentioned in 
chapter 2.1: 
1. Students in primary and secondary gene ral education where the teaching of two 
languages is not available. This concer n 8 countries: IRL, IT, UK plus 5 other 
countries (CZ,DE,MT,AT, PL) where the opportunity to learn two languages is only available in upper secondary education (post-compulsory).
25 
                                                 
24 OECD, "Globalisation and Linguistic Competencies" EDU/CERI/CD(2007)14  
25 Eurydice, "Key Data on Teaching Langua ges at School in Europe" 2005 Edition.  
http://www.eurydice.org/portal/page/port al/Eurydice/showPresentation?pubid=049EN   
 
EN 20   EN 2. Students in vocational training. Affected to a large extent as language teaching 
is available only on a limited number of paths mainly concerning tourism. Lack of language skills may reduce employability in the increasing number of companies 
dealing with foreign customers and by hi ndering mobility to another European 
country. 
3. Adults, especially those with low qua lifications, the unemployed, those from 
different ethnical backgrounds. Language ski lls are an indispensable complement to 
vocational qualifications and basic skills, as advocated in the Recommendations of 
the Council and the Parliament on key skills. According to the Progress Report towards the Lisbon Objectives
26, adults with a high educational attainment level are 
more than six times as likely to particip ate in lifelong learning th an low skilled; in 
non-formal education it is even ten times mo re. At the same time, low skilled people 
are the most at risk to lose their jobs according to CEDEFOP's Medium-term 
Forecast on the Future Skills Needs in Europe27. Some Member States are in demand 
of low skilled workers, who could find more and better jobs if they had better language skills. The need for language skills  will increase in fu ture, although not in a 
homogeneous way. In 13 of th e 29 countries surveyed, at  least 50% of respondents 
believed they would need additional langua ge skills in the next three years. 
Intercultural skills were also widely pred icted to be required in future, although not 
at the same level of response.
28 In areas where more than one language is spoken the 
consequences of being monolingual can alr eady be dramatic: a report highlights how 
up to 80% of CVs can be discarded in the Brussels region because the applicant is 
monolingual.29  
4. Immigrant communities need to be flue nt in the language of the host country, 
but not all countries provide for effective second language teachi ng, neither to adults 
nor to children. Language is often the firs t barrier to integrat ion encountered by 
immigrants and by pupils with a immigration background. In 2004 on average 5% of the EU population has foreign citizenship, while some 7% is foreign born. In 2006, 
the proportion of pupils in the total school population, w hose first language was not 
the language of instruction represented ar ound one-fifth of all pupils in Luxembourg 
and Liechtenstein and 6-8% in De nmark, Germany, Austria and Sweden.
30 OECD 
PIRL Survey showed that st udents with a migrant back ground score systematically 
less well than domestic students, notably because of insufficient command of the 
language of instruction. At the same time immigrants se e skills in their mother 
tongues undervalued while thei r languages are of strategi c importance for external 
business relations. 
                                                 
26 SEC(2006) 639, p. 39 
27 http://www.trainingvillage.gr/ etv/Upload/Information_resour ces/Bookshop/485/4078_en.pdf 
28 CILT, "ELAN: Effects on the European Econom y of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills in 
Enterprise", 2007 (Report to the European Commission, DG EAC) 
 http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/key/studies_en.html   
29 http://www.tibem.be/images_u ser/File/rapportTIBEM.pdf 
30 Eurydice Survey: "Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe" 2004 
 http://www.eurydice.org/portal/page/port al/Eurydice/showPresentation?pubid=044EN   
 
