Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Report on the implementation of the Decision 1999/51/EC of the Council of 21 December 1998 on the promotion of European pathways in work-linked training, including apprenticeship
Date: 2002-05-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, apprenticeship, educational planning, employment policy, report, vocational training

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 02.05.2002
COM(2002) 214 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL

Report on the implementation
of the Decision 1999/51/EC of the Council of 21 December 1998 on the promotion of
European pathways in work-linked training, including apprenticeship

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL

Report on the implementation
of the Decision 1999/51/EC of the Council of 21 December 1998 on the promotion of
European pathways in work-linked training, including apprenticeship

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

2.

Introduction.............................................................................................................. 4

Purpose and structure of this report .......................................................................... 4

The Decision on the promotion of European pathways.............................................. 4

Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 5

The implementation framework................................................................................. 5

2.1.

Co-ordination and centralised activities ..................................................................... 5

2.1.1. Co-ordination ........................................................................................................... 6

2.1.2.

Production of “Europass Training” documents.......................................................... 7

2.1.3.

Information............................................................................................................... 7

2.1.4.

Financial management ............................................................................................... 8

2.2.

The national implementation structures ..................................................................... 8

2.2.1.

The national contact points and their tasks ................................................................ 8

2.2.2. Different national approaches.................................................................................... 9

3.

Implementation activities ........................................................................................ 10

3.1.

National policies and practices ................................................................................ 10

3.1.1.

Identifying the European pathways.......................................................................... 10

3.1.2. Delivery procedures and practical handling.............................................................. 11

3.2.

Data on the European pathways and the use of the “Europass Training” documents 12

3.2.1. Volume per country................................................................................................ 12

3.2.2.

Flows between countries......................................................................................... 13

3.2.3. Duration of traineeships .......................................................................................... 14

3.2.4. Gender and age of “Europass Training” holders ...................................................... 15

3.2.5.

Education level and type of institutions ................................................................... 15

3.2.6.

Sectoral participation and SME involvement ........................................................... 16

2

3.2.7. Relations with other programmes and initiatives...................................................... 16

3.3.

3.4.

4.

Information and promotion ..................................................................................... 17

Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 18

Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 19

3

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Purpose and structure of this report

The purpose of this report is to inform the European Parliament and the Council on
the implementation of Decision 1999/51/EC, as requested by Article 9 of the
Decision.

Section 1.2 briefly outlines the aims and the main concepts and provisions of the
Decision. Section 2 describes how the implementation has been organised at
European and national level, while Section 3 reports on the actual implementation on
the ground. Section 4 summarises the main facts1.

1.2.

The Decision on the promotion of European pathways

On 21 December 1998 the Council adopted its Decision 1999/51/EC on the
promotion of European pathways in work-linked training, including apprenticeship.
The Decision was published in Official Journal L 17 of 22 January 1999, p. 45, and
entered into force on 1 January 2000.

The Decision acknowledges the global objectives of promoting the mobility of
persons in training (recital 1), improving employment prospects for young people and
contributing to a more effective social and occupational integration into working life
and the labour market (recitals 6 and 7), and improving the quality and attractiveness
of vocational education and training (recital 8).

To achieve the specific objective of encouraging periods of vocational training in
other Member States and contribute to their quality (recitals 8-10), the Decision
defines the European pathways (Articles 1 and 2), sets the quality principles for
carrying them out (Article 3) and creates the “Europass Training” document (Articles
2 and 4).

A European pathway is a period of training which a person undergoing work-linked
training, including apprenticeship, has followed in a Member State other than that in
which his/her training is based. The “Europass Training” is a Community information
document which certifies that
the European pathway has been undertaken and
describes its contents in the languages concerned.

European pathways may take place within Community funded programmes and
initiatives, particularly the “Leonardo da Vinci” programme, and in any other
framework. The use of the “Europass Training” document is voluntary: bodies which
organise initiatives that can qualify as European pathways may choose not to use it.

Indications are given on support and implementation measures (Article 6), and a
financial
the period
1 January 2000 to 31 December 2004.

reference amount of ECU 7.3 million is specified for

1

This report is based on a study prepared by a consultant, BBJ Consult AG, in December 2001, and on
information directly provided by the national implementation bodies.

4

The Decision refers only to Member States, both as countries of provenance and as
host countries of European training pathways. However, Norway, Iceland and
Liechtenstein have
(on
1 August 2000) of EEA Joint Committee Decision No 36/2000, amending Protocol
31 to the EEA Agreement, on co-operation in specific fields outside the four
freedoms..

entry into force

involved since

also become

the

Article 9 calls for a report on the implementation of the Decision to be submitted to
the European Parliament and the Council three years after the adoption of the
Decision. The present report fulfils this requirement.

Article 9 also asks for an evaluation of the impact of the Decision, which might be
followed by proposals. This requirement will be fulfilled by carrying out an
intermediate evaluation in the second half of 2002, based on two years of
implementation (cf. below).

1.3.

