Report from the Commission - Interim report on the implementation of the second phase of the Leonardo da Vinci Programme (2000-2006)
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, report, vocational training

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.3.2004 
COM(2004) 152 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

Interim report on the implementation of the second phase of the Leonardo da Vinci 
Programme (2000-2006) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

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

The 2nd phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme – overview and context............. 4 

Implementation of the programme............................................................................... 6 

Architecture of the programme .................................................................................... 6 

Management structures ................................................................................................ 7 

Calls for proposals ....................................................................................................... 8 

The evaluation and selection of proposals ................................................................... 8 

3.4.1.  Procedure A – mobility ................................................................................................ 8 

3.4.2.  Procedure B – Pilot projects, trans-national networks, language competence ............ 8 

3.4.3.  Procedure C – Reference material, projects submitted by European organisations .... 9 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

3.8. 

3.9. 

4. 

Information and communication policy ....................................................................... 9 

Advice and assistance to promoters (prior to submission of proposal) ..................... 10 

Monitoring and follow-up of projects ........................................................................ 10 

The dissemination and exploitation of project results (Valorisation) ........................ 11 

Administrative management of the programme......................................................... 11 

Achievements, results, impact by individual measure ............................................... 12 

4.1. 

Mobility projects ........................................................................................................ 12 

4.1.1.  Facts and first results.................................................................................................. 12 

4.1.2.  Assessment................................................................................................................. 13 

4.2. 

Pilot projects .............................................................................................................. 13 

4.2.1.  Facts and first results.................................................................................................. 13 

4.2.2.  Assessment................................................................................................................. 14 

4.3. 

Language Competence ............................................................................................... 15 

4.3.1.  Facts and first results.................................................................................................. 15 

4.3.2.  Assessment................................................................................................................. 15 

4.4. 

Trans-national networks............................................................................................. 16 

4.4.1.  Facts and first results.................................................................................................. 16 

4.4.2.  Assessment................................................................................................................. 17 

4.5. 

Reference Material ..................................................................................................... 17 

4.5.1.  Facts and first results.................................................................................................. 17 

2 

 
 
  
 
4.5.2.  Assessment................................................................................................................. 18 

4.6. 

Joint Actions .............................................................................................................. 18 

4.6.1.  Facts and first results.................................................................................................. 18 

4.6.2.  Assessment................................................................................................................. 18 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

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

Relevance ................................................................................................................... 19 

Efficiency of the programme ..................................................................................... 19 

Effectiveness of the programme................................................................................. 20 

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 21 

3 

 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Council Decision 1999/382/EC of 26 April 19991 establishes the second phase 2000-2006 of 
the  Leonardo  da  Vinci  programme  for  the  implementation  of  a  Community  vocational 
training  policy.  Article  13  of  that  Decision  requires  the  Commission  to  submit  an  interim 
report on the implementation of the programme by 30 June 2004. 

The purpose of this communication is  

– 

– 

– 

to provide a better understanding of what has been achieved in the period 2000-2003, 
how it has been done, and to what extent the initial objectives are being met; 

to  identify  ways  to  improve  the  implementation  of  the  programme  in  the  period 
2004-2006; 

to contribute to the development of the Commission’s proposal for a new generation 
of education and training programmes (2007-2013). 

This communication is based on three main inputs: 

– 

– 

– 

2. 

reports and data available within the Commission services 

an  external  mid-term  evaluation  for  the  period  2000-2002,  undertaken  by  the 
company Barbier Frinault & Associés2 

a  series  of  national  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  programme  in  the 
participating countries3. 

THE  2ND  PHASE  OF  THE  LEONARDO  DA  VINCI  PROGRAMME  –  OVERVIEW  AND 
CONTEXT 

Leonardo da Vinci is now in its second phase (2000-2006) and builds on the experiences of 
the first phase (1995-1999). 

The  programme  is  open  to  the  EU  Member  States,  to  the  EEA/EFTA  countries  (Iceland, 
Liechtenstein and Norway), to the Accession Countries, to the pre-accession countries and, it 
is expected that Turkey may participate from 2004. 

The overall objective of the programme is defined in Article 1 of the decision: 

“This programme shall contribute to the promotion of a Europe of knowledge by developing a 
European  area  of  co-operation  in  the  field  of  education  and  vocational  training.  It  shall 
support  Member  States’  policies  on  lifelong  learning  and  the  building  up  of  the  knowledge 
and skills and competences likely to foster active citizenship and employability.” 

1 
2 

3 

and 

OJ L146, 11.6.1999, p33 
Report 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/evaluation/evaluation_en.html) 
Reports  received  from  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece, 
Hungary,  Iceland,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Liechtenstein,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Norway,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Tchec Republic, The Netherlands, United Kingdom. 

executive 

summary 

available 

are 

at 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
The general and specific objectives, specified in Article 2 of the Decision, are: 

G1. 

to promote employability and facilitate vocational integration and reintegration; 

G2. 

G3. 

and 

S1. 

S2. 

S3. 

increase  and  develop  adaptability,  particularly 

to 
technological and organisational change; 

in  order 

to  consolidate 

to improve competitiveness and entrepreneurship, also in view of new employment 
possibilities; 

to improve the skills  and  competences of people,  especially young people in initial 
vocational training at all levels; 

improve the quality of, and access to, continuing vocational training and the lifelong 
acquisition of skills and competences; 

promote  and  reinforce  the  contribution  of  vocational  training  to  the  process  of 
innovation. 

The  external  evaluation  acknowledges  that  the  Decision  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci  II  is  more 
easily comprehensible than Leonardo da Vinci I, mainly due to a substantial reduction of the 
number of specific objectives and of the implementation measures. However it underlines that 
the  specific  objectives  are  not  quantified  (no  indicators),  difficult  to  measure,  and  that  the 
general  objectives  seem  too  ambitious  in  relation  to  the  means  available.  This  makes  the 
evaluation of the programme more difficult. 

The Council decision for the programme foresees a budget of 1.150 M€ for the seven years of 
Leonardo  da  Vinci  phase  2.  Additional  contributions  from  the  EFTA,  accession  and  pre-
accession countries complement the budget (detailed figures for 2000-2003 are in annex 1). 

The  programme  is  managed  by  the  services  of  the  European  Commission  (some  60  Staff) 
with the support of a Technical Assistance Office (some 10 Staff) and of National Agencies 
(32 Agencies with around 390 Staff). 

The political context 

Subsequent  to  the  adoption  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci  II  in  April  1999,  a  number  of  policy 
initiatives  have  been  launched  with  a  major  impact  on  vocational  training  policy  and 
consequently on Leonardo da Vinci II : the Lisbon strategy of March 2000, which accords an 
important role to education and training for the achievement of its goals4; the communication 
of the Commission on ‘Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality’5, setting a 
new  paradigm  for  education  and  training;  the  report  of  the  Education  Council  and  the 
European Commission on the common objectives of education and training systems6, and the 
subsequent  detailed  work  programme7;  the  Council  resolution  of  November  2002  on 

4 
5 
6 
7 

Lisbon European Council, 23-24 March 2000 : Presidency Conclusions 
COM(2001) 678 final 
COM(2001) 59 final 
6365/02 EDUC 27 

5 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
enhanced European co-operation in Vocational Education and Training (VET)8 extended by 
the  subsequent  Copenhagen  declaration  that  was  adopted  by  31  Ministers,  the  Commission 
and  the  social  partners  at  European  level;  the  Action  Plan  for  the  promotion  of  language 
learning and linguistic diversity9, adopted by the Commission in July 2003 and based on the 
experience of the European Year of languages. 

The  external  evaluation  acknowledges  that,  although  all  these  policy  initiatives  took  place 
after the adoption of Leonardo da Vinci II, the legal basis of the programme made it possible 
to cope with these new challenges to a large extent. 

The emergence of these major political initiatives in the area of education and training might 
point  to  one  important  impact  of  the  European  education  and  training  programmes:  Many 
key actors (national and European) consider that these political initiatives and advances 
would  not  have  been  possible  without  the  existence  of  and  contributions  from  the 
European education and training programmes. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME 

3.1. 

Architecture of the programme 

The Decision foresees seven measures:  

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

e) 

f) 

g) 

Trans-national mobility of persons undergoing vocational training;  

Pilot projects based on trans-national partnerships; 

Promotion of language competence and understanding of different cultures; 

Development of trans-national networks; 

Development and updating of reference material; 

Joint actions with other Community programmes; 

Accompanying measures 

8 
9 

14343/02 EDUC 144, SOC 521 
COM(2003) 449 final 

6 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
These measures are grouped together under three procedures, reflecting different management 
approaches: decentralised, centralised and mixed. 

