Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment - Impact assessment {COM(2008) 566 final} {SEC(2008) 2443} {SEC(2008) 2445} This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission
Date: 2008-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union, competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, economic development, globalisation, impact study, language teaching, multilingualism

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2444 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the  

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and  
a shared commitment  

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 566 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2443} 
{SEC(2008) 2445} 

This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does 
not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 4 

Modifications following the Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.................................... 8 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES. 10 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................. 10 

Consultation process .................................................................................................. 11 

1.2.1.  Consultation of Member States.................................................................................. 11 

1.2.2.  Expert Group.............................................................................................................. 12 

1.2.3.  Consultation of other European Institutions .............................................................. 12 

1.2.4.  Consultation of stakeholders and European Citizens................................................. 13 

1.2.5.  Consultation within the Commission ......................................................................... 13 

1.2.6.  External expertise....................................................................................................... 13 

1.2.7.  Main conclusions of the consultation process............................................................ 14 

2. 

DEFINING THE PROBLEM – WHAT ISSUE/PROBLEM IS THE PROPOSAL 
SUPPOSED TO TACKLE?....................................................................................... 16 

2.1.  What is the issue or problem that may require action? .............................................. 16 

2.1.1.  Europeans have not yet acquired skills in mother tongue plus two other languages. 16 

2.1.2.  European citizens, companies and service providers are not fully aware of linguistic 

diversity in Europe, its challenges and its advantages. .............................................. 18 

2.2.  What are the underlying drivers of the Problems?..................................................... 18 

2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent.................................................... 19 

2.4. 

2.5. 

3. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal............................................. 21 

Subsidiarity and proportionality................................................................................. 22 

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 22 

3.1.  What are the general policy objectives?..................................................................... 22 

3.2.  What are the more specific/Operational objectives?.................................................. 23 

4. 

4.1. 

WHAT ARE THE MAIN OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO ACHIEVE THE 
OBJECTIVES? .......................................................................................................... 23 

Option 1: no action with Member States, no strategic use of EU programmes 
(mainstreaming) ......................................................................................................... 23 

4.2. 

Option 2: Use regulatory instruments ........................................................................ 24 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4.3. 

Option 3: Use of the Open Method of Coordination: issuing a Commission 
Communication setting the ground for cooperation with Member States and have it 
endorsed by the other European Institutions. Mainstream multilingualism in current 
EU programmes and initiatives.................................................................................. 24 

4.4.  Which options have been discarded at an early stage and why?................................ 26 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

ANALYSIS OF THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE OPTIONS
.................................................................................................................................... 26 

Advantages and disadvantages of Option 1: no action .............................................. 26 

Advantages and disadvantages of Option 2: Use regulatory instruments.................. 27 

Advantages and disadvantages of Option 3: Use the Open Method of Coordination: 
issuing a Commission Communication to lay the ground for cooperation with 
Member States and have it endorsed by the other European Institutions .................. 27 

5.3.1.  Sub-option 1 (national languages / migrant, minority languages) ............................. 28 

5.3.2.  Sub-option 2 (linguistic diversity and its link to active citizenship and prosperity).. 29 

5.3.3.  Sub-option 3 (the external dimension of multilingualism) ........................................ 29 

6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS ................................................................................. 30 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 32 

Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 32 

Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 33 

ANNEX.................................................................................................................................... 34 

Interservice Group on Multilingualism .................................................................................... 34 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Impact Assessment Report presents the state of play in relation to multilingualism policy 
and proposes to reinforce action in this field. It accompanies the proposal for the Commission 
Communication  “Multilingualism:  an  asset  for  Europe  and  a  shared  commitment” 
(n°2008/EAC/004 in the Agenda Planning).  

Linguistic  diversity  is  a  key  long-term  feature  of  the  European  Union,  whose  500  million 
citizens  speak  23  different  official  languages  along  with  60  other  languages  spoken  only  in 
specific  regions  or  by  specific  groups,  not  to  mention  the  over  300  different  languages  that 
our  immigrants  bring  with  them.  It  is  estimated  that  currently  citizens  from  at  least  175 
nationalities are living within the boundaries of the European Union. Migration flows added 
to  the  already  existing  patchwork  of  national  minorities  and  cultural.  In  such  a  context, 
interaction between speakers of different languages has increased steadily over recent years, 
because  of  increasing  intra-European  mobility;  migration  flows  from  third  countries  and 
globalisation.  This  trend  is  likely  to  continue  and  to  further  increase  in  the  years  to  come. 
Against this background, the two problems highlighted in this Impact Assessment are:1 

(1) 

(2) 

Knowledge of foreign languages remains insufficient. Europeans have not yet acquired 
skills  in  two  additional  languages  to  their  mother  tongue,  as  called  for  by  the 
Barcelona Council; 

European  citizens,  companies  and  service  providers  are  not  fully  aware  of  assets  as 
well as of challenges of linguistic diversity in Europe.  

The  problem  definition  is  supported  by  data  and  feedback  received  during  the  follow-up  of 
two previous Communications on multilingualism2 (2007) and the 9 month-long consultation 
process (2007-2008). 

Previous  Communications  on  multilingualism  and  language  diversity  set  out  an  agenda  of 
actions up to 2006-2007, and called for a review and possible further action. The assessment 
of  progress  and  implementation  carried  out  in  2007  shows  that  while  there  is  evidence  of 
progress  (particularly 
in  primary  and  secondary  education), 
implementation needs to continue and should be reinforced in a lifelong learning perspective, 
with much attention given to informal language learning and linguistic diversity in the local 
environment.  

language 

learning 

in 

As  for  the  consultation  process,  Member  States,  European  institutions  and  stakeholders 
shared the following views:  

On the scope of multilingualism policy:  

1 

2 

Institutional  multilingualism  (i.e.  languages  used  by  the  European  Commission  to  communicate 
internally  and  with  the  citizen:  publications  /  translation  /  interpretation)  is  out  of  the  scope  of  this 
Impact  Assessment  and  related  policy  initiatives.  Although  institutional  multilingualism  deals  with 
languages, it has different problems, objectives and options and decision was taken not to tackle them 
together 
COM(2003) 449 final, COM(2005) 596 final, COM(2007) 554 final/2 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Linguistic and cultural diversity is perceived as a long-term feature of European 
society:  most  people  value  it  while  acknowledging  the  need  to  manage  it  in  an 
effective and prudent way. Shifting to a single language is not an option for  the 
majority of respondents.  

•  A  language  policy  promoting  only  the  learning  of  EU  official  languages  is  too 
limited  for  present-day  society,  where  citizens  (and  residents)  speaking  many 
different languages are in daily contact.  

•  Language learning should be placed in a lifelong perspective. 

•  Multilingualism is a transversal issue that has an impact on competitiveness and 
European  citizenship  and  which  should  be  mainstreamed  in  a  range  of  policies 
going beyond the field of education. 

•  Promoting linguistic diversity should not aim at preserving languages as an end in 
itself,  on  the  contrary,  it  should  emphasise  dialogue  between  languages  and 
communities.  

•  Every citizen needs a different set of language skills, which depend on individual 

interests and where one lives, as well as family and professional background. 

On Methods: 

•  Member  States  and  the  Commission  should  develop  a  language  policy  which 
favours  linguistic  diversity  and  promotes  a  language  friendly  environment, 
through  widening  the  range  of  languages  taught,  valuing  and  maintaining  the 
language skills of their citizens, and motivating them to learn more.  

•  Lifelong language learning is key to acquiring language skills: start early, sustain 
motivation  through  schooling  and  initial  training,  and  go  on  learning  languages 
throughout adult life. 

•  Informal  language  learning  should  be  better  exploited,  by  increasing  access  to 
multimedia,  virtual  or  physical  mobility  and  cultural  exchanges.  Learning 
languages in this way is effective allowing people to learn when, where and how 
they  like  and  enabling  people  from  different  backgrounds  to  communicate,  to 
discover and compare different mindsets. 

•  Local communities, service providers and companies should take into account that 
they  often  serve  citizens  and  customers  who  speak  different  languages  and  they 
should develop strategies to cater for their language needs. 

The added value of the new Communication will be: 

•  to sustain the efforts towards mother tongue plus two by giving clearer indications on areas 
and target  groups lagging  behind (students in vocational trainings, low-skilled adults and 
migrants) and less tackled by the previous Communications 

•  to  anchor  multilingualism  in  the  wider  context  of  “Growth  and  Jobs  process”  by  raising 
awareness on the assets of linguistic diversity and on their effects on intercultural dialogue. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
In this context multilingualism is also emerging as a component of EU external policies, as 
recently highlighted by the Euromed Culture Summit.3. 

•  to  mainstream  multilingualism  in  relevant  policies  at  European  level  and  work  in 
partnership with Member States and stakeholders to ensure that objectives are shared and 
met at the most appropriate level 

Consequently the two general objectives of multilingualism policy are: 

(1) 

(2) 

to enable citizens to be fluent in two languages in addition to their mother tongue (in 
short: "mother tongue-plus-two") 

to  raise  awareness  of  the  linguistic  diversity  of  European  society  and  turn  it  into  an 
asset for intercultural dialogue and competitiveness.  

Coming  to  implementation,  the  first  operational  objective  will  be  to  ensure  that 
multilingualism  is  consistently  promoted  across  the  above-mentioned  European  policies, 
using  a  mainstreaming  approach  and  making  the  best  use  of  financial  support  available 
under existing European programmes. According to the subsidiarity principle, Member States 
are key decision-makers on these matters, while several stakeholders (educational providers, 
social  partners,  the  media,  local  authorities,  etc.)  are  essential  to  implementation.  Therefore 
the second operational objective will be to work in partnership with Member States and 
stakeholders  and  support  them  in  achieving  the  common  objectives  and  adopting  a 
mainstreaming approach at their level.  

Different options have been taken into consideration to achieve the objectives:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

No  further  action  with  Member  States  and  no  strategic  use  of  EU  programmes 
(mainstreaming) 

Use of regulatory instruments (a Recommendation) 

Use  of  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination:  issuing  a  Commission  Communication 
paving  the  way  for  cooperation  with  Member  States  and  having  it  endorsed  by  the 
in  current  EU 
Institutions.  Mainstreaming  multilingualism 
other  European 
programmes and initiatives. 