EN 21   EN 5. Specific target groups affected by referre d beliefs are adults in general and in 
particular those influencing others' c hoices: parents, teachers, headmasters, 
counsellors, career advisors, and, last  but not least, media influencers.31 
6. Although big companies are also in need  of language skills, they are more 
aware of the importance of la nguages and better able to recruit adequately trained 
workforce. SMEs appear to be mostly affected by shortage of language skills. The above-mentioned ELAN study found that, with in their sample of exporting SMEs 
more Spanish companies (19%) claim to ha ve lost business than French (13%) or 
German (10%), while the percentage of companies facing language barriers varies 
between 21% (England and Wa les) and 8% (Portugal).  The region most likely to 
cause cultural barriers for companies in England/Wales, Portuga l, Northern Ireland, 
Scotland and the Netherlands is East Asia; Japan and China are most often cited. Trade with the Middle East poses also cu ltural barriers. Within Europe cultural 
problems are also posed in trading with France, particularly for English, Welsh, 
Polish, Irish and Dutch companies, while Germany poses obstacles for the Polish, Irish and Dutch.  
7. Feedback from the consultation proces s indicates that pr oviders of basic 
services (health, school, local authorities and courts) are increas ingly in need of 
communicating with people speak ing other languages while th eir staff is not trained 
to work in languages other th an their mother tongue and do not possess intercultural 
skills. This affects particularly countries of recent immigration (IT,ES,PT,EL, IRL), 
and new Member States facing increasing fl ows of foreigners because of tourism, 
business contact, cross-border cooperation.  
2.4. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal 
In case no action is taken, in  the long term this will: 
(1) increase the divide between the multili ngual who can avail of better living and 
working opportunities in Europe and on the world stage, and the monolingual who are 
excluded from such opportunities; 
(2) make it difficult for European companies to fully exploit the opportunities of the 
internal market and possibly losing competitive edge abroad, especially in the most promising economic drivers of next decades: Brazil, Russia, India and China.
32 
Companies might also face productivity decline due to lack of intercultural skills. As 
an indirect result, the related market of translation, interp retation and multilingual 
technology facilities will not be  developed as it could becau se of lack of demand. The 
link between language skills and competitiven ess is visible in smaller European 
countries with high volumes of trade, su ch as Denmark, Finla nd, Switzerland, and the 
Netherlands. They are at the top places in  the Competitiveness Index of the World 
Economic Forum and they also score very – or extremely - well in terms of linguistic 
                                                 
31 Ref. Above mentioned OECD study on Globalisation and Language skills 
32 "The Future of European Education and Training Systems: Key Challenges and Their Implications" 
Analytical Report for the European Commission prepared by the European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE) 
 http://www.eenee.de/portal/page/portal/E ENEEContent/_IMPORT_TELECENTRUM/DOCS/Webpage
-Version.pdf 
 
EN 22   EN skills. Their economic dynamism and openness to trade is helped by widespread 
knowledge of foreign languages. 
(3) widen the communication gap and the lack of mutual understanding between people 
speaking different languages. This would aff ect firstly those not mastering adequately 
the dominant language of the country they live (immigrants, minorities, European 
mobile citizens), who would find more difficult to integr ate. Secondly it would result 
in an impoverishment of the local community life, cut off from the interaction of the 
different cultural backgr ounds of its inhabitants. 
2.5. Subsidiarity and proportionality 
Art. 149 of the Treaty gives to the Europe an Commission the role of supporting and 
supplementing Member States' activities, which bear primary responsibility for the content 
and the organisation of education systems, of which language teaching is an integral part. 
While complying with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the Commission and 
Member States have already worked together  through the open method of coordination to 
fulfil the commitment of mother tongue plus two, as recalled by the Recommendations of 
Parliament and Council on key competen ces for lifelong learning, where language 
competence is included33. Such cooperation should conti nue in the same framework, 
supported by the Education Council Conclusi ons of May 2008, which defined a broader 
context for multilingualism and invited the Co mmission to come up with proposals supporting 
Member States action. 
3. OBJECTIVES 
3.1. What are the general policy objectives? 
The first objective of multilingualism policy is  to enable citizens to be fluent in two 
languages in addition to their mother to ngue (in short: "mother tongue-plus-two") . This 
objective is shared and supported by Member  States which, since 2002, have committed 
themselves to teach two foreign languages to all from a very early age, as a way of reinforcing 
basic skills. Furthermore, in 2006, Council a nd Parliament included competence in two 
languages plus mother tongue among th e key competences for lifelong learning. 
Consequently to the argumentation of chapte r 2.3, most affected people by lack of language 
skills should be a priority targ et (students in general educa tion and in vocational training, 
adults, especially those at disadvantage). While promoting language skills in a lifelong 
learning perspective is the main solution, it sh ould be complemented by raising awareness of 
the linguistic diversity of our society, in which language and intercultural skills are required to 
interact successfully. 
Therefore, a  second objective is to raise awareness of the linguistic diversity of our society 
and to turn it into an asset for intercultural dialogue and competitiveness . Again, 
according to the argumentation of chapter 2.3 pr iority target groups should be: parents and 
educational stakeholders; comp anies and service providers. 
                                                 