Procedure 

Measure 

Managing organisation 

Budgetary Allocation 

A 

B 

Mobility; 

Pilot Projects (PP); 

National  Agency 
National Authorities 

/ 

> 39 % 

National  Agency 
National Authorities/  

/ 

PP > 36 % 

Language Competence (LC);  

LC > 5% 

European Commission 

Trans-national networks; 

C 

Reference Material; 

European Commission  Budget 

(Including 

Projects  submitted  by  European 
organisations; 

Joint Actions; 

Accompanying Measures 

Trans-national 
networks) > 15 % 

The  range  of  procedures  and  the  fact  that  some  measures  are  allocated  to  two  different 
procedures  make  the  management  of  the  programme  complex.  In  addition,  procedure  B 
foresees a sharing of responsibilities between European and national levels, which has lead to 
a number of problems in the implementation of the programme. 

3.2.  Management structures 

The main actors are: the European Commission, the Technical Assistance Office, the National 
Authorities and the National Agencies10. Around 83% of the programme’s budget is managed 
at national level.  

The  Commission  is  responsible  for  ensuring  the  implementation  of  the  programme  in 
accordance with the Council Decision, supported by the Technical Assistance Office (TAO).  

The National Authorities are responsible for the efficient implementation of the programme 
at  national  level.  They  are  supported  in  this  task  by  the  National  Agencies,  which  are  co-
funded by the European Commission and the National Authorities.  

The  Programme  Committee  is  composed  of  two  representatives  from  each  participating 
country and chaired by the Commission. Representatives from the Social Partners participate 
in the Committee as observers. 

The external evaluation at European level and the ‘national reports on the implementation of 
the programme’ all underline the positive impact of the decentralisation of a substantial part 
of the programme’s activities on the implementation of the programme. 

10 

Commission Decision of 18 February 2000 laying down the provisions governing the responsibilities of 
the Member States and the Commission as regards the National Agencies in the context of the general 
guidelines for implementing the second phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme [not published in 
the Official Journal]. 

7 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
3.3. 

Calls for proposals 

The programme is implemented by means of calls for proposals. The first call was published 
in  1999  and  covered  2000  to  2002.  The  second  call,  published  in  2002,  covered  2003  and 
2004.  New  priorities  have  been  defined,  reflecting  the  new  paradigm  for  education  and 
training  as  defined  in  the  Commission’s  communication  “Making  a  European  Area  of 
Lifelong Learning a Reality”. The last call for 2005-2006 will be published in 2004. 

These  calls  for  proposals  make  it  possible  to  a  certain  degree  to  take  into  account  policy 
developments in the area of vocational education and training, including the latest changes in 
the field of EU language policy. 

The external evaluation, however, stresses that the time period to address new developments 
can be rather long (validity of calls is respectively 3, 2 and 2 years). In addition it underlines 
that the calls for proposals should be used to provide additional focus to the programme in 
terms of target groups and areas of intervention. 

It  has  to  be  mentioned  nonetheless  that  the  yearly  publication  of  calls  for  proposals  was 
criticised under Leonardo I, and calls valid for 2 to 3 years are regarded as an improvement 
since they offer more stability. 

3.4. 

The evaluation and selection of proposals 

The  actors  concerned  are  the  Commission  services,  the  National  Authorities,  the  National 
Agencies and the Leonardo Committee. Their respective roles and responsibilities are defined 
at  a  general  level  in  the  annex  to  the  Decision.  Several  complementary  documents  describe 
more in detail the rules and procedures to follow in relation to the evaluation and selection of 
proposals. 

Compared  to  Leonardo  da  Vinci  I,  the  existing  procedures  (A  and  B)  have  been  further 
decentralised,  an  evaluation  process  in  two  steps  has  been  introduced,  and  a  completely 
centralised procedure has been added. 

3.4.1.  Procedure A – mobility 

Under  Procedure  A,  the  National  Authorities  and  Agencies  are  in  charge  of  evaluating  and 
selecting the complete set of mobility projects. The European dimension of this procedure is 
ensured through the use common selection and evaluation procedures and criteria defined by 
the Commission services in co-operation with the Leonardo Committee. 

The external evaluation underlines that the evaluation and selection process under procedure 
A is appreciated by all actors. The project promoters appreciate in particular the short time 
period  between  proposal  submission  and  selection  decision.  However,  the  administrative 
formalities,  i.e.  the  submission  and  evaluation  forms,  are  considered  too  complex  and 
detailed. 

3.4.2.  Procedure B – Pilot projects, trans-national networks, language competence 

Under  Procedure  B,  the  responsibility  for  implementing  the  actions  concerned  is  shared 
between national and Community levels. Pre-proposals are evaluated and selected at national 
level  exclusively,  while  full  proposals  are  evaluated  at  both  national  and  community  levels, 
and  the  selection  decision  is  taken  by  the  Commission  services  after  consultation  with  the 

8 

 
 
  
 
Leonardo  Committee.  Unfortunately  the  Decision  text  does  not  define  the  roles  of  the 
different actors very precisely, thereby leaving for substantial space for interpretation. 

The external evaluation highlights “lack of clarity in the decisions regarding the exact rules 
applicable to the evaluation of proposals by the national agencies, which are in competition 
with  each  other  for  the  allocation  of  the  overall  budget  for  interventions  for  Procedure  B 
projects. This results in different practices in different agencies, which has an adverse impact 
on  the  clarity  and  uniformity  of  this  evaluation  and  selection  procedure.  These  diversified 
practices involve potential risks of unequal treatment of promoters from different countries, 
especially  when  certain  national  agencies  call  on  their  own  personnel  to  evaluate 
proposals, while these agencies also provide the same promoters with advice at the time of 
preparation of their proposal.” 

The external evaluation however acknowledges the fact that the Commission services, in co-
operation with the Leonardo Committee, produced in July 2003 a code of good practices to 
address  the  issue.  In  November  2003,  the  Committee  adopted  a  positive  opinion  on  these 
improved evaluation and selection procedures. 

Finally, project promoters are positive towards the two-stage approach (pre-proposals and full 
proposals) and towards the increasing importance of quality, as the paramount evaluation and 
selection  criterion.  However  they  also  see  the  two-stage  procedure  as  a  reason  for  the  long 
delay  between  proposal  submission  and  contract  signature,  and  as  a  source  for  a  number  of 
cumbersome administrative formalities. 

3.4.3.  Procedure C – Reference material, projects submitted by European organisations 

Under  Procedure  C,  the  Commission  services  have  the  responsibility  for  the  evaluation  and 
selection process, implemented through a peer review system. 

According  to  the  external  evaluation,  the  promoters  are  satisfied  with  the  evaluation  and 
selection  process  for  Procedure  C  proposals,  they  appreciate  in  particular  the  two-stage 
approach and the focus on quality. 

However, as for Procedure B, they also see it as a reason for the long delay between proposal 
submission and contract signature, and as a source of a number of cumbersome administrative 
formalities. 

3.5. 

Information and communication policy 

Information and communication activities relating to the programme and its calls are shared 
between  the  Commission  services  and  the  National  Agencies.  The  role  of  the  National 
Agencies  is  becoming  more  important  through  the  increased  decentralisation  of  the 
programme management. The Commission services and the National Agencies use a number 
of media and distribution channels to reach their target audiences. The web-sites at European 
and  national  levels  are  increasingly  important.  Publications  of  brochures  and  information 
letters, organisation of and participation at seminars, conferences and information days are the 
other main tools used. 

9 

 
 
  
 
The external evaluation stresses that the  procedures applied in the area  of  information and 
communication  are  appropriate,  in  particular  in  light  of  the  high  level  of  satisfaction 
expressed  by  the  promoters.  However  it  stresses  also  that  it  could  be  improved  through  “a 
consistent and co-ordinated strategy for promoting and presenting the programme at the level 
of all three procedures”, which should lead to an increased visibility of the programme and to 
an improvement in the quality of the projects and activities. 

3.6. 

Advice and assistance to promoters (prior to submission of proposal) 

The National Agencies are the main providers of advice and assistance to potential promoters 
of  projects  under  procedures  A  and  B.  This  support  is  highly  valued  by  the  promoters 
(external  evaluation),  even  if  there  are  substantial  differences  between  approaches  in  the 
different countries. 

However few National Agencies advise potential promoters of Procedure C projects. Indeed, 
those National Agencies that do not advise their national promoters for procedure C proposals 
consider that it is the role of the Commission services to provide this advice. 

“The  allocation  of  responsibilities  between  Commission  services  and  the  agencies  with 
regard  to  the  provision  of  assistance  to  promoters  of  procedure  C  projects  needs  to  be 
clarified. An improvement in the advice provided to promoters of procedure C projects should 
boost  the  quality  of  the  proposals  submitted  and  enable  more  of  them  to  be  selected.” 
(external evaluation) 

The  Commission  services  plan  to  organise  each  year  in  January,  starting  in  2004,  an 
information  day  for  all  interested  promoters  of  procedure  C  proposals.  The  first  such 
information  day,  which  has  been  organised  on  13  January  2004  in  Brussels,  was  highly 
appreciated by the participants. 