Evaluation

As mentioned above, this implementation report is not intended as an evaluation in
itself, although it will be useful for evaluation purposes, offering a first overview of
the implementation.

An evaluation plan has been devised, including a two-day seminar on 3 and 4 June
2002, within the programme of the Spanish Presidency of the European Union, and an
intermediate evaluation (tender launched in January 2002, report expected for
December 2002).

By Summer 2002, the “Europass Training” initiative will have been in operation long
enough to allow sufficient
information to be gathered in all countries on the
implementation and its effects. In particular, a cohort of “Europass Training” holders
will have been on the labour market for a full year in a number of countries. It will
also be possible to examine the expediency of practical integration with other tools
being developed in the field of recognition and validation of non-formal learning.

2.

THE IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

The implementation of the Decision is largely decentralised. This is a necessary
feature of the “Europass Training” initiative, as the quality control on prospective
European pathways can only be done at national level, or possibly at regional level
with national co-ordination. At European level, general co-ordination and some
centralised activities are carried out.

2.1.

Co-ordination and centralised activities

The Commission is responsible for co-ordination, production of documents and
central stock management,
information at Community level, management of the
budgetary line and overall evaluation.

These tasks are the responsibility of the Directorate General for Education and
Culture, more specifically Directorate B (Vocational training).

5

2.1.1. Co-ordination

The main tools for co-ordination and exchange of information are periodic meetings
with all national representatives on the Commission's premises, electronic and postal
correspondence, and a very limited number of missions. A non-binding co-operation
charter was agreed by national representatives.

The preparatory phase included two expert meetings, attended by representatives
from national authorities of Member States, EEA countries and candidate countries,
as well as representatives of the European social partners. These were in Brussels on
28 May and 11 November 1999.

the Decision on
When implementation began with the entry into force of
1 January 2000, the Commission asked the Permanent Representations to give it
details of the representatives of whichever bodies were officially designated by
Member States to manage the implementation at national level. Meetings held in the
operational phase were for
the
these representatives only. Representatives of
European social partners were also invited to attend these meetings as observers.

Three such meetings were held in 2000 (12 May and 29 September), one in 2001
(6 June). A fourth meeting was scheduled for 22 February 2002.

The May 2000 meeting focused on reaching agreement on a co-operation charter (see
issues. The subsequent meetings were used to exchange
below) and financial
information and discuss practical problems. The next one was due to look at
intermediate evaluation and the new financial framework.

Between meetings, contacts between NCPs and the Commission – mostly by e-mail –
were frequent, totalling several hundred per year. In the starting phase, they often
concerned doubts about delivery criteria and procedures; later they tended to focus on
the exchange of information for mostly managerial purposes, related to financial
support and the stock of documents. documentation.

Missions were not frequent; Commission staff attended some of the national launch
conferences or related events.

The Co-operation Charter

At the first and second meetings, the national representatives discussed and eventually
agreed upon a co-operation charter (which had already been the subject of the
meeting of experts in the preparatory phase).
is a non-binding document,
established for operational purposes, the understanding being that Member States will
apply it on a voluntary basis. It aims to facilitate co-operation by defining common
quality criteria and setting out what action is expected at national and European level,
as derived from Decision 1999/51/EC.

It

Referring to the appropriate articles of the Decision or to the relevant documents, the
charter explicitly defines the geographical scope of the Decision, its object and target,
and the common quality criteria. For example, it states that the mentor – whose
importance is stressed – might be a person outside the host body (for instance, staff of
an association, especially if the host organisation is a small enterprise). The charter

6

then defines some working arrangements concerning the operational aspects of
implementation – for instance, that the Commission will supply “Europass Training”
documents only to NCPs (or specialised agencies indicated by the NCPs).

2.1.2.

Production of “Europass Training” documents

The “Europass Training” documents are produced centrally by the Commission.

Based on indications from Member States, the first print-run was 300 000 copies – all
EU languages together; English, French and German accounted for more than half. In
2001 a reprint was ordered for a total of 100 000 copies – almost half in German – to
ensure that stocks would meet the demand over the following years.

In accordance with the detailed directions in the Annex to the Decision, the “Europass
Training” document is an A5 booklet of 16 pages: the twelve pages described by the
Annex plus four pages containing the translation in the eleven official languages of the
European Union.

The Commission manages the central stocks and supplies the “Europass Training”
documents to NCPs at their request, and to them only, as agreed in the co-operation
charter (cf. § 2.1.1 above).

2.1.3.

Information

Information activities at European level included events,
the production of two
information documents, to be used during the launch phase, and running a Web page
on the Europa server.

The European launch conference was held on 22-23 February 2000, in Costa da
Caparica, under the programme of the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union.
it
Opened by the Portuguese Secretary of State for Employment and Training,
included several presentations and discussion panels, and was attended by two
Commission officials.

The “Europass Training” initiative had already been presented in the form of a
seminar within the “Training 2000” event (Brussels, 27-28 January 2000). The
presentation was attended by about three hundred people, mainly promoters and
representatives of national or local authorities.