33 2006/962/EC 
 
EN 23   EN 3.2. What are the more specific/Operational objectives? 
The achievement of the above-mentioned ob jectives goes beyond education and involves 
nearly all “Growth and Jobs” policies linked to citizens and companies: lifelong learning, 
employment , social inclusion, competitiveness,  culture, youth and civil society, research, the 
media and external polic ies. Consequently, the first operational objective will be to ensure 
that multilingualism aspects are consistently  taken into account across these European 
policies, using a mainstreaming approach and making the best use of financial support 
available under existing European programmes . 
According to the subsidiarity principle, Me mber States are key decision-makers on these 
matters, while several stakeholders (educationa l providers, social partners, media, local 
authorities) are essential to implementation. Therefore the second operational objective will 
be to work in partnership with Member Stat es and stakeholders to support them to 
achieve the same objectives and adopt a mainstreaming approach at their level . 
The Commission may act as a catalyst, fixi ng common priorities a nd coordinating policy 
efforts through a structured dialogue with three strands:  
• The Commission will work together with Member States through the Education and 
Training 2010 process and will reinforce mu ltilingualism in the policy framework for 
cooperation after 2010. It will tr ansform the Working Group on Languages into a flexible 
configuration in order to promote policy dialogue in the broader field of multilingualism, while addressing technical issues at the appropriate level (pee r learning activities, 
exchange of good practice, evidence-based  policies, and language indicator). 
• The Commission will create a Forum with the media, cultural organisations and other 
stakeholders from civil society to discuss a nd exchange practices to raise awareness of 
linguistic and cultural diversity to promote ac tive citizenship and in tercultural dialogue. 
• The Commission will establish a permanent framework for cooperation with the business 
sector, built on the existing Business Forum. 
These objectives are consistent with the Educ ation & Training 2010 process. They reinforce 
the various Community initiatives in the field of intercultural dialogue  and key competences 
for lifelong learning and contribut e to achieving the objectives  defined in the Strategy for 
Growth and Jobs. They are pa rticularly interrelated to th e following programmes: Lifelong 
Learning Programme, Culture, Erasmus Mundus , Youth for Europe, Citizens for Europe , 
Media, Research and Information society, and Structural Funds. 
4. WHAT
 ARE  THE  MAIN  OPTIONS  AVAILABLE  TO ACHIEVE  THE  
OBJECTIVES? 
4.1. Option 1: no action with Member Stat es, no strategic use of EU programmes 
(mainstreaming) 
The added value of the Commission's coordi nation can be demonstrated by comparing 
national language policies befo re and after Barcelona and th e open method of coordination: 
Barcelona provided an overall political comm itment, which the Commission refined, setting 
 
EN 24   EN out strategic areas and a calendar of action.34 After four years (2004 – 2007), national 
language policies in primary and secondary edu cation look more robust: Member States have 
worked along the same lines, notably by intr oducing early language lear ning provisions and, 
to a limited extent by widening the range of  languages taught. The Commission has supported 
Member States by making a strategic use of  its programmes on education and training. 
Nevertheless, as mentioned in the previous chapters, progress has achieved only partial 
results. Both the Action Plan and the 2005 Communication called for a review by 2007, in 
order to examine whether further action was needed, and the latter committed the 
Commission to present, in consequence, a fu rther communication to Parliament and the 
Council, proposing a comprehensive approach  to multilingualism in the European Union. 
The previous communications set actions unti l 2006-07 and called for a review and possible 
further action. Against this background, no ac tion would mean stepping back from the 
coordination role undertaken within the scope of  the previous Communications. In the light of 
the above a Commission decision to step back from steering and coordinating the process 
would not appear consistent wi th its policy line. It might not fulfil the call made by Member 
States in Lisbon (2001) and in Barcelona (2002) to the Commi ssion to help them to reach 
their commitment, by ensuring a coordinated approach and by enabling good practices 
circulate. 
4.2. Option 2: Use regulatory instruments 
Soft regulatory instruments, such as a recomme ndation could be a suitable option to achieve 
the above-mentioned objectives. It could recomme nd initiatives to be undertaken by Member 
States and stakeholders in all the sub-options  examined under Option 3. It could support these 
initiatives by committing the Commission to ma instreaming multilingualism in relevant EU 
policies. 
4.3. Option 3: Use of the Open Method of Coordination: issuing a Commission 
Communication setting the ground for cooperation with Member States and have it endorsed by the other European Institutions. Mainstream 
multilingualism in current EU  programmes and initiatives 
Art.149 of the Treaty gives the Commission ma ndate to complement action taken by Member 
States. Member States called in Lisbon and in Barcelona for the Commission to help them to 
reach their commitment of improving the citizen ’s basic skills, where languages are included, 
using the open method of coordination. The Co mmission should, among other things, ensure a 
coordinated approach and make  good practices circulate.  
Education Council Conclusions of May 2008 defined a broader context for multilingualism 
and invited the Commission to come up with  proposals supporting Member States action, 
through European programmes and, when neede d, through exchange of practices within the 
open method of coordination. 
A Commission Communication se tting out a coordination framework and areas for 
intervention at European and national level seems to be an adequate instrument. Furthermore, 
the Communication takes into account the feedb ack of a wide consultation process, thus 
securing a broad endorsement of the actions proposed.  
                                                