DG Education and Culture, in comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the above options, 
has elected to propose option 3, which would enable the Commission – with the co-operation 
of  the  Member  States  and  the  stakeholders  –  to  address  the  identified  challenges  to 
multilingualism  and  find  appropriate  solutions.  This  option,  which  also  corresponds  most 
closely  to  Member  States’  and  stakeholders’  expectations,  complies  with  the  subsidiarity 
principle,  and  would  provide  the  best  basis  for  raising  awareness  of  the  challenges  and 
problems and achieving real progress towards their solution. 

3 

Agreed Conclusions of the third Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Culture Athens, 29 – 
30 May 2008, ; Presidency Declaration at the Conference New Paradigms, New Models — Culture in 
the EU External Relations, Ljubljana, 13 -14 May 
http://www.mzz.gov.si/si/zunanja_politika/kulturno_sodelovanje/nove_paradigme_novi_modeli_kultur
a_v_zunanjih_odnosih_eu/.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
As for the way multilingualism should be promoted by Commission policies and programmes, 
the  option  of  an  expenditure  programme  for  multilingualism  was  discarded  because 
multilingualism is a transversal objective of very different policies (education, culture, media, 
employment, social inclusion, research...) and supporting them outside their natural contexts 
does not seem to be either appropriate or effective. Therefore the approach of mainstreaming 
multilingualism  in  relevant  Commission  policies  and  programmes  seemed  a  viable  answer. 
Chief  among  these  programmes  are:  all  strands  of  the  Lifelong  Learning  Programme, 
language  training  support  given  through  structural  funds,  language  integration  courses  for 
immigrants  supported  by  JLS,  Youth  in  Action,  Citizens  for  Europe,  Literary  translations 
supported  by  the  Culture  programme,  Media  programme,  Research  Programme  and 
Information technology. 

In  the  light  of  observations  made  and  considering  the  limited  scope  for  direct  action  of  the 
Commission, these are the economic and social impacts the chosen option is likely to have, 
depending on the determination with which Member States and stakeholders will implement 
the recommended strategy: 

•  Economic  impacts:  through  the  impact  of  language  skills  on  citizens'  employability  and 
competitiveness,  the  new  strategy  defined  in  the  Communication  is  likely  to  have  a 
positive  impact  on  international  trade  and  cross-border  investments;  technological 
development  and  innovation;  the  number  and  quality  of  jobs;  third  country  and  overseas 
relations. 

•  Social impacts: the strategy is likely to have a positive impact on social inclusion, as well 
as  governance  and  participation  since  language  skills  are  a  prerequisite  for  intercultural 
dialogue. 

As  for  costs:  at  Commission  level  the  implementation  of  the  actions  recommended  in  the 
Communication will not entail a budget increase. It is aimed at making more effective use of 
existing programmes to promote multilingualism, notably by ensuring: 

•  a  more  consistent  approach  (i.e.  pass  on  a  consistent  message  in  support  of  linguistic 

diversity, give attention to language issues in projects and initiatives) 

•  more  synergy  between  Member  States  (i.e.  support  them  to  achieve  shared  objectives, 

through Commission initiatives and the exchange of good practices).  

As  for  Member  States,  the  Communication,  in  line  with  the  already  agreed  EU  objectives 
such  as  the  Barcelona  target  of  "mother  tongue  plus  two"  will  recommend  general  and 
operational  objectives  and  suggest  ways  of  achieving  them,  while  the  implementation  will 
remain  the  competence  of  the  Member  States.  A  general  principle  to  be  conveyed  by  the 
Commission  Communication  will  be  to  recommend  that  action  is  taken  close  to  citizens, 
taking into account local language needs and pooling the resources of business, civil society 
and local authorities so as to use them in the most effective way. 

Concerning monitoring, the already existing Inter-service Group on Multilingualism could be 
used  to  ensure  a  coordinated  approach  with  the  Commission  and  to  mainstream 
multilingualism  in  relevant  European  programmes  and  initiatives,  through  interventions  at 
programme  level  (thematic  priorities,  budget  for  linguistic  preparation  and  linguistic 
activities, adequate monitoring, etc.). Follow-up with Member States will be ensured through 
a Working Group of High Representatives of Member States, based on the existing Working 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Group on Languages. To maintain focus on multilingualism policy and to ensure a periodic 
review of its progress, the Commission will recommend that the European institutions devote 
an annual slot in their agenda to its discussion. In the case of the Council, it will suggest the 
inclusion of multilingualism in the rolling agenda of the Education Council.  

The  Commission  will  regularly  update  available  indicators  and  consider  the  possibility  of 
funding  surveys  of  less  charted  areas  (like  business  and  service  providers).  As  far  as 
mainstreaming  is  concerned,  the  Commission  should  ensure  that  language  issues  are 
adequately  taken  into  account  while  evaluating  relevant  EU  programmes  and  policies.  The 
Commission will encourage Member States and stakeholders to include language as an issue 
in  the  evaluation  of  policies  and  strategies  at  their  level.  The  Commission  will  carry  out  a 
global review of progress in 2012 and report to the European Parliament and the Council on 
the experience gained. To this end, Member States will be invited to report on their progress 
by end 2011. 

MODIFICATIONS FOLLOWING THE OPINION OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT BOARD  

Following the opinion of the impact assessment board some changes have been made to the 
impact assessment.  

In particular the analysis of the root causes behind the problem drivers has been expanded. 
Insufficient  awareness  of  the  importance  of  language  skills  seems  to  be  the  main  driver 
behind the patchy implementation of Mother-tongue-plus-two in a number of Member States. 
Political  pressure  and  close  monitoring,  as  suggested  in  chap.7  (Monitoring  and  evaluation) 
should  help  them  progress.  The  root  causes  linked  to  the  demand  side  remain  instead  more 
difficult  to  pinpoint,  as  they  concern  mainly  perceptions.  On  the  basis  of  the  2006 
Eurobarometer  survey  quoted  in  the  text,  most  citizens  are  persuaded  of  the  importance  of 
being fluent in more languages, but they still think the task is too difficult for them or that it is 
too late. Awareness-raising campaigns with the involvement of media, national and regional 
stakeholders  are  envisaged  to  change  people  perceptions  on  linguistic  diversity  and  on  the 
need  of  language  skills  for  all.  As  a  complement,  increased  support  to  informal  language 
learning and E-learning is called for, so to give more chances to those out of school. 

The text now makes it clearer that linguistic diversity can be a source of benefit and richness, 
but  also  that  in  the  absence  of  adequate  policies,  increasing  diversity  entails  several  risks, 
namely:  1)  widening  the  communication  gap  between  people  with  different  linguistic 
backgrounds  2)  hindering  mobility  and  increasing  the  divide  between  the  multilingual  who 
has access to better living and working opportunities and the monolingual who are excluded 
from them; 3) making it difficult for European companies to fully exploit the opportunities of 
the  internal  market  and  possibly  losing  their  competitive  edge  abroad.  Examples  now 
substantiate these three risks, in particular in the case of the low-skilled. 

The analysis of the options has also been expanded; in particular the reasons why option 2 (a 
"soft  law"  instrument)  has  been  discarded  are  now  presented  more  in  detail.  Option  3  –  the 
preferred one – is now analysed also in terms of the different levels of ambition that can be 
envisaged.  

On the value added of the new Communication, the text now points out more clearly that 
previous  Communications  on  multilingualism  and  language  diversity  set  out  an  agenda  of 
actions up to 2006-2007, and called for a review and possible further action. The assessment 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
of  progress  and  implementation  carried  out  in  2007  showed  that  while  there  is  evidence  of 
in  primary  and  secondary  education), 
progress  (particularly 
implementation needs to continue and should be reinforced in a lifelong learning perspective. 
At  the  same  time  the  consultation  process  sent  clear  feedback  on  the  need  of  raising 
awareness of linguistic diversity, to make it an asset for intercultural dialogue and prosperity.  

language 

learning 

in 

Therefore the added value of the new Communication will be: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

to sustain the efforts towards mother tongue plus two by giving clearer indications on 
areas  and  target  groups  lagging  behind  (students  in  vocational  trainings,  low-skilled 
adults and migrants) and less tackled by the previous Communications 

to  anchor  multilingualism  in  the  wider  context  of  “Growth  and  Jobs”  by  raising 
awareness  on  the  assets  of  linguistic  diversity  and  on  their  effects  on  intercultural 
dialogue  thereby  also  allowing  for  an  external  dimension  of  multilingualism,  as 
recently highlighted by the Euromed Culture Summit4 

to  mainstream  multilingualism  in  relevant  policies  at  European  level  and  work  in 
partnership with Member States and stakeholders to ensure that objectives are shared 
and met at the most appropriate level. 

4 

Agreed Conclusions of the third Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Culture Athens, 29 – 
30 May 2008, ; Presidency Declaration at the Conference New Paradigms, New Models — Culture in 
the EU External Relations, Ljubljana, 13 -14 May 
http://www.mzz.gov.si/si/zunanja_politika/kulturno_sodelovanje/nove_paradigme_novi_modeli_kultur
a_v_zunanjih_odnosih_eu/.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

This report accompanies the proposal for the Commission Communication “Multilingualism: 
an asset for Europe  and  a  shared  commitment”. The Communication is n°2008/EAC/004 in 
the  Agenda  Planning  and  is  listed  among  the  Priority  Initiatives  in  the  Commission 
Legislative and Work Programme 2008. 

Previous  Communications  on  multilingualism  and  language  diversity  set  out  an  agenda  of 
actions up to 2006-2007, and called for a review and possible further action. Preparation of 
the  new  Communication  and  assessment  of  its  potential  impact  started  in  September  2007 
with the release of two substantial documents providing information on the past three years 
and highlighting gaps to be tackled:  

•  The Report on the implementation of the Action Plan “Promoting language learning 
and linguistic diversity. 2004-2006”5. The Action Plan6 was the first policy document in 
the  field  of  languages:  it  set  strategic  areas  and  concrete  actions  mainly  for  the 
Commission, with recommendations to Member States to work along the same lines. The 
report on its implementation gathers information from various European programmes and 
from  national  reports  to  show  progress  made  and  trends  in  promoting  language  learning 
and linguistic diversity in 2004-2006. 

•  The Final Report of the High Level Group for Multilingualism7 set up as a follow-up to 
the Communication “A new Framework Strategy for Multilingualism” of 20058 to tackle 
several  aspects  related  to  multilingualism,  in  education,  media,  research,  motivation, 
translations. 

