Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning COM(2006) 479 final — 2006/0163 (COD)
Date: 2007-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: adult education, continuing education, continuing vocational training, education policy, recognition of vocational training qualifications

C 175/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.7.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Recommendation
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Qualifications
Framework for lifelong learning’

COM(2006) 479 final — 2006/0163 (COD)

(2007/C 175/18)

On 19 October 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 May 2007. The rapporteur was
Mr Rodríguez García-Caro.

At its 436th plenary session, held on 30 and 31 May 2007 (meeting of 30 May 2007), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 156 votes to 1 with 1 abstention.

1. Conclusions

1.1
The Committee believes that there is a need for the
proposal establishing a European Qualifications Framework,
given that adequate transparency of qualifications and compe-
tences boosts mobility within the EU and ensures standardised,
widespread access to the European labour market by enabling
certificates obtained in one Member State to be used in another.
However, the Committee has identified and set down herein a
number of problems in the proposed model which could hinder
its implementation.

The EESC notes that the legal form chosen for the propo-
1.2
sal's adoption is the recommendation which, as set out
in
Article 249 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community,
is not legally binding.

1.3
The EESC believes that greater clarity and simplicity are
needed in the model's descriptors, especially where professional
qualifications are concerned, in order to make them easier to
understand by the general public, businesses and experts;
in
addition, there should be an annex giving Member States a refe-
rence on which to base their National Qualifications Frame-
works,
the reference
system to be set up.

thus ensuring consistency throughout

2. Introduction

should encourage cooperation and build bridges between
formal, non-formal and informal learning. This was seen as a
lifelong
prerequisite for the creation of a European area of
learning, building on the achievements of the Bologna process
in higher education, with the aim of making European educa-
tion and training systems a worldwide benchmark for quality by
2010.

2.3
invited
In the same year, the Seville European Council
the Commission to develop a framework for the recognition of
education and training qualifications, in close cooperation with
the Council and Member States.

The Council and Commission's interim report of 2004
2.4
on the implementation of the Education and Training 2010
programme stressed the need to set up a European qualifications
framework. The Copenhagen Council, held in autumn 2004,
also stressed the need to prioritise the development of an open
and flexible European qualifications framework, based on trans-
parency and mutual recognition, that would become a common
standard for education and training.

2.5
The conference of higher education ministers held in
Bergen in spring 2005, during which a European higher educa-
tion qualifications framework was adopted, highlighted the
importance of protecting the complementarity between the
European Higher Education Area and the European Qualifica-
tions Framework.

2.1
The proposal forming the subject of the EESC's opinion
meets one of the objectives set by the Lisbon European Council
in 2000, during which it was concluded that by improving the
transparency of qualifications and fostering lifelong learning, it
would be possible to adapt European education and training
systems in order to reach the targets set by the Council in terms
of competitiveness, growth, employment and social cohesion in
Europe.

In the context of the review of the Lisbon Strategy, the
2.6
for 2005-8 stressed the need to
employment guidelines
guarantee access to flexible learning,
increasing opportunities
for the mobility of trainees and students, improving the trans-
parency of qualifications and the validation of non-formal
learning throughout Europe.

2.2
European Council, which resolved

This conclusion was recognised in 2002 by the Barcelona
States

that Member

2.7
The European Council of March 2005 called for the
adoption of a European Qualifications Framework in 2006. This
resolution was ratified at the European Council of March 2006.

27.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/75

2.8
This proposal and, particularly, the descriptors defining
the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), were drawn up
on the basis of: a methodical consultation process led by the
Commission with the cooperation of the European Centre for
the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) and the
Bologna Process Follow-up Group;
the working document
Towards a European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (1),
to which contributed the 32 countries involved in the Education
and Training 2010 programme, the social partners, sectoral
organisations, educational bodies and NGOs; the discussions at
the Budapest Conference held in February 2006; and the work
carried out by the groups of experts and consultants assisting
the Commission.

2.9
After carrying out an impact assessment of the possible
forms that the EQF proposal could take, it was decided to opt
for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the
Council.

At

the

the European
end of September 2006,
2.10
Parliament approved a report on the creation of the European
Qualifications Framework (2).

3. Summary of the proposal

3.1
The proposal for a recommendation contains a reference
tool that will make it possible to compare the qualification
levels of the different national qualification systems. It is based
on a series of eight reference levels which are described in terms
of
learning outcomes, covering general and adult education,
vocational education and training and higher education. The
proposal comprises the text of the recommendation, a series of
definitions and two annexes (one setting out the descriptors for
defining the levels of the EQF, and the other covering the princi-
ples for quality assurance in education and training).

The European Parliament and the Council recommend

3.2
that the Member States:

— use the EQF as a reference tool for comparing qualification

levels;

— align their national qualification systems with the EQF by

2009 and develop national qualification frameworks;

— ensure that, by 2011, all new qualifications and Europass
documents include a reference to the corresponding EQF
level;

— adopt an approach based on learning outcomes when

describing and defining qualifications;

— promote the validation of non-formal and informal learning;

(1) SEC(2005) 957.
(2) A6-0248/2006. Rapporteur: Mr Mann.