 
34 The already mentioned Language Action Plan and the 2005 Communication: A New Framework 
Strategy for Multilingualism COM(2005) 596 
 
EN 25   EN In the framework of the Open Method of Coordination, already in use for language policy as 
part of the Education & Training 2010 Process,  the Communication could be endorsed by the 
Council and the Parliament through autonomous or joint statements. 
Content wise, within the scope  of objectives 1 and 2 the Co mmunication could include or 
discard the following sub-options, brought forward by the consultation process:  
1. national languages taught as second languag es and languages of the immigrants and 
minorities ( → Objectives 1 and 2) 
2. a stronger link of linguistic diversity  with citizenship and prosperity ( → Objectives 1 and 
2) 
3. the external dimension of multilingualism ( → Objective 2). 
As for the way multilingualism should be promoted by Commission policies and programmes, 
once the option of an expenditure programme for multilingualism was discarded (see further 
4.4) the approach of mainstreaming multilingualism in relevant Commission policies and programmes seemed a viable answer. 
Hereafter a non exhaustive list of programmes rela ted to objectives 1 and 2 and to the 6 points 
detailed in chapter 2:  
• all strands of the Lifelong Learning Programme ( →all points) 
• language training support give n through structural funds such the European Social 
Fund (→especially points 2,3,5 and 6) 
• language integration courses for immigrants supported by JLS ( →points 3 and 6) 
• Youth in Action, Citizens for Europe (informal adult learning and raising 
awareness of linguistic diversity → points: 3,4 and 6 ) 
• Literary translations suppor ted by the Culture programme ( → objective 2) 
• Media programme (subtitling → informal language learning → point 3, raising 
awareness of linguistic diversity → objective 2) 
• Research Programme (research aspects connected to language learning and 
linguistic diversity in society → objectives 1 and 2) 
• Information technology (E-learning → lifelong learning →objective 1; 
Multilingual platforms and translation facilities → linguistic diversity → objective 
2) 
• Erasmus Mundus ( → intercultural dialogue 
The already existing Interservice Group on Multi lingualism could be used to ensure a 
coordinated approach and mainstream multilingualism in relevant European programmes and initiatives, through interventions at programme level (thematic priorities, budget for linguistic 
preparation and linguistic activitie s, adequate monitoring, etc.). 
 
EN 26   EN 4.4. Which options have been discarded at an early stage and why? 
A regulatory approach would be out of place since Commission action should only 
complement Member States policies, as stated  in Art.149 of the EU Treaty "The Community 
shall contribute to the development of quality  education by encouraging cooperation between 
Member States and, if necessary, by supporti ng and supplementing their action, while fully 
respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the 
organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. Community 
action shall be aimed at: developing the Eur opean dimension in ed ucation, particularly 
through the teaching and dissemination of the la nguages of the Member States". Art 150 and 
151, concerning vocational training and culture and also relevant to languages take the same 
line. 
Nonetheless an expenditure programme could have been proposed within the scope of 
Commission action. This option has been curr ently discarded because multilingualism is a 
transversal objective of very di fferent policies (education, culture , media, employment, social 
inclusion, research...) and supporting them out of  their natural contexts  does not seem to be 
either appropriate or effective: 
• Inappropriate as it goes against the logic of raising awareness of li nguistic diversity and 
language needs as an essential feature of our society, not as something one can keep 
separate; 
• Ineffective, as it should receiv e a very high budget in order to have some impact and there 
still is no guarantee that it would not overlap  with existing provisions at national and 
European level. 
The proposed approach of mainstreaming mu ltilingualism in the relevant policies and 
ensuring coordination among them should guarantee best results in  the short term and provide 
a concrete basis for reviewing the situation in a few years. 
5. ANALYSIS  OF THE  POSITIVE  AND  NEGATIVE  IMPACTS  OF THE  
OPTIONS 
5.1. Advantages and disadvantages of Option 1: no action 
One of the main drivers behind the patchy impl ementation of "Mother t ongue plus two" in the 
education systems is insufficient awareness of the importance of language skills. This is likely 
to worsen if the Commission discontinues its coordination role in promoting multilingualism. 
National policies might revert to being fragment ed: some countries might continue to give 
importance to languages, other less so, hence widening their economic divide and not reaping 
the benefits of European integration and cross-border cooperation. This will be unfortunate especially in the current situ ation where shifting from products to services economy increases 
the needs of language skills.  
Furthermore, the EU is facing the global chal lenges of immigration and globalisation, with 
their underline linguistic issues. If a coordinated response is not  given, national initiatives out 
of a common framework would have less impact  and might even be in conflict with each 
other.  
 