In a nutshell, these are their findings which have implications for future action: 

–  On  policy  context:  Firstly,  promoting  the  teaching  of  official  languages  of  the  European 
Union is not enough in today's society, where many languages are spoken and needed in 
the  local  environment.  The  multilingualism  policy  needs  to  address  all  languages, 
including  national  languages  taught  as  second  language  to  immigrants  and  minorities, 
regional,  minority  and  migrants'  languages,  and  languages  of  non  European  trading 
partners.  Secondly,  linguistic  and  intercultural  skills  are  of  paramount  importance  for 
competitiveness  and  to  foster  social  inclusions  and  dialogue  between  different  cultures. 
Furthermore  languages  are  learnt  in  a  variety  of  informal  settings:  in  the  family,  by 
spending  time  abroad,  through  new  technologies,  media  and  leisure  activities.  Therefore 
citizens'  linguistic  skills  cannot  be  tackled  from  an  educational  angle  only:  it  requires  a 
comprehensive  policy,  where  lifelong  learning  is  the  main  driver  and  a  wider  range  of 
stakeholders and options are involved. 

5 
6 

7 
8 

COM(2007) 554 final/2 
COM(2003)  449  final  of  24.07.2003  "Promoting  Language  Learning  and  Linguistic  Diversity:  An 
Action Plan 2004-2006" 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf  
COM(2005) 596 final of 22.11.2005 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  On trends: Member States have made some progress on promoting early language learning 
and on encouraging students to speak two foreign languages, although this trend is uneven 
across Member States. Often as a consequence of such reforms, many Member States are 
confronted with the challenge of upgrading language teaching skills, through initial and in-
service  teacher  training.  Progress  is  noted  mainly  in  primary  and  secondary  level 
education.  Vocational  education  and  training  and  adult  education  systems  have  not  been 
mobilised, although they cater for that part of population most in need of language skills, 
nor are countries offering an adequately wide range of languages. 

–  On  methods:  the  effort  of  the  European  Commission  to  set  strategic  areas  and  concrete 
actions  to  promote  languages  has  been  appreciated:  most  Member  States  have  worked 
along  the  agreed  lines  at  national  level  and  exchanged  information  and  good  practices  at 
European level. The European Commission has complemented their work by gearing EU 
educational programmes towards the same priorities, and enabling relevant groups to meet 
and work together. The Open method of coordination and strategic use of EU programmes 
are  appreciated  by  Member  States  and  there  is  scope  for  further  improving  their 
effectiveness in this context. 

1.2. 

Consultation process 

The above-mentioned findings have underpinned the policy shaping process leading to a new 
policy  step,  i.e.  the  proposed  Communication.  The  definition  and  implementation  of  a 
multilingualism policy rely on several actors at European, national and local level. For these 
reasons,  a  wide-ranging  consultation  process  was  launched,  involving  Member  States,  other 
European  Institutions  and  stakeholders.  In  order  to  receive  comprehensive  and  transparent 
feedback,  the  same  set  of  topics  has  been  submitted  for  deliberation  to  the  different  target 
groups consulted. They concerned: 

•  improving language teaching and learning and diversification of languages at all levels of 

education 

•  the extent to which linguistic diversity matters to the local environment (access to services, 

health, law, etc.) 

•  languages in a business context, including vocational education and training 

•  the extent to which immigrants should maintain and pass on their heritage languages, while 

learning the language of the host country 

•  the extent to which linguistic diversity is reflected in the media 

•  multilingual communication between EU institutions and the citizen9 

1.2.1.  Consultation of Member States 

The Commission strongly associated the  Council  to the policy shaping process, as Member 
States hold the responsibility in the field of languages. Firstly, Commissioner Orban presented 

9 

More details can be found in the question paper released for the online consultation, which served as a 
basis for consulting the other target groups   
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/news/index_en.html  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  findings  of  the  Report  on  Implementing  the  Action  Plan  to  the  Education  Council 
(November 2007), where Member States held an exploratory discussion on which challenges 
they see ahead and how they plan to tackle them. 

Secondly,  29  national  delegations  (Member  States,  Norway  and  Iceland)  gathered  on  15 
February 2008 in Brussels for a Ministerial Conference on Multilingualism, organised and 
chaired jointly by the Commission and by the Slovenian Presidency. Member States discussed 
and gave further indications on priority in the field of multilingualism. The Education Council 
of  May  adopted  Council  Conclusions  conveying  the  main  messages  of  the  Ministerial 
Conference  and  inviting  the  Commission  to  go  ahead  with  concrete  proposals.  The  French 
Presidency  is  currently  planning  political  initiatives  (Council  Conclusions)  to  endorse  the 
Commission Communication and to commit Member States to its implementation. 

1.2.2.  Expert Group 

A  number  of  technical  working  groups  of  Member  States  representatives  were  invited  to 
discuss how to implement multilingualism: 

•  The Working Group on Languages composed of officials in charge of language teaching 

and learning policies in Member States10  

•  The European Network of Inspectors of Foreign Language Education and Training, 

in which language inspectors exchange good practices. 

•  Furthermore,  a  Hearing  of  high  level  national  officials  working  with  multilingualism 
policies  took  place  on  17  January  2008.  Its  aim  was  to  discuss  new  developments  in 
multilingualism policy and practice, including the teaching of national languages as second 
languages  to  immigrants  and  minorities,  as  well  as  promoting  the  use  and  learning  of 
heritage languages and third country languages. 

1.2.3.  Consultation of other European Institutions 

The  European  Parliament  followed  up  closely  the  policy  shaping  process  through  a 
structured dialogue between Commissioner Orban and the Culture and Education Committee. 
Its  Chairperson,  Ms  Batzeli,  participated  in  the  Ministerial  Conference  and  Commissioner 
Orban presented the results of the Ministerial Conference and of the online consultation to the 
Committee on 31 March 2008. The Parliament shared his views that more action was needed 
to  promote  multilingualism.  It  drew  attention  especially  to  the  need  for  an  inclusive  policy 
encompassing  languages  spoken  in  Europe  (including  regional,  minority  and  migrant 
languages), for quality language teaching, and the languages and educational needs of mobile 
Europeans and their families. 

The Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee are in 
the process of adopting Outlook Opinions. In a nutshell, their draft texts highlight respectively 
the importance of answering to linguistic needs of citizens and encourage companies to invest 
in language skills. Both recommend to promote informal language learning through the media 
and through new technologies and to work in partnership with local stakeholders and social 
partners. 

10 

This Group was set up in the framework of the "Education and Training 2010 work programme on the 
follow-up of the objectives of Education and training systems in Europe" (2002/C 142/01) 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.2.4.  Consultation of stakeholders and European Citizens 

From  14  September  to  15  November  2007  an  online  consultation  gathered  comments  and 
proposals  from  citizens  and  stakeholders.  It  was  based  upon  a  questionnaire  available  in  22 
languages and received 2,419 complete answers, coming from all Member States as well as 
from third countries. The analysis of the online consultation results (annexed) was presented 
to the Ministerial Conference of 15 February 2008.  

The  results  of  the  online  consultation  were  further  discussed  in  the  framework  of  a  public 
hearing (Brussels, 15 April 2007). It assembled around 200 stakeholders from associations of 
teachers  and  students,  local  and  regional  authorities,  language  organisations  and  social 
partners. 

As the new direction of multilingualism policy envisages a closer link with competitiveness 
and citizenship, two temporary advisory groups were set up in these areas: 

•  the Business Forum, chaired by Mr E. Davignon and composed by CEOs and prominent 
business  representatives.  Its  mandate  was  to  put  forward  recommendations  and  concrete 
measures on how to fill language skill gaps to foster competitiveness and employability.11 

•  the Group of intellectuals for intercultural dialogue was chaired by Mr A. Maalouf and 
composed  of  European  writers  and  journalists.  Its  mandate  was  to  come  up  with 
recommendations to highlight the role of languages in the dialogue between cultures and 
propose concrete actions.12 

1.2.5.  Consultation within the Commission 

The  Inter-service  Group  on  Multilingualism  chaired  by  DGEAC  and  comprising  one 
Commission  official  per  DG,  meets  regularly  to  discuss  coordination  issues  linked  to 
multilingualism.  The  Group  discussed  in  various  meetings  the  multilingualism  policy 
approach,  included  the  drafting  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Report.  It  has  also  provided 
information  on  other  DGs  actions  promoting  multilingualism,  as  a  basis  for  mainstreaming 
multilingualism across relevant Commission actions.  

1.2.6.  External expertise 

Although  most  of  the  work  has  been  conducted  in  house  and  through  the  consultation  fora 
already described, some specific findings are based on the results of the following studies: 

•  Report on the diversity of language teaching offered in the EU 

•  LACE  -  Intercultural  competences  taught  during  foreign  language  teaching  in 

compulsory level education and training 

•  ELAN- Effects on the European Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills 

in Enterprise13 

11 
12 
13 

Final report expected by June 2008 
Final report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/maalouf/report_en.pdf  
The three studies are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/key/studies_en.html  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Study on the needs and practice of the European audiovisual industry in respect of 

dubbing and subtitling14 

1.2.7.  Main conclusions of the consultation process 

There was a  striking convergence of  views  reflected in the feedback throughout the  various 
strands  of  the  consultation  process.15  Member  States  and  stakeholders  shared  the  following 
views:  

On the scope of multilingualism policy: 

•  Linguistic and cultural diversity is perceived as a long-term feature of European 
society:  most  people  value  it  while  acknowledging  the  need  to  manage  it  in  an 
effective and prudent way. Shifting to a single language is not an option for  the 
majority of respondents. English is perceived as a useful lingua franca, but people 
are aware of its limitations: if they wish to go beyond a first contact, in order to do 
business  or  to  live  in  another  country,  they  need  to  use  the  language  of  their 
interlocutors.  

•  A language policy focussed on the learning of EU official languages is too limited 
for  present-day  society,  where  citizens  (and  residents)  speaking  many  more 
different  languages are in  daily  contact.  Multilingualism policy  should eliminate 
barriers  between  languages  and  encompass  all  languages  present  in  the 
community,  including  the  official  language  of  the  country  taught  as  a  second 
language to foreigners and immigrants, regional, minority and migrant languages. 

•  Language learning should be placed in a lifelong perspective: firstly, more effort 
is needed to deliver quality language teaching in primary and secondary education 
and  to  better  value  different  mother  tongues;  secondly,  language  learning  for 
adults should be reinforced - more languages should be taught through initial and 
continuing vocational training and informal ways of learning (through the media, 
new technologies, leisure and cultural activities, etc) should be made available. 