3.7.  Monitoring and follow-up of projects 

This activity is crucial for the programme’s success. It covers on the one hand the formal or 
contractual aspects of the projects including contract signature, submission and acceptance of 
deliverables, payments, contract amendments if required; and on the other hand monitoring of 
the content monitoring, notably through the thematic monitoring of projects in the same field, 
with  a  view  to  ensuring  the  highest  possible  quality  outcomes  of  the  projects,  and  the  best 
possible impact for the programme. 

The  National  Agencies  monitor  and  follow-up  Procedure  A  and  B  projects,  while  the 
Commission services focus on the Procedure C projects and the overall co-ordination of the 
thematic monitoring of procedure B and C projects. 

The external evaluation stresses that “the procedures applied by the Agencies in the area of 
individual monitoring of procedure A and B projects, and by the Commission and the TAO 
in the area of individual monitoring of procedure C projects, are appropriate: according to 
the promoters themselves, the support which they receive is effective and the evaluation of the 
progress  achieved  by  promoters  (evaluation  of  interim  and  final  reports  and  on-site  visits) 
appears to be carried out properly.” 

Launched  in  2002  at  the  initiative  of  the  European  Commission  the  initiative  ‘Thematic 
Monitoring’ aims to strengthen the exchange of experience and networking between projects, 

10 

 
 
  
 
practitioners  and  decision-makers.  It  contributes  to  raising  the  visibility  of  projects’ 
achievements and to the dissemination of their results. 

“The  procedures  applied  in  the  area  of  collective  thematic  monitoring  are  greatly 
appreciated by all the players concerned. Its usefulness as an ex ante valorisation measure is 
emphasised. However, the players regret that these procedures are restricted to procedure B 
and C projects only.” (External evaluation) 

3.8. 

The dissemination and exploitation of project results (Valorisation) 

Dissemination and exploitation of project results have been a major point of criticism in the 
ex-post evaluation of the 1st phase of the Leonardo programme. 

Therefore  the  Commission  services  established  a  specific  unit  within  DG  Education  and 
Culture to work on the dissemination and exploitation of project results. The activities of the 
first three years (2000-2002) focused on project results from Leonardo I, based mainly on an 
ex-post  approach  (support  of  measures  targeting  the  dissemination  and  exploitation  of 
existing  results  from  completed  projects).  A  database  of  good  practices  has  been  developed 
and a number of thematic brochures have been published featuring examples of good practice, 
stemming mainly from the Leonardo da Vinci I programme. 

At  the  beginning  of  2003,  the  Commission  services  have  developed  a  new  strategy  for  the 
pro-active  dissemination  and  exploitation  (valorisation)  of  projects  while  they  are  still 
running.  This  ex-ante  valorisation  strategy  considers  dissemination  and  exploitation  as  an 
integral part of the project life-cycle. 

The  external  evaluation  considers  this  new  strategy  as  a  big  step  forward.  However  it 
underlines also that “the valorisation initiatives launched at European level and the tools for 
the dissemination of products and best practices need to be adapted still further to the needs 
of target groups and programme users.” 

The  launch  of  a  specific  call  for  proposals  on  innovation  transfer  in  October  2003  is  a  first 
step to address this request (see also point 4.2.4). 

Some national reports suggest the creation of a specific fund for successful pilot projects to 
support exploitation and dissemination related activities. 

3.9. 

Administrative management of the programme 

The  external  evaluation  concludes  that  the  administrative  management  has  improved 
considerably since Leonardo I: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

“Clear administrative procedures have been developed for the management of project 
funds, 

Clearly specified time periods have been laid down for implementing procedures, 

Management  of  procedure  A  and  B  projects  has  been  decentralised  and  is  now 
handled at the Agency level, 

The  Agencies’  activities  are  supervised  via  a  system  of  regular  feedback  and 
monitoring by Commission personnel, 

11 

 
 
  
 
– 

The Technical Assistant Office assists the Commission with procedure C proposals 
and projects but has no decision-making authority.” 

However  the  cumbersome  and  time  consuming  feedback  system  and  the  lack  of  procedural 
flexibility are a major concern for all parties. (external evaluation and national reports) 

In this context, many promoters and National Agencies feel that the introduction in 2003 of 
the  New  Financial  Regulation  (NFR)  has  not  resulted  in  a  simplification  of  the  project 
management. Certain rules make the participation of a number of organisations, in particular 
SMEs, in the programme more difficult, as more steps are added to the verification process 
before contracting and during the project lifetime. 

4. 

ACHIEVEMENTS, RESULTS, IMPACT BY INDIVIDUAL MEASURE 

4.1.  Mobility projects 

The  mobility  measure  provides  support  for  trans-national  placement  projects  for  trans-
national  exchange  projects.  The  individual  projects  are  implemented  by  organisations  (not 
individuals) that organise the placement or exchange of the respective beneficiary. 

4.1.1.  Facts and first results 

Annex 2 provides a detailed overview on the implementation of this measure during 2000 – 
2003. 

For  2000-2003,  an  overall  budget  of  around  300  M€  has  been  committed  for  some  7,000 
placement  projects  and  some  2,300  exchange  projects.  These  projects  provide  for  the 
placement of 143,000 people undergoing initial vocational training, students, young workers 
or  recent  graduates  and  the  exchange  of  22,000  human  resources  managers  in  the  business 
sector,  vocational  training  programme  planners  and  managers,  particularly  trainers  and 
mentors, and occupational guidance specialists. 

As  mobility  projects  normally  cover  two  years,  the  definitive  numbers  of  beneficiaries  of 
placements  and  exchanges,  and  the  final  budgetary  figures  are  available  to  the  Commission 
services  only  after  a  certain  period  of  time.  The  final  numbers  and  figures  for  mobility 
projects contracted in 2000 show that some 85% of the initial budget was effectively spent, 
and 95 % of the planned placements/exchanges took place. 

13.3 % of the beneficiaries in placement/exchange projects came from SMEs and a minimum 
of 30 % performed their placement/exchange in an SME. The latter figure is probably nearer 
to  50  %,  as  many  replies  (38.7  %)  indicate  Vocational  Training  Institutes  as  host 
the 
organisations,  and 
placement/exchanges of beneficiaries in other organisations, mainly SMEs. 

these  organisations  act 

in  practice  as 

intermediaries 

for 

The main language used in the framework of placements and exchanges is English, followed 
by German and French. 

Slightly more women (51.5%) benefit from placements and exchanges than men (48.5%). A 
more detailed gender breakdown will be provided in the final programme evaluation. 

The number of handicapped persons participating in mobility actions is some 2 %. 

12 

 
 
  
 
4.1.2.  Assessment 

This measure is as highly valued in the external evaluation report as in the national reports. 
The measure is relevant in relation to the needs of the target groups and to the achievement of 
the objectives of the programme. 

The  external  evaluation  and  the  national  reports  conclude  also  that  the  mobility  measure  is 
highly  effective  as  well  in  view  of  the  related  operational  objectives,  of  the  results  of  the 
projects and its contribution to the achievement of the specific objectives of the programme. 

“beneficiaries and projects record improved core and key skills, increased confidence levels 
and sense of personal responsibility, development of new language skills and exposure to new 
culture” (national report - UK) 

“Une  mesure  qui  favorise  l’insertion  professionnelle…  A  titre  d’exemple,  le  taux  de 
réinsertion des demandeurs d’emploi participant au programme est de 100%” (Contribution 
de la France sur l’avenir des programmes communautaires)  

“Thanks  to  the  development  of  an  intensive,  diversified  and  high-quality  ‘mobility’  activity, 
under  the  impetus  of  the  national  agencies  and  Commission  services,  Leonardo  has,  in 
general, "strengthened the competencies and skills of people, especially young people" over 
the period 2000-2002.” (External evaluation) 

The  complete  decentralisation  of  the  mobility  measure  and,  in  particular,  its  administrative 
management,  is  seen  very  positively.  The  main  weak  point,  particularly  underlined  in  the 
external  evaluation  report,  is  the  absence  of  a  common  software  tool  to  provide  efficient, 
rapid and reliable feedback. 

4.2. 

Pilot projects 

Pilot  projects  involve  trans-national  partnerships  (at  least  three  organisations  from  three 
different  countries)  in  the  development  and  transfer  of  innovation  and  quality  in  vocational 
training, including actions aiming at the use of information and communication technologies 
(ICT) in vocational training. These projects are managed in a “semi-decentralised” way. 

4.2.1.  Facts and first results 

The  tables  in  Annex  3  provide  a  detailed  overview  on  the  implementation  of  this  measure 
during 2000 – 2003. 