— designate a national centre for supporting and coordinating
the national qualification system with the EQF, in order to:

— correlate the levels of both systems;

— promote and apply quality assurance principles during

the correlation process;

— ensure the transparency of the methodology applied in

order to establish correspondences between levels;

— guide interested parties and ensure their participation.

The European Parliament and the Council support the

3.3
Commission's intention to:

— assist the Member States and international sectoral organisa-
tions in using the reference levels and principles of the EQF;

— set up an advisory group for the EQF in order to supervise,
coordinate and ensure the quality and consistency of the
correlation process between the qualification systems and
the EQF;

— oversee the measures adopted and inform, within five years,
the European Parliament and the Council on the experience
gained and future repercussions.

The eight reference levels are described in Annex I,
3.4
according to the individual
learning outcome, based on what
the person knows, understands and is able to do. These aspects
are expressed in the level descriptors in terms of knowledge,
skills and competence.

4. General comments

4.1
The Committee welcomes the proposal for a recommen-
dation submitted for its opinion, subject to the observations
made herein. The Committee believes that adequate transpar-
ency of qualifications and competences boosts mobility within
the EU and ensures standardised, widespread access to the
European labour market by enabling certificates obtained in one
Member State to be used in another.

4.2
In the conclusions of its Opinion (3) on the Proposal for
a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the recognition of professional qualifications (4), the European
Economic and Social Committee supported the creation of a
joint platform for the recognition of all qualifications: i.e. higher
education, vocational education and training, and non-formal
the
and informal
that
European Qualifications Framework is an important
step
forward in the recognition and transparency of qualifications.

learning. The Committee considers

(3) See the EESC Opinion of 18.9.2002 on ‘Recognition of professional

qualifications’, rapporteur: Mr Ehnmark, (OJ C 61, 14.3.2003).

(4) COM(2002) 119 final.

C 175/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.7.2007

4.3
As it is based on learning outcomes, the EQF should
help to bring education and training closer into line with the
needs of the labour market, which would also make it easier to
in
validate non-formal and informal
turn, the transfer and use of qualifications between different
countries and education or training systems.
In the EESC's
opinion, these are the most important benefits of the initiative,
together with the influence that the reference levels will have on
employment.

learning and encourage,

The European Qualifications Framework should cater for
4.4
the requirements of individual learning: validation of knowledge,
skills and their
integration, employability, and the
development and use of human resources. Validation of the
non-formal and informal education of European workers should
be one of the priorities driving the European Qualifications
Framework.

social

The Committee believes that the EQF will help to make
4.5
European education and training systems clearer and more
accessible for citizens in general. The EU's workers and their
potential employers need a reference framework that enables
them to compare the qualifications obtained by a person in one
or more Member States with the reference qualifications in the
Member States to which the person wishes to relocate in order
to work. The Committee therefore welcomes the effect that the
proposal will have in overcoming the obstacles to transnational
mobility. The European Qualifications Framework should build
bridges between training systems, facilitating mobility between
vocational
training and general education (including higher
education).

As

regards

appreciates

the legal
the

form given to the EQF,
carried out by
analysis
impact assessment (5), and notes

the
4.6
the
Committee
Commission in its
that
successive recommendations in the field of education, training
and mobility have been supported to a greater or lesser extent
by the Member States. However, the Committee believes that the
recommendation, as a non-binding act and therefore without
legal obligation for the addressees, might prove to be a short-
term instrument which would not enable its objective to be met
in the medium term, particularly if the reference must be estab-
lished with a hypothetical National Qualifications Framework
(NQF) from each Member State.

Furthermore,

4.7
in this context, and in line with the
outcome of the Budapest Conference of February 2006, five EU
countries have already established a National Qualifications
Framework and the rest are either developing one or have
expressed their intention to do so, or are not going to develop a
National Qualifications Framework in their country.

This initial approach means that,

in the Committee's
4.8
opinion,
there could be great difficulties in completing the
project and that, without a National Qualifications Framework,
the EQF lacks content. As the Commission says in its document

Towards a European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (6),
‘from the point of view of an EQF, the optimal approach would
be that each country set up a single National Framework of
Qualifications and link this single National Framework to the
EQF’.

sectors,

4.9
The Committee believes that priority should be given to
the effective validation and recognition of the various types of
qualifications resulting from formal, non-formal and informal
through
learning across countries and educational
increased transparency and better quality assurance. This
reiterates the point made by the Council
in its resolution of
27 June 2002 on lifelong learning (7). It should also be recalled
that in this resolution, the Council calls upon the Commission
to develop a framework for recognising qualifications within the
context of higher education and vocational
training. The
Committee therefore stresses, taking this new argument into
account, that the efforts to complete the eight reference levels of
the EQF cannot be left until the end of the process, and subject
to the will of the Member States — or,
indeed, to the legal
approach of a recommendation.