The 16-page information booklet – targeting promoters and practitioners – describes
the objectives and structure of the “Europass Training” document, and gives
directions for its use. The 8-page flier is more of a promotional device, targeting
trainees. Both are available in all EU languages and contain the addresses of the
national contact points. In all, 225 000 copies (all languages) were printed. They were
mainly circulated through the national implementation bodies, though in the first
months some were supplied directly by the Commission to other bodies in the
Member States. A second reprint has not been deemed necessary, as their purpose
was mainly to help during the launch. Both promoters and trainees can now find
better targeted and up-to-date information either in nationally produced booklets or
on the Internet. The “Europass Training” Web page contains reproductions of both
the booklet and the flier in the eleven languages.

7

A few months before the entry into force, a “Europass Training” Web page was made
available on the Europa server, on the website of the then DG XXII (which a few
weeks later became DG Education and Culture). It provided information (in English,
French and German) on the objectives and the main concepts of the initiatives. In
Autumn 2000 an improved version was made available in all EU languages, offering a
more detailed description, access to the text of the Decision, the booklet and the flier
in the eleven languages, links to the NCPs and other useful links.

2.1.4.

Financial management

Community financial support takes the form of a yearly grant to NCPs (one grant per
country), awarded on the basis of a programme of implementation activities –
conferences and seminars, other awareness and promotional activities, data collection
and evaluation.

€

The Decision indicates a reference amount of
7 300 000 for the period 2000-2004.
A specific budget line – B3-1020 – has been established to manage this amount. The
total amount allows for a yearly budget of about
1 500 000, covering the costs at
central level (production of documents, evaluation, etc.) and support for national
activities. The average grant was
60 000 in 2001. The real
grant varies according mainly to the demographic size of the country; as an indication,
85 312, while Liechtenstein and the Netherlands
in 2001 the grant for Germany was
9 780 and
asked for

50 000 in 2000 and
€

44 965.50 respectively.

€

€

€

€

€

2.2.

The national implementation structures

2.2.1.

The national contact points and their tasks

Article 6 of the Decision calls for national authorities to “designate one or more
bodies responsible for ensuring implementation at national level” and to set up the
the task of
most appropriate implementation mechanism. In all Member States,
implementing the “Europass Training” initiative has been assigned to one or more
existing bodies. These bodies are usually called “national contact points” (NCPs),
adopting the name used on the European information booklet and flier.

National contact points have the following tasks:

–

–

–

–

–

providing information on the “Europass Training” initiative and promoting the
use of the “Europass Training” document;

managing the stock of “Europass Training” documents in their country;

receiving requests for “Europass Training” from bodies planning to send
trainees abroad;

after checking that the projects comply with the criteria laid down for European
pathways, supplying the requested documents to training bodies;

monitoring implementation at national level.

NCPs also provide assistance on how to apply for “Europass Training” documents, as
well as directions on how to complete them. As many NCPs are also national agencies
for “Leonardo da Vinci” or otherwise active as training or mobility agencies over and
above the “Europass Training” initiative, contacts with potential promoters of

8

European pathways can be regular and NCP’s might also provide practical assistance
to promoters of mobility project in setting up the European pathways.

2.2.2. Different national approaches

While all countries identified a single body as the leading national contact point, some
also designated one or more other bodies, sharing or decentralising at least some of
the tasks.

All the smaller countries, Italy and the United Kingdom chose a single body to act as
national contact point and actually perform most implementation tasks2. In most cases
they are organisations which have a much broader remit in the field of learning, and
often also act as the national agency for “Leonardo da Vinci” and other transnational
mobility programmes. In some cases, like in Spain and the United Kingdom, the
implementation agency works in parallel with the competent government department,
which may in fact perform some of the tasks, particularly representation at European
level.

France designated a single body at national level (the national agency for “Socrates”
and “Leonardo da Vinci”), but set up a network of regional contact points: two
bodies per region, each dealing with vocational education and training provision
within the remit, on the one hand, of the ministries for education and agriculture, on
the other of the labour ministry. The three ministries have signed a national charter
and jointly run the Europass Training mechanism. The different structures involved
meet regularly, and steering committees have been set up at various levels.

Germany designated several bodies, one of which has a co-ordinating role (and is also
responsible for some “Leonardo da Vinci” mobility actions). Three other bodies play
an important role for specific target groups, and further bodies also contribute to the
implementation, mainly through promotional activities but also actually distributing
“Europass Training” documents. The Federal Ministry for Education and Research
(BMBF) has a supervising role.

The institutional location of NCPs also varies from one country to another:

Table 1: Institutional typology of national contact points (December 2001).

Specialised agencies in transnational education and
training mobility programmes3
Umbrella organisations of training institutions

Education and training authorities

Employment and training services

Ministries*

DK, D, E, F, I, P, N, S,
UK

IS, NL

B (De), FIN, FL, GR

B (Fr), B (NL), IRL

A, L

* Austria: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour, Luxembourg: Ministry of National Education,
Vocational Training and Sport.