During  the  first  four  years  (2000-2003),  825  pilot  projects  were  supported,  representing  an 
overall  commitment  of  271  M€.  The  average  total  cost  of  a  project  is  of  470,000  €  with  a 
financial contribution per project of 330,000 € (~ 70%). The maximum EU contribution for 
projects is set to 600,000€ (max of 200,000 €/year for 3 years). The projects last in average 
2,4 years and involve more than 8000 organisations (average/project: 10 organisations from 5 
countries). 

As  specified  in  the  Decision,  the  programme  pays  particular  attention  to  people  at  a 
disadvantage  in  the  labour  market,  including  disabled  people,  to  practices  facilitating  their 
access  to  training,  to  the  promotion  of  equality  and  to  equal  opportunities  for  women. 
According to the external evaluation, 

13 

 
 
  
 
“33%  of  the  projects  include  specific  measures  to  address  the  needs  of  people  at  a 
disadvantage  

27 % of the projects include specific measures to facilitate the access of handicapped persons 
to training and work 

27 % of the projects include specific measures to facilitate the access of women to training 
and work.” 

Through this measure the programme seeks to foster co-operation between vocational training 
institutions, including universities, and undertakings, in particular SMEs. 

Vocational training institutions are heavily involved in pilot projects (in 27% of the projects 
as promoters, in 23% as partner). Universities are project promoters in 19% of the projects, 
and  participate  as  partners  in  16%  of  projects.  SMEs  act  in  9%  of  the  projects  as  project 
promoter and in 16% as partner organisation. Large companies are involved in pilot projects 
only  to  a  limited  degree  (in  1%  of  the  projects  as  promoter  and  in  4%  of  the  projects  as 
partner organisation). 

4.2.2.  Assessment 

As with the mobility measure, pilot projects are also highly valued by the external evaluation 
and  the  national  reports.  The  measure  is  very  relevant  in  relation  to  the  needs  of  the  target 
groups and to the achievement of the objectives of the programme. 

The  external  evaluation  and  the  national  reports  conclude  also  that  the  pilot  projects  are 
highly effective in view of the related operational objectives. At the end of 2003 few projects 
were fully completed, so it was not possible to evaluate the results of the projects and their 
contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the  specific  objectives  of  the  programme.  However 
expectations are high both in the external and in the national reports. In particular, the latter 
state  that  the  quality  of  pilot  projects  has  improved,  thanks  to  their  close  follow-up  by  the 
National Agencies. 

The external evaluation points also out that the programme should have a clearer approach to 
“innovation  transfer”.  Proposals  are  assessed  for  their  innovative  character.  Whereas 
product innovation is of interest to all countries, process innovation aimed at modernising a 
given  training  system  is  a  ‘relative’  concept,  and  what  is  innovative  in  one  country,  is  not 
necessarily  so  in  another.  Therefore  the  report  recommends  that  transfer  of  innovation 
between participating countries, both product and process innovation, should be financed by 
the Leonardo programme on the same basis as a ‘absolute’ innovation, but subject to specific 
terms and conditions adapted to the particular need. 

The  Commission  services  share  this  view  and  have  already  launched  a  specific  call  on 
innovation transfer in 2003. See also point 3.2.7. 

The external report questions also the maximum ceiling of funding for pilot projects that 
focus on product innovation. Indeed it appears that the development of increased European 
co-operation  in  the  area  of  vocational  training  is  leading  to  a  need  for  large-scale  projects, 
which can be developed rapidly in order not to become obsolete. 

14 

 
 
  
 
The Commission services share this view. However this recommendation can not be taken up 
in the framework of Leonardo da Vinci II, since it would require a review of the legal basis. 
This recommendation will however be considered when drawing up the proposal for the new 
generation of education and training programmes. 

4.3. 

Language Competence 

This measure provides support for trans-national projects to develop language competences in 
a  vocational  training  context.  Special  attention  is  given  to  projects  on  less  widely  used  and 
taught languages. 

Projects under this measure are implemented in the same way as pilot projects, i.e. proposals 
submitted  by  ‘European’  organisations  follow  the  provisions  of  Procedure  C,  whereas  the 
other projects fall under Procedure B (semi-decentralised approach). 

4.3.1.  Facts and first results 

During  the  first  four  years  (2000-2003),  88  language  competence  projects  were  supported, 
representing an overall commitment of 26.7 M€. The average total cost of a project is 430,000 
€ with a financial contribution per project of 304,000 € (~ 71%). The maximum Community 
contribution for  projects is 600,000 €  (200.000 €  per year for 3 years). The projects last on 
average  2.3  years  and  involve  around  800  organisations  (average/project:  9  organisations 
from 5 countries). According the external evaluation 

“41%  of  the  projects  include  specific  measures  to  address  the  needs  of  people  at  a 
disadvantage; 

6 % of the projects include specific measures to facilitate the access of handicapped persons 
to training and work; 

18 % of the projects include specific measures to facilitate the access of women to training 
and work.” 

As  for  the  pilot  projects,  vocational  training  institutions  are  heavily  involved  in  language 
competence projects (in 29% of the projects as promoters, in 28% as partner). Universities are 
project promoters in 23% of the projects, and participate as partners in 23% of projects. SMEs 
act in 14% of the projects as project promoter and in 17% as partner organisation. 

4.3.2.  Assessment 

‘To  promote  language  and  cultural  competences  in  vocational  training’  is  highly 
relevant  in  the  European  context  and  in  relation  to  the  needs  of  the  target  groups. 
However, following the external evaluation it is less clear to what extent the measure and its 
definition and implementation in the context of the Leonardo da Vinci programme is adequate 
to meet these needs. The value and the goal of the measure do not seem to be understood by 
the  potential  project  promoters.  They  consider  ‘language  competence’  projects  as  pilot 
projects;  given  that  the  budget  available  to  this  measure  is  far  smaller  than  the  budget 
allocated to pilot projects, this measure is considered as less important, and proportionally far 
fewer proposals are submitted. This is reinforced by the attitude of the National Agencies that 
promote pilot projects much more intensively than ‘language competence’ projects. 

15 

 
 
  
 
As result, the minimum budgetary target set at 5% in the decision has not yet been reached. 
From  2000  to  2003,  this  measure  has  consumed  less  than  4%  of  the  overall  budget.  The 
external  evaluation  concludes  that  this  measure  has  reached  only  partially  its  operational 
objective over the first four years of the programme. 

The  external  evaluation  recommends  the  integration  of  the  measure  ‘language  competence’ 
into  ‘pilot  projects’  (“l’intégration  des  mesures  compétences  linguistiques  et  réseaux 
transnationaux  dans  la  mesure  projets  pilotes  est  proposée“,  external  evaluation,  p.58). 
However, it acknowledges at the same time that some further analysis might be required as 
the proposed solution was already implemented under the first phase of the Leonardo da Vinci 
programme and did not work any better then. 

A  separate,  external  evaluation11  on  the  impact  of  language  measures  in  the  Leonardo  and 
Socrates  programme  underlines  the  relevance  and  effectiveness  of  both  programmes,  in 
particular  in  creating  a  positive  attitude  to  language  learning  and  in  contributing  to 
better intercultural comprehension and greater openness. 

4.4. 

Trans-national networks 

This measure provides support for bringing together relevant players in the area of vocational 
education and training. These networks contribute to identifying and collecting, distilling and 
building on European expertise and innovative approaches to the analysis and anticipation of 
skills requirements and to disseminating the outputs and project results. 

4.4.1.  Facts and first results 

During  2000-2003,  45  trans-national  networks  were  supported,  representing  an  overall 
commitment of 13.1 M€. The average total cost of a trans-national network is of 585,000 € 
with  a  financial  contribution  per  project  of  290,000  €  (~  50%).  The  maximum  Community 
contribution for projects is 450,000 € (150.000 € per year for 3 years). The networks last in 
average  2.7  years  and  involve  around  720  organisations  (average/project:  16  organisations 
from 9 countries). According to the external evaluation, 

‘18%  of  the  projects  include  specific  measures  to  address  the  needs  of  people  at  a 
disadvantage 

18% of the projects include specific measures to facilitate the access of handicapped persons 
to training and work.’ 

22% of the members of the trans-national networks are vocational training institutions, 14% 
are universities, 11% are SMEs. 

The main activity of the networks concerns the exchange of experience and the strengthening 
of innovation in the field of vocational education and training in bringing together experts or 
organisations  specialised  in  one  specific  topic.  Another  important  aspect  concerns  the 
dissemination  of  project  results,  mainly  owned  by  the  members  of  the  network.  The  main 
direct targets in this dissemination work are SMEs and employers. 

11 

Evaluation of the extent to which the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes have achieved the 
programmes’ linguistic objectives, Deloitte & Touche, Final Report, December 2003 

16 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
4.4.2.  Assessment 

Trans-national  networks  are  relevant  and  address  a  clear  need  in  the  field  of  vocational 
education  and  training  in  Europe.  The  new  political  context  and  its  focus  on  reinforced 
European co-operation in the field make this instrument still more relevant. 