EN 27   EN It is worth mentioning that the unanimous resu lt of the consultation process was that Europe 
should be more active in promoting multilingualism , therefore, in a situ ation where no action 
is taken we will cause the disappointment and de-motivation of the stakeholders consulted. 
Concerning the strategic use of EU programmes, the Action Plan Report showed that this was 
an effective way of complementing Member St ates' action by focussing on the same priorities. 
This was done on a limited range of progra mmes, mainly concerning education and 
vocational training. In light of its results and of th e current objectives it would be consistent to 
enlarge it to a wider range of programmes. The opposite could weaken European action and 
credibility vis-à-vis Member States who might feel that the Commission is not committed to 
the same objectives. 
5.2. Advantages and disadvantages of Opti on 2: Use regulatory instruments 
A soft regulatory instrument, such as a recomm endation has the advantag e of being a stronger 
policy instrument compared to a Commission communication. Nevertheless, in order to be 
effective it needs to highlight concrete ac tions, based on a comprehensive policy framework 
agreed with Member States and stakeholders. We believe that such a comprehensive policy 
framework still needs to be laid down and conso lidated with Member States and stakeholders 
before coming to a recommendation. Consequently  the Commission is not yet in the position 
to indicate concrete actions for specific target groups.  
As already stated, this policy initiative is no t meant not address the inter-institutional aspects 
of multilingualism; however, it might prove di fficult to maintain the preferred focus on 
"external" multilingualism during the complex nego tiations that could be expected during the 
adoption process of a le gislative instrument.  
Furthermore, a recommendation would interfere with the functioning of an established 
instrument such as the open method of cooper ation in education and training that is 
appreciated by Member States for its flexibil ity in a policy area characterised by strong 
subsidiarity and wide differences in the wa y Member States organise their educational 
systems.  
As for mainstreaming multilingualism in releva nt EU policies, a recommendation would have 
the same impact as a Comm unication, since the Commission  masters its own agenda. 
Recommending better disseminatio n of good practices would also have little impact, since 
this is already the role of the Commis sion within the open method of coordination. 
In the current situation recourse to a "soft" le gislative instrument appears premature and could 
be even counterproductive, hindering cooperatio n with Member States and stakeholders, who 
might fear that the Commission is "jumping to  conclusions", intruding into national policies 
without first reaching the necessary consensus.  
5.3. Advantages and disadvantages of Op tion 3: Use the Open Method of 
Coordination: issuing a Commission Co mmunication to lay the ground for 
cooperation with Member States and have  it endorsed by the other European 
Institutions 
The advantages of choosing a Commission Communication as an instrument are:  
 
EN 28   EN • To set out a comprehensive policy framework and areas for intervention at European and 
national level; 
• to build on the existing fruitful cooperation wi th Member States to consolidate progress 
and reach common objectives;  
• to keep up the momentum created by the Education Council conclusions on 
multilingualism which invited the Commissi on to draw up proposals to strengthen 
multilingualism. 
Its disadvantages are: 
• It is a rather lengthy process with many stages  between strategic orientations and concrete 
implementation, especially as far as  Member States are concerned.  
• The Commission can kick off the process but other actors, namely Member States and 
stakeholders are critical for the achievement of the objectives. 
Content wise the advantages and disadvantages  of the sub-options listed under Chapter 4.3 
are: 
5.3.1.  Sub-option 1 (national languages / migrant, minority languages)  
The consultation process gave strong indication that the distinction between the teaching and 
learning of foreign languages, second language  and mother tongue has become blurred. The 
advantages of including the teaching and l earning of national languages as second languages 
and languages of immigrants and minorities would be:  
(1) to be consistent with today's challenges  in language teaching and learning and 
give comprehensive responses ( → objective 1); 
(2) to make different languages benefit fr om the most advanced methodologies. 
For instance foreign language teaching methods could be usefully applied to 
teach national languages as second language to pupils and students with a different mother tongue. Bilingual educa tion applied in minority areas could 
inspire effective early language  learning methods elsewhere ( → objective 1); 
(3) to encourage schools and companies to va lue and take into account language 
skills acquired in the family regardless of whether they relate to other EU official languages, regional and mi nority languages or migrant languages 
(→objectives 1 and 2).  
The disadvantage would be that this is a rather  sensitive area for cooperation: Member States 
have welcomed the widening of multilinguali sm to encompass all languages, including 
national languages taug ht to non-native speakers. They were more cautious though on the 
implementation of teaching migrant languages. Two levels of ambition can be foreseen: 
(1) Promoting the teaching and learning of national languages of host countries for 
immigrants. This is widely accepted and could benefit of advantages 1 and 2. 
(2) Further examine the possibility of valui ng migrant languages and possibly give them 
some space in education. This would fully be nefit of the three advantages, but carries 
 