2

3

In Belgium three bodies were designated, one for each Community, as there is no federal authority for
education and training.
While all of them are either Leonardo da Vinci agencies or at least responsible for the co-ordination of
specific Leonardo da Vinci strands, some of them are large organisations with much wider tasks.

9

In several countries (for instance B-Nl, IRL), ad hoc steering committees have been
set up at national and sometimes regional level (F). In other cases, this function has
been taken on by an existing committee or board, competent for all activities of the
body concerned (for instance DK). Representatives of the social partners are usually
on these committees.

As indicated in the table below,
in a minority of countries the implementation
structure was largely defined and ready to start by the beginning of 2000, when the
Decision entered into force. In several countries the bodies had been promptly
designated, but a few further months were needed before they became operational.
Only two countries experienced major delays in setting up their national mechanisms,
but by the beginning of 2001 they had also become operational..

Table 2: Operational status achieved

Early 2000

Mid 2000

Late 2000

Early 2001

A, D, DK, F, FIN, S, UK

IRL, NL

B-De, B-Fr, B-Nl, FL, I

GR, ISL, L, N

Late 2001/Early 2002

E, P

3.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES

3.1.

National policies and practices

NCPs have exclusive responsibility for dissemination within their respective countries.
“Europass Training” documents can only be sent to mobility promoters for delivery to
trainees after a check that their projects qualify as European pathway, which is clearly
a task of the NCPs or of the network of internal contact and delivery points which
they co-ordinate.

3.1.1.

Identifying the European pathways

NCP’s in most countries reported that all documents were issued to persons who
were participating in a European pathway, that complied with the criteria laid down in
the Decision (Articles 2 and 3): work-linked training, as recognised or certified by the
competent authorities; a partnership between sending and host bodies with an
agreement on the content, objectives, duration, methods and practical aspects of the
European pathway; assistance by a mentor. In a few cases the documents were
withdrawn because some criteria were not satisfied or the pathway was not properly
completed.

An important exception was Germany. As reported in a study carried out by the
University of Cologne (cf § below), German NCP’s also issued “Europass Training”
documents when not all quality criteria for European pathways were satisfied – for
instance, when no mentor had been identified for the pathway. Actually, it seems that
for some points a substantial number of pathways did not comply with all the criteria
laid down in the Decision.

10

To guarantee mutual understanding and the consistent application of the quality
criteria by the various stakeholders, national co-operation charters have sometimes
been agreed (B-Nl, F), in addition to the European co-operation charter. Some French
regions also agreed on regional charters.

It seems a common concern in all countries that the “Europass Training” should not
simply be used to attest any kind of mobility, but should rather be used to enhance
quality in transnational mobility within vocational training.

Most countries have not restricted the scope, accepting any “work-linked” training (or
education) initiative. However, in Denmark, “Europass Training” documents were
only distributed to bodies recognised within the “dual” (work-linked) education and
training system.

3.1.2. Delivery procedures and practical handling

In most countries, the following procedure was adopted: the sending organisation,
whose project has been recognised as a European pathway, receives the “Europass
Training” document from the NCP, completes the first page and hands it to the
trainee before he or she leaves for his/her placement abroad. The host body completes
the relevant sections at the end of the traineeship, and the trainee brings it back to the
sending body, which takes care of any translation needed. Sometimes a small
ceremony is organised, when the completed document is finally issued to its holder.
Deviations from this procedure were sometimes necessary because of particular
circumstances – postal delays, mistakes, etc.

One noteworthy exception is Germany (where about half of all “Europass Training”
documents were distributed): the documents are sent from the sending body to its
host partner, which completes the relevant parts and sends it back. The trainee only
receives his/her document at the end of the whole pathway, usually at a special
ceremony.

The format of the “Europass Training” document raises some practical problems, as
little space is available for describing the traineeship, and handwriting or manual
typing are the only ways of completing it. To enable promoters to use a computer, the
Italian NCP produced small stickers.

is frequently made by implementation bodies and promoters that an
The point
electronic format would be more appropriate. This was also the subject of a written
question by a Member of the European Parliament in summer 20004.

Either for practical purposes or to enhance the status of the document, some countries
chose to add some features to the “Europass Training” documents.

to each “Europass Training”
In particular, several countries assign a number
document (B-Fr, B-Nl, GR, IRL, ISL, N, S, UK) or to each pathway (F, I). This
offers some protection against loss or forgery and makes it easier to keep a check on

4

Written question E-2478/00 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission (24 July 2000); answer
given by Commissioner Reding on behalf of the Commission (29 September 2000); OJ C 113 E,
18/04/2001 (p. 106).

11

what becomes of individual documents; the number is sometimes a compound code
indicating the sector or type of sending institution (B-Fr, F). The date of birth of the
holder is sometimes also added (ISL, N, S), and Swedish promoters can add a
photograph. In the United Kingdom, “Europass Training” documents are enclosed in
a plastic wallet.