Unfortunately,  in  contrast  to  the  pilot  projects,  this  measure  does  not  seem  to  be  well 
understood by the target groups. This together with the lower rate of co-funding (max. 50%) 
seems  to  be  the  main  reason  why  only  a  small  number  of  good  applications  were  received. 
From 2000 to 2003, this measure consumed less than 2% of the overall budget. The external 
evaluation concludes that this measure only partially reaches its operational objective. 

The  specific  role  of  networks  needs  to  be  better  developed  and  explained.  In  particular 
networks’ complementarity to ‘normal’ projects and the possibilities of synergies and mutual 
enrichment between them have to be strengthened. 

4.5. 

Reference Material 

This measure aims at the development and updating of reference material through support for 
surveys and analyses, the establishment and updating of comparable data, the observation and 
dissemination of good practices and the comprehensive exchange of information. 

Projects under this measure should contribute to 

– 

– 

establishing  comparable  data  on  vocational  training  systems  and  arrangements, 
practices  and  various  approaches  to  qualifications  and  competences  in  the  Member 
States, or 

producing  quantitative  and/or  qualitative  information,  analyses  and  observing  best 
practice in support of policies and vocational training practices for lifelong learning 
that cannot be made available by Eurostat or CEDEFOP. 

4.5.1.  Facts and first results 

From  2000  to  2003,  46  trans-national  ‘reference  material’  projects  were  supported, 
representing an overall commitment of some 19 M€. The average total cost of a project is of 
520,000  €  with  a  financial  contribution  per  project  of  410,000  €  (~  79%).  The  maximum 
Community  contribution  for  projects  is  900.000  €  (300.000  €  per  year  for  3  years).  The 
reference material projects last in average 2.4 years and involve a total of 500 organisations. 
According to the external evaluation, 

‘33%  of  the  projects  concern  specific  measures  in  the  field  of  vocational  education  and 
training for people at a disadvantage 

33%  of  the  projects  concern  specific  measures  in  the  field  of  vocational  education  and 
training for handicapped persons 

11%  of  the  projects  concern  specific  measures  in  the  field  of  vocational  education  and 
training for women.’ 

Universities  or  Research  Centres  are  the  promoting  organisation  of  almost  2/3  of  the 
‘reference material’ projects. 

17 

 
 
  
 
4.5.2.  Assessment 

The  ‘Reference  material’  projects  address  a  well  identified  need  in  the  field  of  vocational 
education and training in Europe. Public and private decision-makers need to have access to 
comparable, quantitative and qualitative information about vocational training in Europe. 

A limited number of high quality ‘reference material’ proposals have been submitted during 
the  first  4  years.  From  2000  to  2003,  this  measure  consumed  less  than  3%  of  the  overall 
budget.  The  external  evaluation  concludes  that  this  measure  only  partially  reaches  its 
operational objective. 

The  “bottom-up”  approach  via  calls  for  proposals  did  not  work  as  expected.  The  large 
majority of reference projects submitted were based on qualitative approaches and only one 
project from 2000-2002 was based on a quantitative approach. 

Therefore  the  Commission,  in  close  co-ordination  with  the  Leonardo  da  Vinci  Committee, 
decided in 2002 to modify the approach, and to launch a number of calls for tenders to collect 
the required statistical data. First contracts under this scheme have been signed in 2003. 

4.6. 

Joint Actions 

This  measure  provides  support  for  joint  projects  with  other  Community  programmes  and 
initiatives  promoting  a Europe of knowledge, particularly with the Community  programmes 
in the fields of education and youth. 

Joint actions are managed at European level; they are steered via common calls for proposals 
for  selected  themes  of  interest  in  fields,  which  are  not  exclusively  covered  by  one  single 
programme.  The  themes,  the  annual  budget  and  the  proposed  list  of  selected  projects  in 
relation to joint actions are submitted to the respective committees for opinion. 

4.6.1.  Facts and first results 

So  far  three  common  calls  for  proposals  for  selected  themes,  involving  the  Youth,  Socrates 
and Leonardo da Vinci programmes, have been published: In total 37 joint projects have been 
supported,  representing  an  overall  budget  commitment  of  7.6  M€.  The  Leonardo  da  Vinci 
programme  provided  34  %  of  the  funds  (2.6  M€).  The  average  total  cost  of  a  project  is 
298,000  €  with  a  financial  contribution  per  project  of  205,000  €  (~  69%).  The  joint  action 
projects of 2001 last on average 16 months, the projects of 2002 and 2003 last 2 years; in total 
they involve for the three years some 300 organisations. 

4.6.2.  Assessment 

This  measure  provides  the  opportunity  for  the  Leonardo  da  Vinci  programme  to  launch  a 
number of projects on specific themes in co-operation with other Community programmes. So 
far  the  experience  has  been  limited  to  co-operation  projects  with  the  Youth  and  Socrates 
programmes. Such projects make it possible to bring together actors from different domains to 
work together on a topic that is of high relevance for each of them. These co-operations help 
to promote the approach of lifelong learning in a very concrete way. 

18 

 
 
  
 
However the implementation of this measure is cumbersome, due to the involvement of three 
programme committees, although a common sub-committee has been established to facilitate 
the work.  

5. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The 2003 external evaluation and the national reports reflect in general a very positive view of 
the 2nd phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme, and its implementation over the first four 
years.  They  identify  a  number  of  improvements  in  relation  to  the  programme’s  first  phase, 
however they also point to a some shortcomings, which impact negatively on the performance 
of the programme. 

5.1. 

Relevance 

External  evaluation  and  national  reports  agree  that  the  Leonardo  da  Vinci  programme  is  a 
highly relevant programme. The common view is that the programme is consistent with the 
recent  political  developments  and  initiatives  in  the  domain  of  vocational  education  and 
training,  and  addresses  the  needs  of  its  target  groups.  “In  general,  the  objectives  and 
priorities of the Leonardo da Vinci II programme appear to meet the main expectations and 
requirements  of  the  actual  promoters  and  beneficiaries  of  the  programme,  judging  by  the 
high  degree  of  satisfaction  noted  during  the  survey  which  we  carried  out  of  the  actual 
promoters  and  beneficiaries  of  the  programme,  and  the  views  expressed  by  the  national 
agencies.” (external evaluation) 

The external evaluation however questions the relevance of certain measures – defined in the 
Decision  -  for  being  properly  adapted  to  the  programme’s  objectives  and  priorities.  The 
‘mobility’ and ‘pilot project‘ measures with more than 80% of the budget during the first 4 
years  are  considered  as  highly  relevant  for  the  achievement  of  the  objectives.  The 
measures,  which  have  access  only  to  a  ‘small’  percentage  of  the  overall  budget,  are 
considered as less relevant in this context. 

5.2. 

Efficiency of the programme 

At  this  stage  of  the  programme,  when  only  a  small  number  of  projects  have  been  fully 
completed,  an  efficiency  assessment  can  mainly  be  made  in  relation  to  the  administration 
costs/effectiveness ratio of the programme. 

“This ratio appears to have improved significantly compared with the previous phase of the 
programme. “ (external evaluation) 

However it appears that the efficiency of the Leonardo programme can be further improved. 
In particular the absence of efficient tools for collecting information on an on-going basis, a 
number  of  rather  ‘heavy’  and  time  consuming  administrative  procedures  and  reporting 
mechanisms provide room for improvement. 

The Commission services are developing a new tool ‘Symmetry’, which should make it 
possible to resolve by 2005 a good number of the identified shortcomings and helping to 
stream-line the reporting and feedback mechanisms. Its implementation should start at 
the end of 2004. 

19 

 
 
  
 
5.3. 

Effectiveness of the programme 

The national reports and the external evaluation consider Leonardo da Vinci as an effective 
programme.  According  to  the  external  evaluation,  “Overall,  the  Leonardo  da  Vinci 
programme  is  quite  effective  and  has  improved  over  the  period  2000-2002,  although 
disparities exist depending on the objectives involved.” 

On an operational level, the effectiveness of the programme varies, depending on the measure 
concerned.  The  measures  that  use  the  major  part  of  the  budget  (almost  85%  -  mobility  and 
pilot  projects)  are  considered  highly  effective,  whereas  the  other  measures  with  much  less 
funding seem to be less effective. The external report underlines that accomplishment of all of 
the operational objectives between now and the end of the programme is possible. 

In view of the expected results of the programme (quality of projects) and its contributions to 
the  achievement  of  its  specific  objectives,  the  external  evaluation  considers  the  overall 
effectiveness as satisfactory. It expects that the projects will deliver quality results, not only 
because  the  quality  of  proposals  has  improved  but  also  because  of  the  close  follow-up  and 
monitoring  of  the  project  content  by  the  National  Agencies  and  the  thematic  monitoring 
activities that are co-ordinated by the Commission services. 