EN 29   EN the risk of hindering integration by reinforci ng ethnical identities. On  the basis of civil 
society feedback (see in part icular the online consultation and the Report of the Group 
of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue, quoted earlier in the text), and in close 
cooperation with the Member States the Co mmission could further discuss ways of 
valuing multilingual skills of the immigran t population, both for intercultural dialogue 
and competitiveness. 
– The Commission could give clea r indication about the benefits  of this approach while 
leaving Member States totally free to impl ement it to the extent and by the means they 
wish. 
5.3.2.  Sub-option 2 (linguistic divers ity and its link to active citizenship and prosperity) 
Stakeholders and Member States strongly advocat ed for this option to be taken as it gives 
adequate visibility to a core  issue of European society - linguistic diversity – and its 
consequences for active citizenship  and prosperity. It has also the key advantage to respond to 
the current problems of our society (ref chapter 2) and match both objectives 1 and 2. 
The disadvantages of taking such sub-option are that: 
• it is a broad concept, which should be carefully detailed to avoid vagueness and 
loss of impact 
• it is a sensitive area for cooperation where the Commi ssion should make clear its 
limits of action vis-à-vis Memb er States and stakeholders 
• it needs a strong coordination effort to ensu re that a broad range  of policies take 
up the challenge of promoting multilingualism. 
Nevertheless, even considering the above-mentione d disadvantages, it still appears to carry 
enough weight to justify alone a new communicati on, as the changes in our society called for 
multilingualism policy to go beyond education and raise awareness of linguistic diversity in 
the local environment and business. The two levels of ambition here are: 
(1) Ensure that multilingualism is consis tently promoted by relevant policies 
(2) Promote the exchange of good practices among different policies and actors at 
European and national level so to im prove synergies on the promotion of 
multilingualism 
5.3.3.  Sub-option 3 (the external dimension of multilingualism) 
Multilingualism is a way of ma king EU public diplomacy consis tent with the objective of 
valuing linguistic diversity. It will promote European languages abroad and propose the way 
Europe manages its linguistic diversity as a mode l to other multilingual c ountries in the world. 
Its advantage is to strengthen the image of Europe abroad and emphasise its linguistic and 
cultural richness, while proposing peaceful ways of dealing with sensitive matters. Therefore 
the external dimension will contribute to interc ultural dialogue and increased competitiveness. 
EU actions in this field will encourage third countries to promote the teaching of European 
languages in their countries, and the teaching of  non-European languages in the EU. This will 
lead to new social, economic and cultural opportuni ties for Europe. In some cases (China, 
India) joint declarations on multilingualism aimed at mutually promoting each other's 
 