The fact that a “Europass Training” document can record up to three pathways may
make monitoring somewhat difficult. In many countries, the NCP only has some
control over the first pathway. It then depends on the good will of the “Europass
Training” holders if they let the national body know about any further pathways. The
French system enables a check to be kept on subsequent pathways too; if the sending
body is different, the trainee will get a new passport, while further pathways from the
same body will be recorded in the same document. In some countries, particularly
Germany, the NCP is responsible only for “Europass Training” documents and not the
pathways. In other countries, like Italy, a new “Europass Training” document is
issued for each pathway.

3.2.

Data on the European pathways and the use of the “Europass Training”
documents

The core implementation activity is the provision of “Europass Training” documents
to their final beneficiaries through the sending bodies, which in turn receive the
documents from the NCPs. NCPs bear sole responsibility for dissemination within
their respective countries. “Europass Training” documents can be sent to mobility
promoters for issue to trainees only after checking that their projects qualify as a
European pathway: this is clearly a task of the NCPs, which may choose to do so via
a co-ordinated network of internal contact and delivery points.

The actual dissemination of “Europass Training” documents to training bodies started
at different times in the various countries, so that both the number of “Europass
Training” documents issued to people and the availability of data vary significantly. In
some countries there was a delay in setting up the dissemination mechanisms, while in
others it was decided to set up and test a powerful computerised mechanism before
starting to issue the documents. Since December 2001, the dissemination mechanisms
have been running smoothly in all countries.

By November 2001, about 19 300 “Europass Training” documents had been issued in
the 18 countries (cf. the section below).

The statistical information available so far varies from one country to another, as each
country adopted a different system for monitoring implementation, and in a number of
countries the implementation period was quite short.

3.2.1.

Volume per country

As mentioned above, the total number of “Europass Training” documents actually
issued by November 2001 in the 18 countries was about 19 300. While a “Europass
Training” document can describe up to three European pathways, at this stage of
implementation a very limited proportion of trainees have completed and recorded
more than one pathway, so that the number of documents issued is virtually the same
as that of European pathways achieved.

12

Table 3: European pathways recorded by “Europass Training” documents, by
November 2001.

A

B (De)

B (Fr)

B (Nl)

DK *

D

E

980

26

70

236

1 300

9 614

n.a.

F

FIN

FL

GR

IS

IRL

I

L

NL

N

P

S

UK

2 698

500

11

450

13

54

602

100

275

42

54

409

1 868

EUR-18

19 302

* Number of documents requested by training bodies. In principle some of the related pathways
might not be completed (interruption of the project, individual drop-out, etc.). Source: Report by
external contractor, BBJ Consult AG.

While the table is on the whole consistent with the demographic details, the education
and training systems, and the different rates of progress in implementing the
“Europass Training” initiative, the German figure is quite striking: Germany alone
accounted for almost half of the European pathways. On the one hand, this can be
explained by the size of its “dual-system”: only 1% of the 600 000 apprenticeship
contracts signed in Germany in 2000 included periods abroad, but even that means
6 000 pathways. On the other hand, the German figure also includes projects which
did not comply with the agreed criteria, and would not be accepted as European
pathways in most other countries (cf. 3.1.1. above).

Smaller countries like Austria and Denmark also indicated proportionally high figures
(the Danish figure was still to be confirmed). Other large “providers” were France and
the United Kingdom. All these countries feature a combination of a well developed
apprenticeship system and a well established tradition of transnational mobility of
trainees, which does not only draw on Community programmes.

The transnational mobility of apprentices has a younger tradition in Italy than in
France – which largely accounts for the huge gap between these demographically
similar countries. Virtually all Italian pathways were within Community programmes
(mostly Leonardo da Vinci).

The lack of data for Spain is due to the delay in setting up the implementation
mechanism in Spain.

3.2.2.

Flows between countries

The information available is incomplete and does not always refer to the same time
span. Where data are available, it should be noted, at this stage of implementation,
that numbers for several countries are still limited, so a single mobility project
targeting a given country could suggest trends that might prove erroneous in the
longer run.

13

Table 4. Flows between countries.*

TO A

B

D

DK E

EL

F

FIN FL

I

IRL ISL L

NL N

P

S

UK

FROM
A
B (De)
B (FL)
B (FR)
D
DK
E
EL
F
FIN
FL
I
IRL
ISL
L
NL
N
P
S
UK
TOT

5

9

20
15

19
8

3
6
2

5

16
13
4

2

71
4
3 120

2
53
5
15 335

14
51 430
70

5

8
16 395
66

9

16
31

8

42

12 116
21

1 184

7 186
1

4
36
3

1

30
48
11
6
65

5
2

9

11

13
47

1
1

57
33

8
33

11

7

1
26

28

2
14

1
11

91

1
1
10
47

1

60

2

38

2
17
3 146 197
15
30
4
1
61

15

4
2
22
48

1
6

28

16
46
22

43
20

13

7

27

19

9

2

12

37

TOT FROM
n.a.