The  external  evaluation  concludes  that  “Most  importantly,  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the 
programme has improved in relation to the previous decade.” 

At this stage of the implementation of the programme, it is premature to measure the impact 
of  the  programme.  Nevertheless,  the  external  evaluation  and  the  national  reports  are 
optimistic vis-à-vis the ‘anticipated impact’ of the programme. 

The external evaluation states: “Thus, the Leonardo programme is perceived by all players 
concerned  as  a  programme  with  a  strong  value  added  component  in  terms  of  the 
development of Community-level co-operation in the area of vocational training”. 

20 

 
 
  
 
ANNEXES  

Annex 1: Overall Budget of the programme for the years 2000-2003 

Annex 2: Procedure A “Mobility” – 2000-2003 

Annex 3: Procedures B and C – years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 

21 

 
 
  
 
Annex 1 
Overall budget of the programme for the years 2000-2003 

Years 

Budgets in Mio € 

2000 – 
2003 

2000   

2001   

2002   

2003   

302,7 

69,4   

310,9 

69,7   

11,2   

0   

35,3 

2,6 

70,0 

Procedure A 

Procedure B 

Procedure C 

Joint Actions 

Accompanying Measures 
National agencies 
Transnational network of national 
vocational guidance resource centres 

Information, monitoring, evaluation and 
dissemination activities 

Others 

71,8   

74,9   

7,5   

0,6   

77,9   

81,2   

8,8   

0,9   

83,6   

85,1   

7,8   

1,1   

15,0   

15,7   

15,2   

24,1   

11,0  

1,5  

2,5  

11,3 

1,6 

2,8 

11,9  

1,7  

1,6  

21,4

0,8

1,5
0,4

Administrative expenditure 

22,4 

5,6   

5,5   

5,2   

6,1   

Total Budget 

738,3 

165,3   

176   

189,2   

207,8   

22 

 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2 
Procedure A “Mobility” 2000-2003 

Mobility budget by country in Mio € (all target 
groups) 

Österreich 
België/Belgique/B
elgien 
Deutschland 
Danmark 
España 
Greece/Ellas  
France 
Suomi/Finland 
Ireland  
Italia 
Luxembourg 
Nederland 
Portugal 
Sverige 
United Kingdom 
TOTAL EUR-15 
Ísland 
Liechtenstein 
Norge 
TOTAL EEE 
Balgarija 
Cyprus 
Ceská Republika 
Eesti/Estonia 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Magyarorzág 
Malta 
Polska 
România 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Total pre-
accession 
GRAND TOTAL 

2000 2001 2002  2003  TOT
AL 
6,4
7,3

1,6 
1,9 

1,7 
2,0 

1,5 
1,7 

1,5
1,7

11,5
1,0
6,8
2,1
8,1
1,2
1,3
9,0
0,4
2,4
2,0
1,5
7,4
57,8
0,3
0,1
0,9
1,3
1,2
 -
1,0
0,3
0,5
0,4
1,0
0,3
2,5
1,7
0,8
0,4
10,3

1,0 
7,1 
2,2 
8,5 
1,1 
0,9 
9,4  10,2 
0,4 
0,4 
2,7 
2,5 
2,2 
2,1 
1,7 
1,6 
8,5 
7,8 

12,0  13,1  14,2  50,8
4,3
1,2 
1,1 
8,4  30,1
7,8 
9,1
2,3 
2,5 
9,3  10,1  36,1
4,6
1,2 
1,2 
1,0  11,1  14,2
1,0  29,6
1,4
0,4 
3,0  10,6
8,7
2,4 
6,7
1,9 
9,2  32,8
59,7  65,0  70,3  252,7
1,4
0,4 
0,4
0,1 
3,9
1,1 
5,7
1,5 
5,2
1,4 
0,6
0,2 
4,4
1,2 
1,4
0,4 
2,3
0,6 
1,9
0,5 
4,4
1,2 
0,8
0,2 
2,8  10,6
7,4
2,0 
3,5
0,9 
1,7
0,4 
10,7  11,4  11,8  44,2

0,4 
0,1 
1,0 
1,5 
1,3 
0,2 
1,1 
0,4 
0,6 
0,5 
1,1 
0,2 
2,7 
1,9 
0,9 
0,4 

0,4 
0,1 
0,9 
1,4 
1,3 
0,2 
1,1 
0,3 
0,6 
0,5 
1,1 
0,2 
2,6 
1,8 
0,9 
0,4 

69,4

71,8  77,9  83,6  302,6

Selection 

Period of activities  Total budget (Mio 

year 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

TOTAL 

01/06/2000-
30/09/2002 
01/06/2001-
31/05/2003 
01/06/2002-
31/05/2004 
01/06/2003-
31/05/2005 
 - 

Euros) 

EUR-15

57,8

All 
Countries
69,4

Number 
of 
trainees

37.000

59,7

71,8

39.000

65,0

77,9

42.500

70,4

83,6

46.590

252,8

302,7 165.090

Breakdown by target group 

Initial Vocational training

Students 

Young workers, recent 
Graduates 
Exchange of trainers, 
tutors, 
etc . . .  
TOTAL 

Budget (Mio €)
Number of trainees
Budget (Mio €)
Number of trainees
Budget
Number of trainees
Budget (Mio €)

Number of trainees
Budget (Mio €)
Number of 
trainees

2000 

2001 

2002 

22,0
17.400
19,5
8.000
21,2
6.800
6,7

4.800
69,4
37.000

22,6
18.300
20,4
8.300
21,8
7.200
7,0

5.200
71,8
39.000

24,0
19.500
23,5
9.500
23,0
8.000
7,4

5.500
77,9
42.500

(*) estimated figures - some selections 2003 are not completed 

24,6

26,4

2003 (*)  TOTAL
95,0
22.296 77.496
88,0
9.209 35.009
91,0
8.627 30.627
28,7

25,0

7,6

% 
31%
47%
29%
21%
30%
19%
9%

6.458 21.958
302,7
46.590 165.090

83,6

13%
100%
100%

Number of trainees (all target groups) 

23 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3 
Procedures B and C – year 2000 
Number and budget of selected proposals per country and measure 

Procedure B+C 

Procedure B 

Procedure C  (without EUR projects)* 

Country 

Total 

total 

nb 
proj 

budget 

nb 
proj 

budget 

Pilot Projects (PP) 
nb 
proj 

budget 

Networks (NT) 

nb 
proj 

budget 

Language Comp. 
(LA) 

nb 
proj 

budget 

total 

Ref. Mat (RF) 

Them. Actions (TA) 

Country 

nb 
proj 

budget 

no 
proj 

budget 

no 
proj 

budget 

A 
B (nl) 
B (fr) 
B (de) 
D 
DK 
E 
EL 
F 
FIN 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
S 
UK 
EU-15 
ISL 
FL 
N  
EFTA/EEA 
BG 
CZ 
EE 
HU 
LT 
LV 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 
PAC 

Total 

9   
4   
3   
1   
26   
7   
20   
7   
21   
6   
22   
4   
3   
8   
8   
6   
21   

2.519.614   
1.241.105   
952.845   
533.277   
9.909.036   
1.478.546   
6.727.791   
2.598.226   
7.474.694   
2.571.932   
8.188.499   
1.473.304   
1.576.123   
2.786.186   
2.507.823   
1.863.205   
8.030.662   
176    62.432.868   
898.807   
380.000   
1.519.456   
2.798.263   
2.550.808   
1.969.447   
367.581   
2.059.102   
443.394   
391.747   
2.136.000   
1.909.412   
576.790   
354.015   
41    12.758.296   
0   
226    77.989.427   

2   
1   
6   
9   
7   
6   
1   
6   
2   
2   
6   
8   
1   
2   

0   

9 
4 
3 
1 
21 
7 
17 
6 
20 
5 
19 
4 
2 
7 
6 
6 
19 
156 
2 
1 
6 
9 
6 
6 
1 
6 
2 
2 
6 
8 
1 
2 
40 
0 
205 

2.519.614   
1.241.105   
952.845   
533.277   
7.555.557   
1.478.546   
5.867.811   
2.253.507   
7.032.672   
2.190.482   
6.868.641   
1.473.304   
1.137.636      
2.332.288   
1.951.438   
1.863.205   
7.486.252   
54.738.180   
898.807   
380.000   
1.519.456   
2.798.263   
1.944.784   
1.969.447   
367.581   
2.059.102   
443.394   
391.747   
2.136.000   
1.909.412   
576.790   
354.015   
12.152.272   

8 
2 
3 
1 
21 
6 
15 
6 
17 
5 
15 
4 

5 
5 
5 
15 
133 
1 
1 
5 
7 
3 
6 
1 
3 
2 
2 
6 
8 
1 
2 
34 

1 

     202.376    

2 

     721.026    

2 

     636.048    

1 
1 
1 
2 
10 
1 

     426.597    
     385.000       
     130.830       
      572.738    
3.074.615   
      361.878       