EN 30   EN languages will be signed. The challenge here is to increase the coordination effort with other 
policies and carefully target act ions to avoid vagueness and dup lication – hence the need for a 
framework strategy. The two levels of ambition here are: 
(1) Better gear existing programmes and initia tives to promote third country languages 
and the teaching of European languages to foreign students 
(2) Include multilingualism in the sectoral pol icy dialogue with th ird countries (for 
instance by signing joint declarations on mu ltilingualism aimed at mutually promoting 
each other's languages with prominen t countries like China, India) 
6. COMPARING  THE  OPTIONS 
Option 1 is likely to have a negative impact: in  the short term we will face the disappointment 
and criticism of the wide range of stakeholde rs consulted, who wanted more European action 
in promoting multilingualism. In the long term , the absence of a European framework and 
guidelines is likely to increase the gap between countries investing on strong language skills 
and countries and sectors lagging behind. This  might entail a negative economic impact on 
individual employability and European competitiveness more generally. As for the social impact it might increase the lack of communi cation between the differe nt people living in 
Europe and put in danger the foundations of the European model, based on inclusion and 
active citizenship. 
Option 2 is likely to have a negative impact on the partnership between the Commission and 
Member States who might feel that Commission is  going to fast and does not take their advice 
into account enough. This might endanger the open method of c oordination and lead to no 
cooperation and no results on Member States side. 
The most appropriate course of actions appears to be op tion 3, a Commission Communication 
to the other European institutions, including the already mentioned sub-options (1,2,3). The different levels of ambition will be fine tune d in dialogue with the Member States and 
stakeholders.  
Modalities of implementation will be: 
• strategic use of relevant Commission policies and programmes (mainstreaming) 
(→objectives 1 and 2)  
• Open Method of Coordination with Member St ates to exchange good practices and keep 
political dialogue ( →objectives 1 and 2) 
• Structured dialogue with stakeholders: 
• setting up a permanent business forum ( →related in particul ar to points 2,3,4 and 
5) 
• setting up a civil society forum with me dia, cultural organisations and other 
stakeholders from civil society to discuss and exchange practices to raise 
awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity for active citizenship and 
intercultural dialogue ( →related in particular  to points 3,4 and 6) 
 
EN 31   EN In the light of observations made in the prev ious chapters and considering the limited scope 
for direct action of the Commi ssion, which relies mostly on Memb er States' and stakeholders' 
good will, these are the economic and social impact s the chosen option is likely to contribute 
to: 
• Economic impacts: through the impact of langu age skills on citizens' employability and 
competitiveness, the new strategy defined in the Communication is likely to have a 
positive impact on international trade and cr oss-border investments; technological 
development and innovation; th e number and quality of jobs ; third country and overseas 
relations. 
• Social impacts: the strategy is likely to have  a positive impact on social inclusion, as well 
as governance and participation since language skills are a prerequisite to intercultural 
dialogue. 
As for costs: at Commission level the implem entation of the actions recommended in the 
Communication will not entail a budget increase. It  is aimed at making more effective use of 
existing programmes to promote mu ltilingualism, notably by ensuring: 
• a more consistent approach (i.e. pass on a consistent message in support of 
linguistic diversity, give atte ntion to language issues in projects and initiatives) 
• more complementarities with Member Stat es (i.e. support them to achieve shared 
objectives, through Commission initiatives and the exchange of good practices).  
As for Member States, the Communication will recommend general and operational 
objectives in line with already agreed EU common objectives and suggest ways of achieving 
them, leaving the implementation to the Member States themselves. Depending on Member States points of departure and on their willingness to go farther, some of them may not need 
to increase the budgets allocated to multilinguali sm but use them more effectively, according 
to the Commission strategy. In other cases Me mber States may decide to introduce new 
actions entailing either a budget increase or a re -orientation of expenditure . This step would of 
course be taken primarily to comply with poli tical commitments needed in order to reach the 
objectives agreed at EU level, in particular  in order to improve educational and lifelong 
learning outcomes. 
As a general principle conveyed by the Comm ission Communication, it  will be recommended 
to take action close to citizens, taking into  account local language n eeds and pooling resources 
of business, civil society and lo cal authorities so as to use th em in the most effective way. 
As things stand, and given the fact that the Commission does not suggest the creation of any 
concrete new structure / activit y, it is impossible to foresee the budgetary impact at national 
level, especially since it depends primarily on Member States choices. 
As for business and service providers, in cas e they decide to invest more on language 
provisions and increase their expenditure, they will do so as part of their business plan and it 
will pay off in terms of increased comp etitiveness: the above-mentioned ELAN study 
calculated that SMEs applying successful lan guage strategies achieved an export sales 
proportion 44.5% higher than one without these i nvestments. Alternatively, in case of public 
and non-profit making organisations this will re sult in more effectiv e communication, leading 
to increased intercultural dialogue  and better social  integration.  
 