A

26 B (De)
236 B (FL)
69 B (FR)

18

3
10

1

2
39
3

21

28

3

18 205

952
D
n.a. DK
E
n.a.
EL
60
8
68 745 2238
F
FIN
461
37 113
FL
11
6
983
14 321
I
IRL
54
1
ISL
n.d.
101
L
275 NL
N
42
P
54
409
S
n.a. UK

96
15

113

4
1

8

92 114 844

45 919

TO A

B

D

DK E

71 763
F

EL

89
FIN FL

3 388 373

2

99 194

60

I

IRL ISL L

NL N

P

98 162 1660 5976
UK

TOT

S

* Data are not available for all countries; for some countries, the data refer to a period later than
November 2001.

All countries host European pathways. The fact that English is the most widely
spoken second language certainly contributes to the popularity of both Ireland (first
destination among smaller countries) and the United Kingdom (most popular
destination in general). This has been confirmed by NCPs.

The existence of well established traditions of bilateral exchanges between
neighbouring countries, like the Franco-German youth exchange scheme, clearly has
some impact. Some data also seem to indicate an influence of social, cultural and
linguistic closeness (I to E and F) and of economic exchanges (I and D). On the other
hand, linguistic and geographic distance may create a strong interest (B-Nl, D and S
to E; the status of Spanish as an international language might also be a factor).

3.2.3. Duration of traineeships

While detailed quantitative data are not available for all countries, it seems safe to
state that the duration of the traineeships abroad varies between 3 and 15 weeks, with
a certain focus around two poles: shorter (3-4 weeks) and longer stays (9-12 weeks).
This pattern is very clear for B-Nl, GR and L (although the latter also reports a
number of 6-week placements). In France 60% of the traineeships abroad are 4 to 12
months, the rest being shared equally between shorter and longer types. Ireland
indicates an average duration of 8 weeks, while placements from Norway last 9 to 16
weeks, and those from Liechtenstein 12 to 24 weeks. In Sweden the most common
duration is 3 weeks, but longer traineeships are also reported (3, 5 or 6 months or

14

even a year). Finland reports an average duration of about 6 weeks, but projects of up
to 30 weeks have occurred.

3.2.4. Gender and age of “Europass Training” holders

The information available suggests that on the whole more women than men are
involved in European pathways for which “Europass Training” documents were
requested.

Smaller countries show a varied picture: while in the Belgian communities more men
that women hold “Europass Training” documents (40 as against 31 in B-Fr and 120 as
against 116 in B-Nl), Ireland (38 women and 16 men) and Sweden (204 women and
160 men) follow the trend, and the gap becomes particularly wide in Finland (329
women and 137 men). The data are particularly interesting for countries with large
numbers of “Europass Training” holders: in both Germany and France 55% of the
pathways concerned women. In France, women held 1 525 of the 2 697 “Europass
Training” documents issued by November 2001 (male holders numbered 1 127). In
Germany, women made 4 786 of the 8 635 requests for which this information is
available (as against 3 849 requests made by men).

The age breakdown, available for very few countries, suggests a strong majority of
young people around 20. In Flemish Belgium 75% of “Europass Training” holders are
between 18 and 25; Norway distinguishes between a 16-19 and a 20-23 age group,
which cover most of the “Europass Training” holders (the younger group is slightly
bigger). In France, 62% of trainees in European pathways are between 19 and 21
years old, 14% are younger (16-18) and 20% older (22-25). The average age of
Finnish “Europass Training” holders is 22 years.

3.2.5.

Education level and type of institutions

Information on the level of the European pathways and the type of institution issuing
them is not available for all countries, but it is possible to sketch an outline.

Keeping in mind the differences between the national systems, the situation in several
countries (A, B-Nl, FIN, IRL, ISL, I, S) looks roughly similar: about 80% of people
leaving for a European pathway are doing so within a scheme at secondary or upper
secondary level, within training institutions or technical schools. In general, these
countries also report pathways – 10 to 20% – at higher education level and – less than
10% – within lower level training programmes.

In France upper secondary and short post-secondary programmes account for almost
75% of the pathways, equally shared between the two typologies, with about 13%
each for lower secondary and higher education. “Apprentices” in the French system
can be of any level, including higher education.

Apprentices and students in upper secondary education share the “Europass Training”
documents issued in Iceland. In Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway virtually
all participants are in training schemes at secondary level – which in some cases
include apprentices. The Greek “Europass Training” beneficiaries in general already
hold certificates at upper secondary level and are studying at higher education
institutions or at vocational bodies within post-secondary programmes. In the French

15

Community of Belgium and in Ireland most “Europass Training” documents were
requested and used by higher education institutions.

The picture is rather different in Germany, as it is likely that most German pathways –
accounting for about half of all European pathways – concern apprentices in initial
training. A sample analysis reported in the study by the University of Cologne seems
to confirm this.

3.2.6.