1 

361.878   

1 
2 

1 
1 

1 

2 

2 
1 

350.217   
540.802   

200.783   
275.738   

196.540   

561.096   

1.137.636   
409.825   

2 
13 

668.797   
4.341.434   

1 
1 
3 

197.145   
197.145   
1.104.661   

3 

990.074   

2.169.397      
700.303      
952.845      
533.277      
7.555.557      
1.277.763      
5.389.697   
2.253.507      
6.115.106   
2.190.482      
5.671.497   
1.473.304      

1.495.866   
1.566.438   
1.732.375   
6.244.717   
47.322.131   
536.929   
380.000      
1.322.311      
2.239.240   

840.123      
1.969.447      
367.581      
1.069.028      
443.394      
391.747      
2.136.000      
1.909.412      
576.790      
354.015      

10.057.537   

0 

0   

6 

2.094.735   

0      
0      
0      
0      

0      

0   
0   
0   
0   
5    2.353.479   
0   
859.980   
3   
344.719   
1   
442.022   
1   
1   
381.450   
3    1.319.858   
0   
1   
1   
2   
0   
2   

438.487   
453.898   
556.385   

544.410   
20    7.694.688   

0      

0      

3 
1 
1 
1 
2 

1 
1 
2 

2 
19 

5 

2.353.479      

859.980      
344.719      
442.022      
381.450      
872.132   

438.487      
453.898      
556.385      

544.410      

A 
B (nl) 
B (fr) 
B (de) 
D 
DK 
E 
EL 
F 
FIN 

1 

447.726    I 

IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
S 
UK 

7.246.962   

1 

447.726    EU-15 

0   
0   
0   
0   
1   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
1   
0   

0 

0   

0 
1 

0      
0      
0      
0   

606.024      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      

ISL 
FL 
N  

0    EFTA/EEA

606.024    BG 
CZ 
EE 
HU 
LT 
LV 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 

606.024   

0 

0   

1 

606.024    PAC 

0      

69.688.715   

174 

59.618.908   

11 

3.436.493   

20 

6.633.314   

21    8.300.712   

19 

7.246.962   

2 

1.053.750    Total 

* EUR = 9 projects; LdV grant: 2.883.281 € 

24 

 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3 
Procedures B and C – year 2001 
Number and budget of selected proposals per country and measure 

Procedure B+C 

Procedure B 

Procedure C  (without EUR projects)* 

Country 

total 

total 

nb 
proj 

budget 

nb 
proj 

budget 

Pilot Projects (PP) 
nb 
proj 

budget 

Networks (NT) 

nb 
proj 

budget 

Language Comp. 
(LA) 

nb 
proj 

budget 

total 

Ref. Mat (RF) 

Them. Actions (TA) 

Country 

nb 
proj 

budget 

no 
proj 

budget 

no 
proj 

budget 

A 
B (nl) 
B (fr) 
B (de) 
D 
DK 
E 
EL 
F 
FIN 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
S 
UK 
EU-15 
ISL 
FL 
N  
EFTA/EEA 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
EE 
HU 
LT 
LV 
MT 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 
PAC 

9   
4   
3   
0   

2.812.498   
1.418.612   
1.209.758   

0      

9 
4 
3 

2.812.498   
1.418.612   
1.209.758   

6 
4 
3 

1.893.439   
1.418.612      
1.209.758      

1 

    372.081   

2 

546.978   

1 

    387.941   

2 

867.892   

7   
19   
8   
22   
8   
29   
5   
3   
7   
10   
8   
23   

27    10.182.305   
1.525.984   
6.515.268   
3.451.871   
7.807.556   
2.290.719   
8.525.934   
1.601.000   
980.541   
2.444.695   
2.178.661   
2.143.882   
8.455.590   
192    63.544.874   
615.156   
0   
1.645.489   
2.260.645   
1.415.436   

2   
0   
4   
6   
4   

5   
2   
5   
4   
3   

1.620.094   
428.080   
1.511.222   
831.876   
619.972   

8   
6   
3   
4   

2.441.239   
1.939.347   
542.876   
1.016.609   
47    13.420.017   

26 
7 
19 
6 
21 
8 
26 
5 
3 
7 
10 
8 
21 
183 
2 
0 
4 
6 
4 
1 
5 
2 
5 
4 
3 
2 
8 
6 
3 
4 
47 

9.633.725   
1.525.984   
6.515.268   
2.200.033   
7.444.045   
2.290.719   
7.114.881   
1.601.000   
980.541   
2.444.695   
2.178.661   
2.143.882   
7.664.151   
59.178.453   
615.156   

0      

1.645.489   
2.260.645   
1.415.436   

314.001      

1.620.094   
428.080   
1.511.222   
831.876   
619.972   
739.265      

2.441.239   
1.939.347   
542.876   
1.016.609   
13.420.017   

23 
7 
18 
4 
19 
6 
24 
5 
3 
5 
8 
5 
18 
158 
2 

3 
5 
3 

3 
2 
5 
3 
3 

6 
6 
2 
3 
36 

8.377.892   
1.525.984      
6.108.933   
1.464.359   
7.046.496      
1.957.144   
6.701.787  
1.601.000      
980.541      

1.997.883   
1.803.545      
1.240.885   
6.632.272   
51.960.530   

615.156      

1.238.997   
1.854.153   
1.074.510      

1.152.241      
428.080      
1.511.222      
723.470      
619.972      

1.852.935      
1.939.347      
416.267      
836.609      

1 
1 

1 
1 

    406.335   
    331.002   

    142.330   
    179.906   

1 

      94.888   

2 
1 
10 

    623.030   
    254.865   
2.792.378   

1 
1 

    406.492   
406.492   

1 

    404.402   

10.554.653   

1 

404.402   

1 
2 
1 
1 

1 
2 
1 
2 
15 

0 
1 
1 
2 

1 

1 
2 

404.672   
397.549   
191.245   
233.188   

351.924   
375.116   
279.967   
777.014   
4.425.545   

0   
340.926   
314.001   
467.853   

108.406   

334.863   
588.304   

1 
1 
10 

126.609   
180.000   
2.460.962   

0      

548.580   

0      
0      

0      
0      
0      
0      

0      
0      
0      
0      
0      

0   
0   
0   
0   
1   
0   
0   
2    1.251.838   
1   
363.511   
0   
3    1.411.053   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
2   
791.439   
9    4.366.421   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   
0   

0      
0      
0  
0   
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0      
0   

1 

548.580      

A 
B (nl) 
B (fr) 
B (de) 
D 
DK 
E 

1 
1 

1 

2 
6 

0 

651.838   
363.511      

1 

600.000    EL 

F 
FIN 

374.717   

2 

1.036.336    I 

IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
S 
UK 

791.439      

2.730.085   

3 

1.636.336    EU-15 

ISL 
FL 
N  

0   

0 

0    EFTA/EEA

BG 

CZ 
EE 
HU 
LT 
LV 

PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 

0 

0   

0 

0    PAC 

Total 

245    79.225.536  

236 

74.859.115   

199 

64.369.336   

12 

3.603.272   

25 

6.886.507   

9    4.366.421   

6 

2.730.085   

3 

1.636.336    Total 

*EUR = 10 projects; LdV grant: 3.088.076€ 

25 

 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3 
Procedures B and C – year 2002 
Number and budget of selected proposals per country and measure 

Procedure B + C 

total 

nb 
project 

budget 

10    3.010.803   
4    1.520.073   
202.164   
1   
385.794   
1   
25    10.312.906   
6    1.533.118   
24    6.747.922   
10    3.962.232   
23    7.984.400   
9    2.750.626   
30    8.898.845   
7    2.485.868   
244.348   
1   
8    2.655.895   
10    2.263.726   
9    2.620.591   
25    10.289.758   
203    67.869.069   
632.733   
2   
1   
358.579   
4    1.586.584   
7    2.577.896   
9    2.205.966   

9    2.495.716   
2   
404.900   
6    1.681.999   
711.805   
4   
602.278   
3   

9    2.909.098   
7    2.472.303   
3   
885.943   
5    1.057.540   
61    16.732.436   

Country 

A 
B (nl) 
B (fr) 
B (de) 
D 
DK 
E 
EL 
FR 
FIN 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
PT 
S 
UK 
EUR15 
ISL 
FL 
N 
EFTA/EEA 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
EE 
HU 
LT 
LV 
MT 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 
PAC 

nb 
proj. 
9 
4 
1 
1 
24 
6 
24 
9 
21 
8 
27 
7 
1 
8 
9 
9 
22 

budget 
2.800.010 
1.520.073 
202.164 
385.794 
9.656.623 
1.533.118 
6.747.922 
3.553.360 
7.123.932 
2.350.626 
7.790.306 
2.485.868 
244.348 
2.655.895 
1.944.074 
2.620.591 
8.804.836 
190  62.419.540 
632.733 
358.579 
1.586.584 
2.577.896 
2.205.966 
650.775 
2.495.716 
404.900 
1.681.999 
711.805 
602.278 
654.113 
2.909.098 
1.963.778 
885.943 
1.057.540 
60  16.223.911 

2 
1 
4 
7 
9 
2 
9 
2 
6 
4 
3 
2 
9 
6 
3 
5 

Procedure B 

Procedure C (without EUR projects)* 

Total 

Pilot projects (PP) 

Networks (NT) 

Language 
competencies (LA) 

Total 

Reference material 
(RF) 

Thematic actions 
(TH) 

Country 

nb 
proj. 
7 
4 

budget 
2.182.997 
1.520.073 

nb 
proj. 
1 

budget 
306.499 

nb 
proj. 