4.10
The EESC believes that the Commission should clarify
the repercussions for the process in the event that one or more
Member States should fail to adopt a National Qualifications
Framework or to link it with the EQF. With this in mind, the
Committee believes that the Commission should analyse this
eventuality and its possible solutions in order to remain able,
subsequently,
to respond to unforeseen situations. The final
document must provide an incentive for Member States to
adopt this instrument.

4.11
The EESC is not calling for the creation of a uniform
education and training system within the EU, nor is claiming to
tell Member States what qualifications their education centres
should dispense. What the Committee wishes to convey is the
need to consolidate the steps being taken in the search for trans-
parency, recognition and transfer of qualifications between the
Member States. Sophisticated mechanisms also need to be put
in place for guaranteeing quality — in particular the quality of
this
certification bodies — at Member State level. Without
framework for
little
action,
meaning, and worker mobility is hindered.

student/trainee mobility has

At national and regional level, decisions relating to the National
Qualifications Framework should be adopted jointly with the
social partners. These partners, with the authorities responsible,
should define and apply principles, rules and objectives for the
design of the National Qualifications Framework. Consideration
should also be given to the role of civil society organisations
working in this field.

(5) COM(2006) 479 final.

(6) SEC(2005) 957.
(7) OJ C 163/1 of 9.7.2002.

27.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/77

The proposal provides for the creation of an EQF advi-
4.12
sory group responsible
coordinating and
for overseeing,
ensuring the quality and consistency of the process to correlate
qualification systems and the EQF. In this regard, and with the
aim of ensuring uniform criteria in the correlation of national
systems and the EQF, the Committee believes that the advisory
group, given the profile of the proposed members, should also
be responsible for validating the correlation between national
levels and the reference framework, before this correlation is set
in stone.

5. Specific comments

At the end of page 9 of

5.1
the
proposal, a reference is made to the 25 EU Member States.
Following the last enlargement,
reference should be
amended to 27 Member States.

the English version of

this

The Committee believes that the deadlines referred to in
5.2
the recommendation to Member States, particularly under point
2, are too early, given the situation regarding the National Quali-
fications Frameworks in the Member States. The Committee
understands that the deadline is voluntary but notes that, given
the current state of affairs, the timeframe is likely to be longer.

The tasks entrusted to the Commission by the proposal
5.3
include, under point 3,
that of monitoring the measures
adopted and informing the European Parliament and Council of
the experience gained,
the
recommendation. The Committee considers that to comply fully
with Articles 149(4) and 150(4) of the Treaty establishing the
European Community, the report should also be addressed to
the European Economic and Social Committee.

including a potential

review of

levels,

5.4 With regard to the descriptors set out in Annex I of the
proposal, as these criteria are to be used to establish the correla-
tion of
they should be
the Committee believes that
worded more simply, so as to make them more understandable,
clear and concrete, using language that is less academic and
closer
training. The annex
containing the descriptors could also be accompanied by a
second, explanatory annex, which would make it possible to
match qualifications to levels, thus making it easier to later
transpose these qualifications on a comparative basis between
Member States.

to the language of vocational

5.5
Clear definitions make it easier to understand the mean-
ings of terms used in the document under consideration. In this
context, the Committee believes that some of the definitions
contained in the Commission document Towards a European
Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (8) are clearer than
those in the proposal under discussion. More specifically, for
instance, the Committee proposes that the definition of ‘skills’
be replaced by that given on page 47 of the abovementioned
document.

5.6
The Committee supports the correspondence established
between the last three levels of the EQF and the academic levels
of the Bologna qualifications framework (bachelor, master and
doctor). During these phases of education, the knowledge, skills
and competences acquired should be classified according to the
level of learning attained in the university studies undertaken.

The Committee agrees that it is necessary to continue
5.7
applying quality criteria at all levels of education and training in
the Member States. It has reiterated this point on several occa-
sions, both in its Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Recom-
mendation on European cooperation in quality assurance in
higher education (9), and in its Opinion on the Proposal for a
Recommendation of
the European
Parliament on further European cooperation in quality assurance
in higher education (10). More specifically, in the latter opinion,
the Committee stated that ‘[t]he requirement for high quality
education and training is vitally important for achieving the
Lisbon Strategy objectives.’

the Council

and of

5.8
The Committee endorses the content of Annex II of the
proposal in its entirety. However, in order to adapt to current
trends in the area of quality, in all fields, it believes that Annex II
should be entitled ‘Principles for the ongoing quality improve-
ment in education and training’, bringing the text of the annex
into line with this title.

5.9
The Committee recommends that Member States, their
education and training centres and the social partners work
with the model set up by the European Foundation for Quality
Management (EFQM). This accredited model, supported by the
EU, could be the frame of reference on which educational
establishments
improvement
processes.

ongoing

quality

their

base

Brussels, 30 May 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(8) SEC(2005) 957.
(9) See the EESC Opinion of 29.10.1997 on ‘European cooperation in
quality assurance in higher education’, rapporteur: Mr Rodríguez
García-Caro (OJ C 19, 21.1.1998).

(10) See the EESC Opinion of 6.4.2005 on ‘Quality assurance in higher

education’, rapporteur: Mr Soares (OJ C 255, 14.10.2005).