•  Multilingualism is a transversal issue that has an impact on competitiveness and 
European citizenship: it should be mainstreamed in a range of policies wider than 

14 
15 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media/overview/evaluation/studies/index_en.htm  
More detailed feedback can be found in our webpages: 
Outcomes of the European Commission’s public consultation on multilingualism: full report published 
in February 2008 http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/news/news1466_en.htm# 
Report of the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue and the Recommendations of the High 
Level Group on Multilingualism: http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/archive/languages_en.html# 
Public Hearing of 15 April http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/news/news1466_en.htm# 
Ministerial Conference of 15 February: SEC(2008) 252: Commissioner Orban's Note to the College on 
the  outcomes  of  the  Ministerial  Conference  on  Multilingualism  and  Council  Conclusions  on 
Multilingualism 
2008 
http://www.eu2008.si/en/News_and_Documents/Council_Conclusions/May/0521_EYC-
MULTILIN.pdf  
Outlook Opinions of the Committee of the Regions (http://www.toad.cor.europa.eu/CORBRowse.aspx ) 
and 
Committee: 
http://www.toad.eesc.europa.eu/EESCBrowse.aspx  

Economic 

European 

Social 

May 

and 

the 

22 

of 

of 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
education  (lifelong  learning,  social  inclusion,  employment,  competitiveness, 
media, research). 

•  Promoting linguistic diversity should not aim at preserving languages as an end in 
language 

it  should  emphasise  dialogue  between 

itself.  On 
communities and their different visions of the world.  

the  contrary 

•  Every  citizen  needs  a  different  set  of  language  skills,  according  to  his/her 
interests,  location  where  he/she  lives,  as  well  as  family  and  professional 
background. 

On Methods: 

•  Member  States  and  the  Commission  should  develop  a  language  policy  which 
favours  linguistic  diversity,  through  widening  the  range  of  languages  taught, 
valuing and maintaining language skills of their citizens, motivating them to learn 
and promoting a language friendly environment.  

•  The  lifelong  language  learning  perspective  is  key  to  acquiring  language  skills: 
start  early,  keep  motivation  through  initial  education,  go  on  learning  languages 
throughout adult life. 

•  Informal  language  learning  should  be  better  exploited,  by  increasing  access  to 
multimedia,  virtual  or  physical  mobility  and  cultural  exchanges.  Learning 
languages in this way is effective and enable people from different backgrounds to 
communicate, to discover and compare different mindsets. 

•  Local communities, service providers and companies should take into account that 
they often address citizens and customers who speak different languages and they 
should develop strategies to cater for their language needs. 

On main actors: 

•  Multilingualism needs  to  be  promoted by actors at all level (European, national, 
local and sectoral) to become a transversal feature of a wide range of policies. 

•  As citizens have different language needs, the local level has a significant role to 

play to:  

–  meet  specific  language  needs  (cater  for  people  speaking  different  languages, 

develop language skills used across the border and by local companies); 

–  value  language  resources  in  the  immediate  environment  (minorities,  expatriates, 

immigrants);  

–  promote intercultural dialogue among citizens of different backgrounds. 

We  consider  that  the  above  mentioned  consultation  process  has  met  the  Commission's 
standards for consultation of stakeholders as far as it concerns the clear content of publication, 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
consultation  of  relevant  target  groups,  publication  and  dissemination  of  information,  time 
limits for participation; acknowledgement and feedback.16. 

2. 

DEFINING THE PROBLEM – WHAT ISSUE/PROBLEM IS THE PROPOSAL 
SUPPOSED TO TACKLE? 

2.1.  What is the issue or problem that may require action? 

Linguistic diversity is a key feature of the European Union, whose 500 million citizens speak 
23 different official languages along with 60 other languages confined to specific regions or 
groups, not to mention the over 300 different languages that our immigrants bring with them. 
It  is  estimated  that  currently  citizens  from  at  least  175  nationalities  are  living  within  the 
boundaries of the European Union. Migration flows added to the already existing patchwork 
of national minorities and cultural. In such a context, interaction between speakers of different 
languages  has  increased  steadily  over  recent  years,  because  of  increasing  intra-European 
mobility;  migration  flows  from  third  countries  and  globalisation.  This  trend  is  likely  to 
continue  and  to  further  increase  in  the  years  to  come.17  From  2010  natural  population  will 
decline in Europe, but immigration flow is expected to keep the balance, at least until 2025.18 

Against this background, the two problems addressed in this Impact Assessment are: 

(4) 

(5) 

Europeans  have  not  yet  acquired  skills  in  two  additional  languages  to  their  mother 
tongue, as called for by the Barcelona Council; 

European citizens, companies and service providers are not fully aware of the assets as 
well as of the challenges of linguistic diversity in Europe.  

languages  used  by 

Institutional  multilingualism  (i.e. 
to 
communicate internally and with the citizen: publications / translation / interpretation) is out 
of  the  scope  of  this  Impact  Assessment  and  related  policy  initiatives.  Institutional 
multilingualism has specific challenges, objectives and options, thus reducing the added value 
of tackling these issues together. Therefore the Commission has decided not to tackle together 
institutional multilingualism and multilingualism of the European society. 

the  European  Commission 

2.1.1.  Europeans have not yet acquired skills in mother tongue plus two other languages 

The fact that citizens possess insufficient language skills has been considered as a problem to 
be tackled since the setting of the Lisbon strategy: "improving language skills" was one of the 
objectives  of  the  Education  and  Training  2010  Work  Programme.  In  2002  the  European 
Council of Barcelona (2002) called for teaching two foreign languages from an early age and 
for developing an indicator of language competence. This Indicator is under development and 

16 

17 
18 

An overview of the consultation process is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/news/index_en.html  
Eurostat, "Europe in Figures: Eurostat Yearbook 2006-2007" Luxembourg 2007 
NIDI,  "Demographic  Trends,  Socio-Economic  Impacts  and  Policy  Implications  in  the  European 
Union", 2007 (Report to the European Commission, DG EMPL) 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_situation/2007_mon_rep_demo.pdf  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
is expected to be tested in 201019: it will test competence of students in two foreign languages 
at the end of compulsory education.  

As  for  the  general  population,  a  2006  Eurobarometer  survey  shows  quite  mixed  results:  the 
countries  where  a  significant  majority  of  the  population  speak  at  least  two  languages,  in 
addition  to  the  mother  tongue,  are:  Luxembourg  (92%);  the  Netherlands  (75%);  Slovenia 
(71%); Malta (68%); Belgium (67%); Denmark (66%). In the Baltic countries about half of 
the population speak two foreign languages, and this is also the case of Finland. On the other 
hand,  in  the  following  countries  a  wide  majority  of  respondents  declared  having  no 
competences  in  any  foreign  language:  in  Ireland  (66%),  the  UK  (62%);  Italy  (59%);  in 
Hungary and Portugal (58%).  

Indeed, while more severe in some Member States, lack of linguistic skills is an issue in most 
Member States: there already exist a “multilingual” European that is likely to be young, well-
educated  or  still  studying,  and  use  foreign  languages  for  professional  reasons,  and  be 
motivated to continue to learn. In this respect it can also be mentioned that participants in the 
Erasmus exchange programme ranked improved knowledge of foreign languages as the most 
important  outcome  of  their  period  aboard  in  terms  of  future  employability.  But  this  picture 
excludes a big part of the population – and goes a long way towards explaining the  lack of 
professional cross-country mobility in Europe. 

The  following  issues,  tackling  the  supply  side,  show  in  what  respects  the  targets  have  been 
only partially met. 

1. 
The  range  of  languages  offered  in  primary  and  secondary  education  has 
not  increased  in  line  with  the  Barcelona  commitment.  Between  1999  and  2005 
language  learning  increased  in  21  Member  States  in  primary  education  and  in  8 
Member  States  in  secondary  education.  This  concerned  mainly  English.  Little 
progress has been made in the number and variety of languages taught. In 2006 the 
target of teaching two additional languages to virtually all pupils in lower secondary 
education was reached only by 9 Member States. In upper-secondary education two 
languages  were  taught  to  two  thirds  of  students  in  11  Member  States.  During  the 
same  period  the  number  of  languages  taught  remained  stable  or  even  decreased  at 
lower-secondary  level  in  17  Member  States  and  at  upper  secondary  level  in  7 
Member States.20 

2.  Very  limited  language  provision,  if  any,  is  offered  in  initial  vocational 
education and training. According to CEDEFOP country reports, the teaching of at 
least  a  foreign  language  as  a core  subject  is  mentioned  by  3  countries  (LT,LV  and 
Wales) in lower secondary vocational education and by 8 countries (A, CZ, DE, FI, 
EL, LT, PL and SV) in upper secondary vocational education.21 

3. 
There  is  no  evidence  indicating  an  increase  in  language  provisions  for 
adults. On the contrary, lack of language skills is reported as the first reason for not 

19 
20 

21 

COM(2005) 356 final; COM(2007) 184 final 
M.  Strubell  et  alii,  "The  diversity  of  language  teaching  in  the  European  Union"  2007  (Report  to  the 
European Commission, DG EAC) http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/key/studies_en.html  
Cedefop Thematic Overviews, 
http://www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/Information_resources/NationalVet/Thematic/  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
working abroad.22 A special Eurobarometer23 carried out in 2005 reported that 44% 
of EU-citizens are not able to hold a conversation in any language but their mother 
tongue.  

2.1.2.  European citizens, companies and service providers are not fully aware of linguistic 

diversity in Europe, its challenges and its advantages.  

This  second  problem  deals  with  the  demand  side.  Member  States,  stakeholders  and  citizens 
responding  to  the  consultation  converged  in  affirming  that  there  is  widespread  lack  of 
awareness  of  the  linguistic  diversity  of  our  society.  This  entails  an  underestimation  of  the 
challenges  and  skills  required  to  interact  with  people  with  different  linguistic  and  cultural 
backgrounds:  

Individuals  lack  motivation  to  learn  languages.  According  to  the  above-
4. 
mentioned Eurobarometer, only about 1 in 5 Europeans intended to improve or learn 
a new foreign language in the following year. 