EN 32   EN 7. MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION 
7.1. Monitoring  
The Commission Communi cation will define areas for common action to be implemented 
through internal coordination (m ainstreaming) and structured dialogue with Member States 
and stakeholders. The Commission will ensure the overall coordination and follow-up of the 
implementation through: 
• The Inter-service Group on Multilingualism (mainstreaming of multilingualism in relevant 
EU policies and programmes) 
• A Working Group of High Repr esentatives of Member States (open method of 
coordination, built upon the existing wo rking group on Languages in the Education & 
Training 2010 Process) 
To maintain focus on multilingualis m policy and to ensure a periodic review of its progress, 
the Commission will recommend that the European institutions devote an annual slot in their 
agenda to its discussion. In the case of the Council, it will suggest to  include multilingualism 
in the rolling agenda of  the Education Council.  
The following indicators and surveys will be used to monitor results: 
• The Indicator of language competence (fir st test in 2010 plus periodic tests 
thereafter), on language skills of studen ts at the end of compulsory schooling 
• Regular reports on implementing th e Education and Training 2010 work 
programme 
• Eurydice key data on education, (regularly updated), on the range of languages 
offered in general and vocational education 
• Eurydice report on the integration of  migrant children in school (regularly 
updated) 
Other surveys might be considered, such as:  
• Special Eurobarometer on Europeans and their languages (to compare with 2006 
issue) 
• A survey on language strategies adopted by companies 
• A survey on language strategies adopt ed by service providers and local 
communities 
• A survey on the way linguistic and cultura l diversity is taken into account by 
media. 
The Commission will carry out a global review in  2012. To this effect Member States will be 
invited to report on their progress by end 2011.  
 
EN 33   EN 7.2. Evaluation 
As far as mainstreaming is concerned, the Co mmission should ensure th at language issues are 
adequately taken into account  while evaluating relevant EU programmes and policies. The 
Commission will encourage Member States and st akeholders to include language aspects in 
the evaluation of policies and strategies at thei r level. This information should feed into the 
regular reviews mentioned in chap.7.1 as we ll as in the global review foreseen by 2012. 
 
EN 34   EN  
ANNEX  
INTERSERVICE GROUP ON MULTILINGUALISM  
The members of the Interservice Group were desi gnated at Director-Gener al's level in March 
2007. The Group met four times in 2007 on 24 April, 13 June, 12 Octobre and 5 December, to discuss a common approach on the implementati on of a multilingualism policy in a coherent 
way. A mapping exercise of current practice s across the Commission in the field of 
multilingualism was carried on by group members.  
In the meeting on 5 December 2007 the group discussed the rationale of the new 
Communication on Multili ngualism and was requested to c ontribute to the Inventory of 
Community actions in the fiel d of multilingualism, annexed to  the Communication as a Staff 
Working Paper. Both documents were discussed in the meetings on 25 April and 18 June 2008 and Group members sent in written contributions. 
List of Members 
Forename Name DG 
Beata Adamczyk TAXUD 
Agnes Ajour SANCO 
Michael Alfons JRC 
Xabier Atutxa Sarria SG 
Alexander Bartovic  AGRI 
Albrecht  Berger OPOCE 
Eleni  Borg-Tsantekidou ADMIN 
Ingrid Brandner IAS 
Claire  Brunotti ECFIN 
Luca  Dalpozzo BUDG 
Ann  D'haen-Bertier SCIC 
Pascal  Dissard  RDT 
Valérie Drezet-Humez DGT 
Karin Fuessl ENTR 
Lorena Garcia Ferrer TREN 
Gisela Gauggel-Robinson ELARG 
Viola Groebner ENV 
Kathy Haas EMPL 
Florian Horner ELARG  
Patricia Isenborghs DEV - alt 
Richard Joels COMM 
Boris Kandziora JRC 
Dorota Lyszkowska MARKT 
 
EN 35   EN Daniel Mann SANCO 
Anna Melich BEPA 
Vendulka Mulacova OLAF 
Miguel Angel  Navarrete DGT 
Francois Nizery AIDCO 
Jens Nymand-Christensen SG 
Eric Poudelet SANCO 
David Ringrose RELEX 
Szilvia  Rogovszky REGIO 
Kimmo Rossi INFSO 
Gerard Rozet SJ 
Danielle Saffar OPOCE 
Michaela Salmasova JLS 
Michaela Salmasova JLS 
Peter Sandler TRADE 
Gunter  Schaefer ESTAT 
Luc Schaerlaekens OLAF 
Joan  Scott ECHO 
Neil Shooter DIGIT 
Christof  Stock  ELARG  
Amira Szonyi OLAF 
Ylva  Tiveus COMM 
Marie  Tzirani PMO 
Guy  Van Biesen  EPSO 
Chris  Van Den Brande COMP  
Jean-Louis  Vergnolle TAXUD 
Gie Werkers  SANCO 
Wolter Witteveen SCIC