Sectoral participation and SME involvement

Data on sectors concerned by the European pathways are very fragmentary. For
countries which do have data, the hotel, restaurants and tourism trade is often the
most popular sector (36% FIN, 27% N, 30% L). Many pathways also concern other
services (for instance I: 25% in generic services; FIN: 21% in social services and
health care), but virtually all sectors are covered by at least some pathways.

The involvement of SMEs other than education and training bodies does not seem to
be widespread so far. In several cases, no specific action has been taken as yet to
promote SME participation, as NCPs have been concentrating their resources on
getting the mechanism started.

Many apprentices work in SMEs, and it is well known that for small companies
sending an apprentice abroad, even for a short period, is not an easy choice. On the
one hand, SMEs that recognise the benefit of sending their apprentices abroad
perceive the “Europass Training” document as raising the status of the apprenticeship
and as a means of motivating apprentices. That this positive attitude is gaining ground
was expressed by the French NCP and reported in the German evaluation study by the
University of Cologne.

On the other hand, some companies – no matter what size – see no advantage in
having their apprentices spend a period abroad; it is somewhat unlikely that the
“Europass Training” scheme as such will bring about any change in their attitude,
even as it becomes better known. That SMEs do not perceive any particular benefit in
the “Europass Training” so far has been indicated, for instance, by the German NCP.

The participation of SMEs as host bodies is in general higher. Greece reports that
SMEs are as numerous as training institutions, and a regional French contact point
indicates that the majority of the host bodies are SMEs.

3.2.7.

Relations with other programmes and initiatives

While quantitative figures are not often available, the link with the “Leonardo da
Vinci” programme is confirmed by all NCPs, though the relative weight varies: for
instance, in Italy and Norway almost all European pathways were “Leonardo da
Vinci” mobility projects, while in Sweden about half of the sending bodies sought
funding within other programmes; and “Leonardo da Vinci” contributes to a little
more than a third of all Finnish pathways and a quarter of all French pathways.

The role of other Community funded initiatives and programmes has so far been very
limited: 5% of the French European pathways and 2% of the Finnish received support

16

under “Socrates”. Some “Youth” projects were concerned in Italy, and a few French
European pathways found support under “Equal”.

Apart from the apparent match between “Leonardo da Vinci” mobility projects and
the European pathway concept, the links tend to be somewhat institutional. On the
one hand, the “Leonardo da Vinci” Decision does make an explicit reference to the
European pathways Decision5. On the other hand, many NCPs are also national
agencies for “Leonardo da Vinci” (cf. § 2.2 above).

In Italy, approximately 89% of the mobility projects approved under the Leonardo
programme in 2001 have applied for “Europass Training” too. In Denmark, all
Leonardo mobility projects approved in 2001, strands 1 and 2, have automatically
been sent the same number of Europass documents as there are beneficiaries.

Programmes outside the Community framework also played a role in several
countries. They include:

–

–

–

–

the long established Franco-German Youth Exchange scheme, as already
mentioned;

the “Training Bridge” programme, which promotes British-German co-
operation in the field of work-based training (launched in December 1998);

the Danish PiU-programme, which enables young Danes in initial vocational
training to get practical training abroad;

the Scandinavian programme “Nordplus Junior”.

3.3.

Information and promotion

In many countries, information activities about the “Europass Training” initiative
began before the scheme came into force, with a launch conference held in the last
months of 1999 (DK, D, F, FIN, NL, L, S, UK). Instead of a launch conference,
Austria organised an information campaign, and in 2000 and 2001 many countries
organised a series of regional events besides or instead of the national conference.
Some countries (I, N) preferred to hold a national launch event when the mechanism
was well established and in operation. These conferences were usually attended by
training providers, mobility project promoters, representatives of social partners and
national and local authorities.

Specific events, resources and campaigns were not the only vehicles for informing and
promoting the “Europass Training” initiative. Events related to education and training
at national or local level frequently included a stand or a presentation of the
“Europass Training” initiative. This was clearly facilitated by the fact that the NCP
function is often based within, or closely linked to, broader education and training
bodies (cf. § 2.2.2 above).

5

Cf. Council Decision 1999/382/EC of 26 April 1999 establishing the second phase of the Community
vocational training action programme ‘Leonardo da Vinci’, OJ L 146 of 11.6.1999, p.33. The mention
is in Annex 1, Section II, § 1, p.40.

17

Besides disseminating the booklet and fliers produced by the Commission, all
countries devised information material of their own, usually meant for the general
public, but sometimes intended for specific target groups. Some countries also
prepared resources for promoters and potential beneficiaries. For instance, Austria
produced a CD-Rom, Italy published a comprehensive paper handbook and a CD-
card, Norway produced a specific video and a multimedia presentation.

Many Member States developed national “Europass Training” websites, providing not
only general information, but also practical directions on how to get and use the
document, and sometimes offering an interactive interface with the information system
used to manage the initiative. The French system, which allows for online application
by promoters, was also adopted by the Italian and Norwegian NCPs. The latter
integrated it into the system which it uses as a national agency for Leonardo da Vinci.
Some websites include a help mailbox, available to anyone who can access the
Internet.