5.  Companies lose business opportunities because of lack of language skills. It 
is  estimated  that  11%  of  exporting  European  SMEs  (945,000  companies)  may  be 
losing  business  because  of  lack  of  language  skills.  A  sample  survey  on  2000 
exporting SMEs from 29 EU countries showed that 46% of businesses plan to enter 
new export markets in the next three years, which will only magnify the demand for 
language skills.. 6.  Service  providers  (i.e.  private  and  public  services  interacting 
with citizens: school, health services, local authorities, police, media, infrastructures) 
are  confronted  with  the  challenge  of  communicating  effectively  with  people 
speaking  different  languages.  Feedback  received  during  the  consultation  reported 
that in our increasing multicultural society service providers are often not aware of 
communication pitfalls while addressing people from different linguistic and cultural 
backgrounds.  This  seems  due  to  lack  of  intercultural  skills  along  with  shortage  of 
language skills among staff. 

2.2.  What are the underlying drivers of the Problems? 

The  underlying  drivers  relate  respectively  to  each  of  the  six  points  mentioned  in  paragraph 
2.1: 

1.-2.  Member States appear not to be fully consistent with the commitment taken in 
Barcelona  and  slow  in  reforming  their  educational  and  vocational  systems. 
Insufficient  awareness  of  the  importance  of  language  skills  seems  to  be  the  main 
driver (see also points 4-6)  

3.  Although Member States play a role in adult learning provisions (for instance 
take  up 
through  awareness  raising  campaigns,  voucher  and 
languages...),  this  sector  is  more  directly  driven  by  demand.  In  addition  to  the 
Member  States'  role,  drivers  quoted  under  points  4,  5  and  6  should  be  taken  into 
consideration. 

incentives 

to 

22 
23 

"Action Plan on workers mobility" COM(2007) 773 final 
"Europeans and their languages", http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_sum_en.pdf 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As  we  come  to  the  demand  side,  individual  representations  (i.e.  beliefs  and 
perceptions) and a variety of environmental factors (like the role of the media) seem 
to be the main drivers:24 

The perception that there is no need to be skilled in more languages: getting by 
4. 
in  English  is  enough.  The  belief  that  skills  in  more  languages  are  only  for  gifted 
students  and  elites.  The  perception  that  certain  languages  have  no  practical  value, 
leading  for  instance  to  neglecting  family  bilingualism  and  to  considering  that  a 
different mother tongue is more a burden than an asset. 

5. 
The  perception  that  conducting  business  in  English  is  enough,  in  Europe  and 
abroad,  the  scant  attention  paid  to  linguistic  diversity  in  the  workplace.  This  leads, 
for  instance,  to  neglecting  communication  problems  for  lack  of  intercultural  skills 
and to undervaluing language skills of the workforce. 

6. 
The  perception  that  people  living  in  the  local  community  share  the  same 
mother  tongue  and  cultural  background.  As  a  result,  tourists,  minority  groups  and 
newcomers from other Member States and third countries may experience difficulties 
in  interacting  within  the  local  community  and  in  accessing  basic  services  (health, 
school, social provisions, justice and infrastructure). In the case of tourists this entails 
an economic loss. In the case of minority groups and newcomers it may be a source 
of discrimination and an obstacle to long term integration. 

We conclude by outlining an additional difficulty encountered in promoting language 
skills  and  linguistic  diversity:  there  is  no  straightforward  answer  to  the  question: 
Which  languages  should  EU  citizens  learn?  Given  Europe's  linguistic  and  cultural 
diversity, nearly every citizen needs a different set of languages. There is agreement 
on the fact that being fluent in three languages is a key skill, but individuals should 
decide  on  their  own  which  languages  to  take  up,  also  valuing  existing  skills  in 
heritage / family languages. 

2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent 

The above-mentioned Eurobarometer showed that: 56% of citizens in the EU Member States 
believe that they can hold a conversation in one language apart from their mother tongue and 
28%  of  the  respondents  state  that  they  speak  two  foreign  languages  well  enough  to  have  a 
conversation.  From  the  socio-economic  point  of  view,  the  Eurobarometer  found  that  a 
“multilingual”  European  is  likely  to  be  young,  well-educated  or  still  studying,  born  in  a 
country  other  than  the  country  of  residence,  who  uses  foreign  languages  for  professional 
reasons and is motivated to learn. Relating affected target groups to the issues mentioned in 
chapter 2.1: 

Students in primary and secondary general education where the teaching of two 
1. 
languages  is  not  available.  This  concern  8  countries:  IRL,  IT,  UK  plus  5  other 
countries (CZ,DE,MT,AT, PL) where the opportunity to learn two languages is only 
available in upper secondary education (post-compulsory).25 

24 
25 

OECD, "Globalisation and Linguistic Competencies" EDU/CERI/CD(2007)14  
Eurydice, "Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe" 2005 Edition. 
http://www.eurydice.org/portal/page/portal/Eurydice/showPresentation?pubid=049EN  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
2. 
Students in vocational training. Affected to a large extent as language teaching 
is available only on a limited number of paths mainly concerning tourism. Lack of 
language  skills  may  reduce  employability  in  the  increasing  number  of  companies 
dealing  with  foreign  customers  and  by  hindering  mobility  to  another  European 
country. 

3.  Adults,  especially  those  with  low  qualifications,  the  unemployed,  those  from 
different ethnical backgrounds. Language skills are an indispensable complement to 
vocational  qualifications  and  basic  skills,  as  advocated  in  the  Recommendations  of 
the  Council  and  the  Parliament  on  key  skills.  According  to  the  Progress  Report 
towards the Lisbon Objectives26, adults with a high educational attainment level are 
more  than  six  times  as  likely  to  participate  in  lifelong  learning  than  low  skilled;  in 
non-formal education it is even ten times more. At the same time, low skilled people 
are  the  most  at  risk  to  lose  their  jobs  according  to  CEDEFOP's  Medium-term 
Forecast on the Future Skills Needs in Europe27. Some Member States are in demand 
of  low  skilled  workers,  who  could  find  more  and  better  jobs  if  they  had  better 
language skills. The need for language skills will increase in future, although not in a 
homogeneous way. In 13 of the 29 countries surveyed, at least 50% of respondents 
believed  they  would  need  additional  language  skills  in  the  next  three  years. 
Intercultural skills were also widely predicted to be required in future, although not 
at the same level of response.28 In areas where more than one language is spoken the 
consequences of being monolingual can already be dramatic: a report highlights how 
up to 80% of CVs can be discarded in the  Brussels  region because  the  applicant is 
monolingual.29  

4. 
Immigrant communities need to be fluent in the language of the host country, 
but not all countries provide for effective second language teaching, neither to adults 
nor  to  children.  Language  is  often  the  first  barrier  to  integration  encountered  by 
immigrants and by pupils with a immigration background. In 2004 on average 5% of 
the EU population has foreign citizenship, while some 7% is foreign born. In 2006, 
the proportion of pupils in the total school population, whose first language was not 
the language of instruction represented around one-fifth of all pupils in Luxembourg 
and  Liechtenstein  and  6-8%  in  Denmark,  Germany,  Austria  and  Sweden.30  OECD 
PIRL  Survey  showed  that  students  with  a  migrant  background  score  systematically 
less  well  than  domestic  students,  notably  because  of  insufficient  command  of  the 
language  of  instruction.  At  the  same  time  immigrants  see  skills  in  their  mother 
tongues  undervalued  while  their  languages  are  of  strategic  importance  for  external 
business relations. 

26 
27 
28 

29 
30 

SEC(2006) 639, p. 39 
http://www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/Upload/Information_resources/Bookshop/485/4078_en.pdf 
CILT,  "ELAN:  Effects  on  the  European  Economy  of  Shortages  of  Foreign  Language  Skills  in 
Enterprise", 2007 (Report to the European Commission, DG EAC) 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/key/studies_en.html  
http://www.tibem.be/images_user/File/rapportTIBEM.pdf 
Eurydice Survey: "Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe" 2004 
http://www.eurydice.org/portal/page/portal/Eurydice/showPresentation?pubid=044EN  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
Specific target groups affected by referred beliefs are adults in general and in 
teachers,  headmasters, 

5. 
particular 
counsellors, career advisors, and, last but not least, media influencers.31 

influencing  others'  choices:  parents, 

those 

6.  Although  big  companies  are  also  in  need  of  language  skills,  they  are  more 
aware  of  the  importance  of  languages  and  better  able  to  recruit  adequately  trained 
workforce.  SMEs  appear  to  be  mostly  affected  by  shortage  of  language  skills.  The 
above-mentioned  ELAN  study  found  that,  within  their  sample  of  exporting  SMEs 
more  Spanish  companies  (19%)  claim  to  have  lost  business  than  French  (13%)  or 
German  (10%),  while  the  percentage  of  companies  facing  language  barriers  varies 
between  21%  (England  and  Wales)  and  8%  (Portugal).  The  region  most  likely  to 
cause cultural barriers for companies in England/Wales, Portugal, Northern Ireland, 
Scotland  and  the  Netherlands  is  East  Asia;  Japan  and  China  are  most  often  cited. 
Trade  with  the  Middle  East  poses  also  cultural  barriers.  Within  Europe  cultural 
problems  are  also  posed  in  trading  with  France,  particularly  for  English,  Welsh, 
Polish,  Irish  and  Dutch  companies,  while  Germany  poses  obstacles  for  the  Polish, 
Irish and Dutch.  

7. 
Feedback  from  the  consultation  process  indicates  that  providers  of  basic 
services  (health,  school,  local  authorities  and  courts)  are  increasingly  in  need  of 
communicating with people speaking other languages while their staff is not trained 
to work in languages other than their mother tongue and do not possess intercultural 
skills. This affects particularly countries of recent immigration (IT,ES,PT,EL, IRL), 
and  new  Member  States  facing  increasing  flows  of  foreigners  because  of  tourism, 
business contact, cross-border cooperation.  