1 

budget 
210.793 

nb 
proj. 

1 

budget 
210.793 

nb 
proj. 

budget 

   A 
   B (nl) 
   B (fr) 
   B (de) 

1 

656.283 

1 

656.283  D 

nb 
proj. 

1 

2 
1 
2 

1 
1 
2 
1 

909.342 
281.393 
434.683 

437.431 
221.537 
638.116 
335.134 

budget 
310.514 

202.164 

661.595 
253.548 
283.992 

248.769 

425.014 

688.486 
211.307 
309.579 

1 

2 
1 
1 

1 

2 

2 
1 
1 

13  3.594.968 

408.872 
1 
860.468 
2 
1 
400.000 
3  1.108.539 

408.872 
1 
561.890 
1 
1 
400.000 
3  1.108.539 

1 
2 
14 
1 

213.589 
918.075 
4.695.799 
340.481 

1 

319.652 

3  1.484.922 
13  5.449.529 

3  1.484.922 
10  4.175.016 

0 

0 

1 

340.481 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 
1 

730.988 
204.650 

1 

340.344 

1 

508.525 

1 

508.525 

0 

0 

5 

1.275.982 

1 

508.525 

1 

508.525 

0 

   DK 
   E 
   EL 
298.578  FR 
   FIN 
I 
IRL 

   L 
   NL 
319.652  PT 

   S 
   UK 

1 

1 

3  1.274.513  EUR15 

ISL 
   FL 
   N 
0  EFTA/EEA
   BG 
   CY 
   CZ 
   EE 
   HU 
   LT 
   LV 
   MT 
   PL 
   RO 
   SI 
   SK 
0  PAC 

1 
20 
4 
21 
9 
19 
7 
23 
6 
1 
6 
8 
7 
20 

385.794 
8.085.686 
998.177 
6.029.247 
3.553.360 
6.437.732 
2.129.089 
6.727.176 
2.150.734 
244.348 
1.967.409 
1.732.767 
2.097.423 
7.886.761 
163  54.128.773 
292.252 
358.579 
1.586.584 
2.237.415 
2.205.966 
650.775 
1.764.728 
200.250 
1.681.999 
711.805 
602.278 
654.113 
2.568.754 
1.963.778 
885.943 
1.057.540 
55  14.947.929 

1 
1 
4 
6 
9 
2 
6 
1 
6 
4 
3 
2 
8 
6 
3 
5 

Total 

271    87.179.401   

257  81.221.347 

224  71.314.117 

13  3.594.968 

20 

6.312.262 

14  5.958.054 

11  4.683.541 

3  1.274.513  Total 

* EUR = 9 projects (6 PP, 2 NT, 1 TH); budget: 2.783.637 euro 

26 

 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3 
Procedures B and C – year 2003 
Number and budget of selected proposals per country and measure 

Procedure B + C 

Total 

nb 
Projects 

budget 

12    4.233.619   
0   
0   
792.620   
3   
7    3.115.268   
27    10.548.227   
5    1.223.799   
23    8.228.516   
10    3.387.982   
18    6.076.021   
13    4.623.675   
8    2.808.524   
36    11.313.041   
686.826   
11    4.114.253   
12    3.537.691   
6    1.611.207   
23    8.733.599   
216    75.034.868   
3   
952.195   
0   
0   
5    1.978.839   
8    2.931.034   
9    2.202.438   

2   

7    1.631.288   
0   
0   
7    2.367.877   
653.856   
3   
819.761   
4   

6    1.983.531   
6    1.744.823   
744.249   
4   
367.144   
2   
50    13.194.467   

Country 

AT 
BE (de) 
BE (fr) 
BE (nl) 
DE 
DK 
ES 
FI 
FR 
GR 
IE 
IT 
LU 
NL 
PT 
SE 
UK 
EUR15 
IS 
FL 
NO 
EFTA/EEA 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
EE 
HU 
LT 
LV 
MT 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 
PAC 

Procedure B 

Procedure C (without EUR projects)* 

Total 

Pilot projects (PP) 

Networks (NT) 

nb 
proj. 
12 

LdV grant 

4.233.619 

nb 
proj. 
11 

LdV grant 

3.926.156 

nb 
proj. 

LdV grant 

Language 
competencies (LA) 

nb 
proj. 
1 

LdV grant 
307.463 

Total 

Reference material 
(RF) 

Thematic actions 
(TH) 

Country 

nb 
proj. 

LdV 
grant 

nb 
proj. 

LdV grant 

nb 
proj. 

LdV grant 

3 
6 
26 
5 
21 
9 
17 
12 
8 
34 
2 
10 
11 
6 
22 

792.620 
2.499.140 
10.292.860 
1.223.799 
7.593.314 
2.894.221 
5.479.691 
4.289.554 
2.808.524 
10.155.497 
686.826 
3.707.601 
3.233.683 
1.611.207 
8.318.843 
204  69.820.999,3 
952.195 

3 

2 
4 
24 
5 
20 
6 
15 
9 
7 
29 
2 
10 
10 
5 
22 

563.516 
1.739.844 
9.433.693 
1.223.799 
7.493.121 
1.872.042 
4.942.475 
3.205.809 
2.565.869 
8.818.127 
686.826 
3.707.601 
2.861.095 
1.390.603,5 
8.318.843 
181  62.749.419,9 
952.195 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 

2 

229.104 

439.859 

100.193 

376.783 
356.904 

575.159 

1 

220.603,5 

2 
1 

3 
1 
2 
1 
3 

1 

759.296 
419.308 

1.022.179 
160.433 
726.841 
242.655 
762.211 

372.588 

1 
1 

2 
1 
1 
1 

616.128 
255.367 

635.202 
493.761 
596.330 
334.121 

2 

1.157.544 

1 
1 

406.652 
304.008 

1 

2 
1 
1 

1 

1 

255.367 

635.202 
493.761 
596.330 

576.682 

406.652 

8  2.298.605,5 

15  4.772.973,8 

1 
12 

414.756 
5.213.869 

1 
414.756 
8  3.378.750 

5 
8 
9 
2 
7 

6 
3 
4 

5 
6 
4 
2 
48 

1.978.839 
2.931.034 
2.202.438 
679.500 
1.631.288 

1.778.307 
653.856 
819.761 

1.713.909 
1.744.823 
744.249 
367.144 
12.335.275 

5 
8 
8 
2 
6 

5 
2 
3 

3 
5 
4 
1 
39 

1.978.839 
2.931.034 
1.721.538 
679.500 
1.286.982 

1.595.120 
465.757 
569.320 

1.170.452 
1.527.114 
744.249 
231.169 
9.991.201 

0 

0 

1 

1 

217.709 

217.709 

0 
1 

1 

1 
1 
1 

2 

1 
8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

589.570 

1 

589.570 

0 
480.900 

344.306 

183.187 
188.099 
250.441 

543.457 

1 

269.622 

1 

269.622 

135.975 
2.126.365 

2 

859.192 

2 

859.192 

0 

   AT 
   BE (de) 
   BE (fr) 
616.128  BE (nl) 

   DE 
   DK 
   ES 
   FI 
   FR 
334.121  GR 

580.862 

IE 
IT 
   LU 
   NL 
304.008  PT 
   SE 
   UK 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4  1.835.119  EUR15 

IS 
   FL 
   NO 
0  EFTA/EEA 
   BG 
   CY 
   CZ 
   EE 
   HU 
   LT 
   LV 
   MT 
   PL 
   RO 
   SI 
   SK 
0  PAC 

Total 

274    91.160.369   

260  85.087.308,3 

228  75.671.654,9 

9  2.516.314,5 

23  6.899.338,8 

14 

6.073.061 

10  4.237.942 

4  1.835.119  Total 

* EUR = 1 project (RF); LdV grant: 538.928 euro 

  Call for tender under procedure C (RF) - statistical data : 1.245.792 euro 

27