3.4.

Evaluation

National evaluation exercises have already been carried out by a few countries, viz.
Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.

The Finnish research was conducted on an ongoing basis, collecting reporting forms
from students and co-ordinators. In general, both training bodies and trainees
welcomed “Europass Training”, though they thought the document itself could be
made more user-friendly. In particular, students in upper secondary vocational
education usually considered the “Europass Training” document to be a good record
of a training period abroad. About one student out of four thought the “Europass
Training” document would be very useful for him or her in the future, and half of all
students judged it probably useful. Most students were satisfied or very satisfied with
their European pathways experience (4% of them were not satisfied).

The German study, carried out by the Craft Sector Research Institute of the
University of Cologne, convered all the German contact points, about 300 promoters
of transnational mobility projects and a number of “Europass Training” holders, and
provided information on the practical use, the benefits and the perceived status of
Europass Training. As mentioned above, the study found out that German NCP’s tend
to issue “Europass Training” documents also when not all quality criteria for
European pathways are satisfied (cf. §§ 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 above). Among the other
findings: no problem of acceptance by companies; trainees would prefer to be entitled
to ask directly for the “Europass Training”; NCP’s and training bodies considered the
“Europass Training” as a relatively useful tool, raising the status of pathways and
potentially helping on the labur market; the view of final users was very varied; the
format was not friendly. The conclusions were that the “Europass Training” could
become a good tool to record expriences abroad, but it had to be made friendlier and
better known.

The Dutch study was conducted by CINOP at a very early stage of implementation; it
got answers from staff from ten training bodies and from some “Europass Training”
holders. It addressed policy, procedures, organisation, information, host bodies, and
effects. Several
the “Europass
trainees and training bodies held the view that
Training” could not have a significant impact on the labour market, as it was not

18

known enough. The study offered suggestions: provide an electronic “Europass
Training”; make the resource and the implementation structure better known;
promote the value of the “Europass Training” as a record of the European outlook of
its holders.

The Swedish research, carried out directly by the national contact point among
project promoters and a sample of “Europass Training” holders, focused on the
perception and acceptance of the “Europass Training”. The common European
structure was widely appreciated. Some organisations thought that the document had
motivated their pupils to go abroad: holding a document to show to future employers
raised the status of the placement. Most organisations found that the “Europass
Training” document could help its holders to get a job, as it testified to experience
which was usually sought after in the labour market, but this would be even better if
the “Europass Training” document made provision for a better skills description.

4.

CONCLUSIONS

Two years on from the entry into force of Decision 1999/51/EC,
implementation can be summarised as follows:

the state of

• the implementation mechanism has been established and is now running smoothly;

in particular:

–

–

all Member States have designated one or more existing bodies – called
“national contact points” (NCPs) – as being responsible for implementing
the “Europass Training” initiative;

the Commission has fostered co-ordination and exchanges of information
through meetings of NCP representatives; a non-binding co-operation
charter has been agreed by the Commission and NCPs;

• the actual dissemination has started in all countries (with one exception, where it

will begin early in 2002); until November 2001:

–

about 19 300 “Europass Training” documents have been issued;

• in general, the documents were issued to record European pathways that complied
with the criteria set out in the Decision, though this was not always the case,
namely in Germany;

• in particular, the available data indicate that:

–

–

–

all countries have hosted or are hosting European pathways. English-
speaking countries are the most favoured destinations;

duration of the traineeships abroad varied between 3 and 15 weeks;

on the whole, a slight majority of “Europass Training” holders were
women (about 55%);

19

–

–

–

–

–

a strong majority of “Europass Training” holders are about 20 years old
(17 to 23);

about three quarters of “Europass Training” holders are in education or
training at secondary or upper secondary level; lower and higher levels of
education each account for 10-15% of the cases;

hotel, restaurants and tourism is often the most popular sector, although
all sectors are covered by one or more pathways;

SMEs (other than education and training bodies) are not usually involved
as sending bodies, though they often host European pathways;

a good number of European pathways come under the “Leonardo da
Vinci” programme,
though its weight varies considerably from one
country to another (30 to 100%). Other Community funded programmes
(“Socrates”, “Youth”, “Equal”) have a marginal role, while in some
countries bilateral or national initiatives account for up to 50% of the
European pathways;

• information and promotion issues have been addressed by launch conferences, the
dissemination of information booklets and fliers produced at both European and
national level, participation at relevant events, information campaigns, Internet
sites etc;

–

Internet sites are run at both European and national level;
in some
countries they form part and parcel of a management information system;

• representatives of the European social partners attend the co-ordination meetings;
at national level, representatives of the social partners often serve on steering
committees or equivalent bodies;

• some countries have carried out national evaluation studies; at European level, an
evaluation plan has been prepared, including a seminar (3-4 June 2002) and an
interim evaluation study (due for December 2002).

20