2.4. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal 

In case no action is taken, in the long term this will: 

(1) 

increase  the  divide  between  the  multilingual  who  can  avail  of  better  living  and 
working opportunities in Europe and on the world stage, and the monolingual who are 
excluded from such opportunities; 

(2)  make  it  difficult  for  European  companies  to  fully  exploit  the  opportunities  of  the 
internal  market  and  possibly  losing  competitive  edge  abroad,  especially  in  the  most 
promising  economic  drivers  of  next  decades:  Brazil,  Russia,  India  and  China.32 
Companies might also face productivity decline due to lack of intercultural skills. As 
an  indirect  result,  the  related  market  of  translation,  interpretation  and  multilingual 
technology facilities will not be developed as it could because of lack of demand. The 
link  between  language  skills  and  competitiveness  is  visible  in  smaller  European 
countries with high volumes of trade, such as Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, and the 
Netherlands.  They  are  at  the  top  places  in  the  Competitiveness  Index  of  the  World 
Economic Forum and they also score very – or extremely - well in terms of linguistic 

31 
32 

Ref. Above mentioned OECD study on Globalisation and Language skills 
"The  Future  of  European  Education  and  Training  Systems:  Key  Challenges  and  Their  Implications" 
Analytical  Report  for  the  European  Commission  prepared  by  the  European  Expert  Network  on 
Economics of Education (EENEE) 
http://www.eenee.de/portal/page/portal/EENEEContent/_IMPORT_TELECENTRUM/DOCS/Webpage
-Version.pdf 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
skills.  Their  economic  dynamism  and  openness  to  trade  is  helped  by  widespread 
knowledge of foreign languages. 

(3) 

widen  the  communication  gap  and  the  lack  of  mutual  understanding  between  people 
speaking different languages. This would affect firstly those not mastering adequately 
the  dominant  language  of  the  country  they  live  (immigrants,  minorities,  European 
mobile citizens), who would find more difficult to integrate. Secondly it would result 
in an impoverishment of the local community life, cut off from the interaction of the 
different cultural backgrounds of its inhabitants. 

2.5. 

Subsidiarity and proportionality 

Art.  149  of  the  Treaty  gives  to  the  European  Commission  the  role  of  supporting  and 
supplementing  Member  States'  activities,  which  bear  primary  responsibility  for  the  content 
and the organisation of education systems, of which language teaching is an integral part. 

While complying with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the Commission and 
Member  States  have  already  worked  together  through  the  open  method  of  coordination  to 
fulfil  the  commitment  of  mother  tongue  plus  two,  as  recalled  by  the  Recommendations  of 
Parliament  and  Council  on  key  competences  for  lifelong  learning,  where  language 
competence  is  included33.  Such  cooperation  should  continue  in  the  same  framework, 
supported  by  the  Education  Council  Conclusions  of  May  2008,  which  defined  a  broader 
context for multilingualism and invited the Commission to come up with proposals supporting 
Member States action. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1.  What are the general policy objectives? 

The  first  objective  of  multilingualism  policy  is  to  enable  citizens  to  be  fluent  in  two 
languages in addition to their mother tongue (in short: "mother tongue-plus-two"). This 
objective  is  shared  and  supported  by  Member  States  which,  since  2002,  have  committed 
themselves to teach two foreign languages to all from a very early age, as a way of reinforcing 
basic  skills.  Furthermore,  in  2006,  Council  and  Parliament  included  competence  in  two 
languages plus mother tongue among the key competences for lifelong learning. 

Consequently to the argumentation of chapter 2.3, most affected people by lack of language 
skills  should  be  a  priority  target  (students  in  general  education  and  in  vocational  training, 
adults,  especially  those  at  disadvantage).  While  promoting  language  skills  in  a  lifelong 
learning perspective is the main solution, it should be complemented by raising awareness of 
the linguistic diversity of our society, in which language and intercultural skills are required to 
interact successfully. 

Therefore, a second objective is to raise awareness of the linguistic diversity of our society 
and  to  turn  it  into  an  asset  for  intercultural  dialogue  and  competitiveness.  Again, 
according  to  the  argumentation  of  chapter  2.3  priority  target  groups  should  be:  parents  and 
educational stakeholders; companies and service providers. 

33 

2006/962/EC 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2.  What are the more specific/Operational objectives? 

The  achievement  of  the  above-mentioned  objectives  goes  beyond  education  and  involves 
nearly  all  “Growth  and  Jobs”  policies  linked  to  citizens  and  companies:  lifelong  learning, 
employment , social inclusion, competitiveness, culture, youth and civil society, research, the 
media and external policies. Consequently, the first operational objective will be to ensure 
that multilingualism aspects are consistently taken into account across these European 
policies, using a mainstreaming approach and making the best use of financial support 
available under existing European programmes. 

According  to  the  subsidiarity  principle,  Member  States  are  key  decision-makers  on  these 
matters,  while  several  stakeholders  (educational  providers,  social  partners,  media,  local 
authorities) are essential to implementation. Therefore the second operational objective will 
be  to  work  in  partnership  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders  to  support  them  to 
achieve the same objectives and adopt a mainstreaming approach at their level. 

The  Commission  may  act  as  a  catalyst,  fixing  common  priorities  and  coordinating  policy 
efforts through a structured dialogue with three strands:  

•  The  Commission  will  work  together  with  Member  States  through  the  Education  and 
Training  2010  process  and  will  reinforce  multilingualism  in  the  policy  framework  for 
cooperation after 2010. It will transform the Working Group on Languages into a flexible 
configuration in order to promote policy dialogue in the broader field of multilingualism, 
while  addressing  technical  issues  at  the  appropriate  level  (peer  learning  activities, 
exchange of good practice, evidence-based policies, and language indicator). 

•  The  Commission  will  create  a  Forum  with  the  media,  cultural  organisations  and  other 
stakeholders  from  civil  society  to  discuss  and  exchange  practices  to  raise  awareness  of 
linguistic and cultural diversity to promote active citizenship and intercultural dialogue. 

•  The Commission will establish a permanent framework for cooperation with the business 

sector, built on the existing Business Forum. 

These objectives are consistent with the Education & Training 2010 process. They reinforce 
the various Community initiatives in the field of intercultural dialogue and key competences 
for  lifelong  learning  and  contribute  to  achieving  the  objectives  defined  in  the  Strategy  for 
Growth  and  Jobs.  They  are  particularly  interrelated  to  the  following  programmes:  Lifelong 
Learning  Programme,  Culture,  Erasmus  Mundus,  Youth  for  Europe,  Citizens  for  Europe, 
Media, Research and Information society, and Structural Funds. 

4. 

4.1. 

WHAT  ARE  THE  MAIN  OPTIONS  AVAILABLE  TO  ACHIEVE  THE 
OBJECTIVES? 

Option  1:  no  action  with  Member  States,  no  strategic  use  of  EU  programmes 
(mainstreaming) 

The  added  value  of  the  Commission's  coordination  can  be  demonstrated  by  comparing 
national language policies before and after Barcelona and the open method of coordination: 
Barcelona provided an overall political commitment, which the Commission refined, setting 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
out  strategic  areas  and  a  calendar  of  action.34  After  four  years  (2004  –  2007),  national 
language policies in primary and secondary education look more robust: Member States have 
worked along the same lines, notably by introducing early language learning provisions and, 
to a limited extent by widening the range of languages taught. The Commission has supported 
Member  States  by  making  a  strategic  use  of  its  programmes  on  education  and  training. 
Nevertheless,  as  mentioned  in  the  previous  chapters,  progress  has  achieved  only  partial 
results.  Both  the  Action  Plan  and  the  2005  Communication  called  for  a  review  by  2007,  in 
order  to  examine  whether  further  action  was  needed,  and  the  latter  committed  the 
Commission  to  present,  in  consequence,  a  further  communication  to  Parliament  and  the 
Council, proposing a comprehensive approach to multilingualism in the European Union. 

The previous communications set actions until 2006-07 and called for a review and possible 
further  action.  Against  this  background,  no  action  would  mean  stepping  back  from  the 
coordination role undertaken within the scope of the previous Communications. In the light of 
the  above  a  Commission  decision  to  step  back  from  steering  and  coordinating  the  process 
would not appear consistent with its policy line. It might not fulfil the call made by Member 
States  in  Lisbon  (2001)  and  in  Barcelona  (2002)  to  the  Commission  to  help  them  to  reach 
their  commitment,  by  ensuring  a  coordinated  approach  and  by  enabling  good  practices 
circulate. 

4.2. 

Option 2: Use regulatory instruments 

Soft regulatory instruments, such as a recommendation could be a suitable option to achieve 
the above-mentioned objectives. It could recommend initiatives to be undertaken by Member 
States and stakeholders in all the sub-options examined under Option 3. It could support these 
initiatives  by  committing  the  Commission  to  mainstreaming  multilingualism  in  relevant  EU 
policies. 

4.3. 

Option  3:  Use  of  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination:  issuing  a  Commission 
Communication  setting  the  ground  for  cooperation  with  Member  States  and 
Institutions.  Mainstream 
the  other  European 
have 
multilingualism in current EU programmes and initiatives 

it  endorsed  by 

Art.149 of the Treaty gives the Commission mandate to complement action taken by Member 
States. Member States called in Lisbon and in Barcelona for the Commission to help them to 
reach their commitment of improving the citizen’s basic skills, where languages are included, 
using the open method of coordination. The Commission should, among other things, ensure a 
coordinated approach and make good practices circulate.  

Education  Council  Conclusions  of  May  2008  defined  a  broader  context  for  multilingualism 
and  invited  the  Commission  to  come  up  with  proposals  supporting  Member  States  action, 
through European programmes and,  when needed, through exchange  of practices within the 
open method of coordination. 

A  Commission  Communication  setting  out  a  coordination  framework  and  areas  for 
intervention at European and national level seems to be an adequate instrument. Furthermore, 
the  Communication  takes  into  account  the  feedback  of  a  wide  consultation  process,  thus 
securing a broad endorsement of the actions proposed.  

34 

The  already  mentioned  Language  Action  Plan  and  the  2005  Communication:  A  New  Framework 
Strategy for Multilingualism COM(2005) 596 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In the framework of the Open Method of Coordination, already in use for language policy as 
part of the Education & Training 2010 Process, the Communication could be endorsed by the 
Council and the Parliament through autonomous or joint statements. 

Content  wise,  within  the  scope  of  objectives  1  and  2  the  Communication  could  include  or 
discard the following sub-options, brought forward by the consultation process:  

1.  national  languages  taught  as  second  languages  and  languages  of  the  immigrants  and 
minorities (→ Objectives 1 and 2) 

2. a stronger link of linguistic diversity with citizenship and prosperity (→ Objectives 1 and 
2) 

3. the external dimension of multilingualism (→ Objective 2). 

As for the way multilingualism should be promoted by Commission policies and programmes, 
once the option of an expenditure programme for multilingualism was discarded (see further 
4.4)  the  approach  of  mainstreaming  multilingualism  in  relevant  Commission  policies  and 
programmes seemed a viable answer. 

Hereafter a non exhaustive list of programmes related to objectives 1 and 2 and to the 6 points 
detailed in chapter 2:  

•  all strands of the Lifelong Learning Programme (→all points) 

•  language training support given through structural funds such the European Social 

Fund (→especially points 2,3,5 and 6) 

•  language integration courses for immigrants supported by JLS (→points 3 and 6) 

•  Youth  in  Action,  Citizens  for  Europe  (informal  adult  learning  and  raising 

awareness of linguistic diversity → points: 3,4 and 6 ) 

•  Literary translations supported by the Culture programme (→ objective 2) 

•  Media  programme  (subtitling→  informal  language  learning→  point  3,  raising 

awareness of linguistic diversity → objective 2) 

•  Research  Programme  (research  aspects  connected  to  language  learning  and 

linguistic diversity in society → objectives 1 and 2) 

•  Information 

technology 

learning  →objective  1; 
Multilingual platforms and translation facilities → linguistic diversity → objective 
2) 

(E-learning  → 

lifelong 

•  Erasmus Mundus (→ intercultural dialogue 

The  already  existing  Interservice  Group  on  Multilingualism  could  be  used  to  ensure  a 
coordinated approach and mainstream multilingualism in relevant European programmes and 
initiatives, through interventions at programme level (thematic priorities, budget for linguistic 
preparation and linguistic activities, adequate monitoring, etc.). 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
4.4.  Which options have been discarded at an early stage and why? 

A  regulatory  approach  would  be  out  of  place  since  Commission  action  should  only 
complement Member States policies, as stated in Art.149 of the EU Treaty "The Community 
shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between 
Member  States  and,  if  necessary,  by  supporting  and  supplementing  their  action,  while  fully 
respecting  the  responsibility  of  the  Member  States  for  the  content  of  teaching  and  the 
organisation  of  education  systems  and  their  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity.  Community 
action  shall  be  aimed  at:  developing  the  European  dimension  in  education,  particularly 
through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States". Art 150 and 
151, concerning vocational training and culture and also relevant to languages take the same 
line. 

Nonetheless  an  expenditure  programme  could  have  been  proposed  within  the  scope  of 
Commission  action.  This  option  has  been  currently  discarded  because  multilingualism  is  a 
transversal objective of very different policies (education, culture, media, employment, social 
inclusion, research...) and supporting them out of their natural contexts does not seem to be 
either appropriate or effective: 

•  Inappropriate  as  it  goes  against  the  logic  of  raising  awareness  of  linguistic  diversity  and 
language  needs  as  an  essential  feature  of  our  society,  not  as  something  one  can  keep 
separate; 

•  Ineffective, as it should receive a very high budget in order to have some impact and there 
still  is  no  guarantee  that  it  would  not  overlap  with  existing  provisions  at  national  and 
European level. 

The  proposed  approach  of  mainstreaming  multilingualism  in  the  relevant  policies  and 
ensuring coordination among them should guarantee best results in the short term and provide 
a concrete basis for reviewing the situation in a few years. 

5. 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  POSITIVE  AND  NEGATIVE  IMPACTS  OF  THE 
OPTIONS 

5.1. 

Advantages and disadvantages of Option 1: no action 

One of the main drivers behind the patchy implementation of "Mother tongue plus two" in the 
education systems is insufficient awareness of the importance of language skills. This is likely 
to worsen if the Commission discontinues its coordination role in promoting multilingualism. 
National  policies  might  revert  to  being  fragmented:  some  countries  might  continue  to  give 
importance to languages, other less so, hence widening their economic divide and not reaping 
the  benefits  of  European  integration  and  cross-border  cooperation.  This  will  be  unfortunate 
especially in the current situation where shifting from products to services economy increases 
the needs of language skills.  

Furthermore,  the  EU  is  facing  the  global  challenges  of  immigration  and  globalisation,  with 
their underline linguistic issues. If a coordinated response is not given, national initiatives out 
of  a  common  framework  would  have  less  impact  and  might  even  be  in  conflict  with  each 
other.  

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
It is worth mentioning that the unanimous result of the consultation process was that Europe 
should be more active in promoting multilingualism, therefore, in a situation where no action 
is taken we will cause the disappointment and de-motivation of the stakeholders consulted. 

Concerning the strategic use of EU programmes, the Action Plan Report showed that this was 
an effective way of complementing Member States' action by focussing on the same priorities. 
This  was  done  on  a  limited  range  of  programmes,  mainly  concerning  education  and 
vocational training. In light of its results and of the current objectives it would be consistent to 
enlarge it to a wider range of programmes. The opposite could weaken European action and 
credibility vis-à-vis Member States who might feel that the Commission is not committed to 
the same objectives. 

5.2. 

Advantages and disadvantages of Option 2: Use regulatory instruments 

A soft regulatory instrument, such as a recommendation has the advantage of being a stronger 
policy  instrument  compared  to  a  Commission  communication.  Nevertheless,  in  order  to  be 
effective it needs to highlight concrete actions, based on a comprehensive policy framework 
agreed  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders. We  believe  that  such  a  comprehensive  policy 
framework still needs to be laid down and consolidated with Member States and stakeholders 
before coming to a recommendation. Consequently the Commission is not yet in the position 
to indicate concrete actions for specific target groups.  

As already stated, this policy initiative is not meant not address the inter-institutional aspects 
of  multilingualism;  however,  it  might  prove  difficult  to  maintain  the  preferred  focus  on 
"external" multilingualism during the complex negotiations that could be expected during the 
adoption process of a legislative instrument.  

Furthermore,  a  recommendation  would  interfere  with  the  functioning  of  an  established 
instrument  such  as  the  open  method  of  cooperation  in  education  and  training  that  is 
appreciated  by  Member  States  for  its  flexibility  in  a  policy  area  characterised  by  strong 
subsidiarity  and  wide  differences  in  the  way  Member  States  organise  their  educational 
systems.  

As for mainstreaming multilingualism in relevant EU policies, a recommendation would have 
the  same  impact  as  a  Communication,  since  the  Commission  masters  its  own  agenda. 
Recommending  better  dissemination  of  good  practices  would  also  have  little  impact,  since 
this is already the role of the Commission within the open method of coordination. 

In the current situation recourse to a "soft" legislative instrument appears premature and could 
be even counterproductive, hindering cooperation with Member States and stakeholders, who 
might fear that the Commission is "jumping to conclusions", intruding into national policies 
without first reaching the necessary consensus.  

5.3. 

Advantages  and  disadvantages  of  Option  3:  Use  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination:  issuing  a  Commission  Communication  to  lay  the  ground  for 
cooperation  with  Member  States  and  have  it  endorsed  by  the  other  European 
Institutions 

The advantages of choosing a Commission Communication as an instrument are:  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
•  To set out a comprehensive policy framework and areas for intervention at European and 

national level; 

•  to  build  on  the  existing  fruitful  cooperation  with  Member  States  to  consolidate  progress 

and reach common objectives;  

•  to  keep  up 

the  momentum  created  by 

the  Education  Council  conclusions  on 
multilingualism  which  invited  the  Commission  to  draw  up  proposals  to  strengthen 
multilingualism. 

Its disadvantages are: 

•  It is a rather lengthy process with many stages between strategic orientations and concrete 

implementation, especially as far as Member States are concerned.  

•  The  Commission  can  kick  off  the  process  but  other  actors,  namely  Member  States  and 

stakeholders are critical for the achievement of the objectives. 

Content  wise  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  sub-options  listed  under  Chapter  4.3 
are: 

5.3.1. 

Sub-option 1 (national languages / migrant, minority languages)  

The consultation process gave strong indication that the distinction between the teaching and 
learning of foreign languages, second language and mother tongue has become blurred. The 
advantages of including the teaching and learning of national languages as second languages 
and languages of immigrants and minorities would be:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

to be consistent with today's challenges in language teaching and learning and 
give comprehensive responses (→ objective 1); 

to make different languages benefit from the most advanced methodologies. 
For instance foreign language teaching methods could be usefully applied to 
teach  national  languages  as  second  language  to  pupils  and  students  with  a 
different mother tongue. Bilingual education applied in minority areas could 
inspire effective early language learning methods elsewhere (→ objective 1); 

to encourage schools and companies to value and take into account language 
skills  acquired  in  the  family  regardless  of  whether  they  relate  to  other  EU 
official  languages,  regional  and  minority  languages  or  migrant  languages 
(→objectives 1 and 2).  

The disadvantage would be that this is a rather sensitive area for cooperation: Member States 
have  welcomed  the  widening  of  multilingualism  to  encompass  all  languages,  including 
national  languages  taught  to  non-native  speakers.  They  were  more  cautious  though  on  the 
implementation of teaching migrant languages. Two levels of ambition can be foreseen: 

(1) 

(2) 

EN 

Promoting  the  teaching  and  learning  of  national  languages  of  host  countries  for 
immigrants. This is widely accepted and could benefit of advantages 1 and 2. 

Further examine the possibility of valuing migrant languages and possibly give them 
some space in education. This would fully benefit of the three advantages, but carries 

28 

   EN 

 
the risk of hindering integration by reinforcing ethnical identities. On the basis of civil 
society feedback (see in particular the online consultation and the Report of the Group 
of  Intellectuals  for  Intercultural  Dialogue,  quoted  earlier  in  the  text),  and  in  close 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States  the  Commission  could  further  discuss  ways  of 
valuing multilingual skills of the immigrant population, both for intercultural dialogue 
and competitiveness. 

–  The  Commission  could  give  clear  indication  about  the  benefits  of  this  approach  while 
leaving  Member  States  totally  free  to  implement  it  to  the  extent  and  by  the  means  they 
wish. 

5.3.2. 

Sub-option 2 (linguistic diversity and its link to active citizenship and prosperity) 

Stakeholders  and  Member  States  strongly  advocated  for  this  option  to  be  taken  as  it  gives 
adequate  visibility  to  a  core  issue  of  European  society  -  linguistic  diversity  –  and  its 
consequences for active citizenship and prosperity. It has also the key advantage to respond to 
the current problems of our society (ref chapter 2) and match both objectives 1 and 2. 

The disadvantages of taking such sub-option are that: 

•  it is a broad concept, which should be carefully detailed to avoid vagueness and 

loss of impact 

•  it is a sensitive area for cooperation where the Commission should make clear its 

limits of action vis-à-vis Member States and stakeholders 

•  it needs a strong coordination effort to ensure that a broad range of policies take 

up the challenge of promoting multilingualism. 

Nevertheless,  even  considering  the  above-mentioned  disadvantages,  it  still  appears  to  carry 
enough weight to justify alone a new communication, as the changes in our society called for 
multilingualism policy to go beyond education and raise awareness of linguistic diversity in 
the local environment and business. The two levels of ambition here are: 

(1) 

(2) 

Ensure that multilingualism is consistently promoted by relevant policies 

Promote  the  exchange  of  good  practices  among  different  policies  and  actors  at 
European  and  national  level  so  to  improve  synergies  on  the  promotion  of 
multilingualism 

5.3.3. 

Sub-option 3 (the external dimension of multilingualism) 

Multilingualism  is  a  way  of  making  EU  public  diplomacy  consistent  with  the  objective  of 
valuing linguistic diversity. It will promote European languages abroad and propose the way 
Europe manages its linguistic diversity as a model to other multilingual countries in the world. 
Its  advantage  is  to  strengthen  the  image  of  Europe  abroad  and  emphasise  its  linguistic  and 
cultural richness, while proposing peaceful ways of dealing with sensitive matters. Therefore 
the external dimension will contribute to intercultural dialogue and increased competitiveness. 
EU  actions  in  this  field  will  encourage  third  countries  to  promote  the  teaching  of  European 
languages in their countries, and the teaching of non-European languages in the EU. This will 
lead  to  new  social,  economic  and  cultural  opportunities  for  Europe.  In  some  cases  (China, 
India)  joint  declarations  on  multilingualism  aimed  at  mutually  promoting  each  other's 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
languages will be signed. The challenge here is to increase the coordination effort with other 
policies and carefully target actions to avoid vagueness and duplication – hence the need for a 
framework strategy. The two levels of ambition here are: 

(1) 

(2) 

Better  gear  existing  programmes  and  initiatives  to  promote  third  country  languages 
and the teaching of European languages to foreign students 

Include  multilingualism  in  the  sectoral  policy  dialogue  with  third  countries  (for 
instance by signing joint declarations on multilingualism aimed at mutually promoting 
each other's languages with prominent countries like China, India) 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

Option 1 is likely to have a negative impact: in the short term we will face the disappointment 
and criticism of the wide range of stakeholders consulted, who wanted more European action 
in  promoting  multilingualism.  In  the  long  term,  the  absence  of  a  European  framework  and 
guidelines is likely to increase the gap between countries investing on strong language skills 
and  countries  and  sectors  lagging  behind.  This  might  entail  a  negative  economic  impact  on 
individual  employability  and  European  competitiveness  more  generally.  As  for  the  social 
impact  it  might  increase  the  lack  of  communication  between  the  different  people  living  in 
Europe  and  put  in  danger  the  foundations  of  the  European  model,  based  on  inclusion  and 
active citizenship. 

Option 2 is likely to have a negative impact on the partnership between the Commission and 
Member States who might feel that Commission is going to fast and does not take their advice 
into  account  enough.  This  might  endanger  the  open  method  of  coordination  and  lead  to  no 
cooperation and no results on Member States side. 

The most appropriate course of actions appears to be option 3, a Commission Communication 
to  the  other  European  institutions,  including  the  already  mentioned  sub-options  (1,2,3).  The 
different  levels  of  ambition  will  be  fine  tuned  in  dialogue  with  the  Member  States  and 
stakeholders.  

Modalities of implementation will be: 

•  strategic  use  of  relevant  Commission  policies  and  programmes  (mainstreaming) 

(→objectives 1 and 2)  

•  Open  Method  of  Coordination  with  Member  States  to  exchange  good  practices  and  keep 

political dialogue (→objectives 1 and 2) 

•  Structured dialogue with stakeholders: 

•  setting up a permanent business forum (→related in particular to points 2,3,4 and 

5) 

•  setting  up  a  civil  society  forum  with  media,  cultural  organisations  and  other 
stakeholders  from  civil  society  to  discuss  and  exchange  practices  to  raise 
awareness  of  linguistic  and  cultural  diversity  for  active  citizenship  and 
intercultural dialogue (→related in particular to points 3,4 and 6) 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
In the light of observations made in the previous chapters and considering the limited scope 
for direct action of the Commission, which relies mostly on Member States' and stakeholders' 
good will, these are the economic and social impacts the chosen option is likely to contribute 
to: 

•  Economic  impacts:  through  the  impact  of  language  skills  on  citizens'  employability  and 
competitiveness,  the  new  strategy  defined  in  the  Communication  is  likely  to  have  a 
positive  impact  on  international  trade  and  cross-border  investments;  technological 
development  and  innovation;  the  number  and  quality  of  jobs;  third  country  and  overseas 
relations. 

•  Social impacts: the strategy is likely to have a positive impact on social inclusion, as well 
as  governance  and  participation  since  language  skills  are  a  prerequisite  to  intercultural 
dialogue. 

As  for  costs:  at  Commission  level  the  implementation  of  the  actions  recommended  in  the 
Communication will not entail a budget increase. It is aimed at making more effective use of 
existing programmes to promote multilingualism, notably by ensuring: 

•  a  more  consistent  approach  (i.e.  pass  on  a  consistent  message  in  support  of 
linguistic diversity, give attention to language issues in projects and initiatives) 

•  more complementarities with Member States (i.e. support them to achieve shared 
objectives, through Commission initiatives and the exchange of good practices).  

As  for  Member  States,  the  Communication  will  recommend  general  and  operational 
objectives in line with already agreed EU common objectives and suggest ways of achieving 
them, leaving  the  implementation  to the Member States themselves. Depending  on  Member 
States points of departure and on their willingness to go farther, some of them may not need 
to increase the budgets allocated to multilingualism but use them more effectively, according 
to  the  Commission  strategy.  In  other  cases  Member  States  may  decide  to  introduce  new 
actions entailing either a budget increase or a re-orientation of expenditure. This step would of 
course be taken primarily to comply with political commitments needed in order to reach the 
objectives  agreed  at  EU  level,  in  particular  in  order  to  improve  educational  and  lifelong 
learning outcomes. 

As a general principle conveyed by the Commission Communication, it will be recommended 
to take action close to citizens, taking into account local language needs and pooling resources 
of business, civil society and local authorities so as to use them in the most effective way. 

As things stand, and given the fact that the Commission does not suggest the creation of any 
concrete new structure / activity, it is impossible to foresee the budgetary impact at national 
level, especially since it depends primarily on Member States choices. 

As  for  business  and  service  providers,  in  case  they  decide  to  invest  more  on  language 
provisions and increase their expenditure, they will do so as part of their business plan and it 
will  pay  off  in  terms  of  increased  competitiveness:  the  above-mentioned  ELAN  study 
calculated  that  SMEs  applying  successful  language  strategies  achieved  an  export  sales 
proportion 44.5% higher than one without these investments. Alternatively, in case of public 
and non-profit making organisations this will result in more effective communication, leading 
to increased intercultural dialogue and better social integration.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

7.1.  Monitoring  

The  Commission  Communication  will  define  areas  for  common  action  to  be  implemented 
through  internal  coordination  (mainstreaming)  and  structured  dialogue  with  Member  States 
and stakeholders. The Commission will ensure the overall coordination and follow-up of the 
implementation through: 

•  The Inter-service Group on Multilingualism (mainstreaming of multilingualism in relevant 

EU policies and programmes) 

•  A  Working  Group  of  High  Representatives  of  Member  States  (open  method  of 
coordination,  built  upon  the  existing  working  group  on  Languages  in  the  Education  & 
Training 2010 Process) 

To maintain focus on multilingualism policy and to ensure a periodic review of its progress, 
the Commission will recommend that the European institutions devote an annual slot in their 
agenda to its discussion. In the case of the Council, it will suggest to include multilingualism 
in the rolling agenda of the Education Council.  

The following indicators and surveys will be used to monitor results: 

•  The  Indicator  of  language  competence  (first  test  in  2010  plus  periodic  tests 

thereafter), on language skills of students at the end of compulsory schooling 

•  Regular  reports  on  implementing  the  Education  and  Training  2010  work 

programme 

•  Eurydice  key  data  on  education,  (regularly  updated),  on  the  range  of  languages 

offered in general and vocational education 

•  Eurydice  report  on  the  integration  of  migrant  children  in  school  (regularly 

updated) 

Other surveys might be considered, such as:  

•  Special Eurobarometer on Europeans and their languages (to compare with 2006 

issue) 

•  A survey on language strategies adopted by companies 

•  A  survey  on  language  strategies  adopted  by  service  providers  and  local 

communities 

•  A  survey  on  the  way  linguistic  and  cultural  diversity  is  taken  into  account  by 

media. 

The Commission will carry out a global review in 2012. To this effect Member States will be 
invited to report on their progress by end 2011.  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
7.2. 

Evaluation 

As far as mainstreaming is concerned, the Commission should ensure that language issues are 
adequately  taken  into  account  while  evaluating  relevant  EU  programmes  and  policies.  The 
Commission  will  encourage Member  States and stakeholders to include  language  aspects in 
the evaluation of policies and strategies at their level. This information should feed into the 
regular reviews mentioned in chap.7.1 as well as in the global review foreseen by 2012. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
ANNEX  

INTERSERVICE GROUP ON MULTILINGUALISM 

The members of the Interservice Group were designated at Director-General's level in March 
2007. The Group met four times in 2007 on 24 April, 13 June, 12 Octobre and 5 December, to 
discuss a common approach on the implementation of a multilingualism policy in a coherent 
way.  A  mapping  exercise  of  current  practices  across  the  Commission  in  the  field  of 
multilingualism was carried on by group members.  

In  the  meeting  on  5  December  2007  the  group  discussed  the  rationale  of  the  new 
Communication  on  Multilingualism  and  was  requested  to  contribute  to  the  Inventory  of 
Community actions in the field of multilingualism, annexed to the Communication as a Staff 
Working  Paper.  Both  documents  were  discussed  in  the  meetings  on  25  April  and  18  June 
2008 and Group members sent in written contributions. 

List of Members 

Forename 
Beata 
Agnes 
Michael 
Xabier 
Alexander 
Albrecht  
Eleni  
Ingrid 
Claire  
Luca  
Ann  
Pascal  
Valérie 
Karin 
Lorena 
Gisela 
Viola 
Kathy 
Florian 
Patricia 
Richard 
Boris 
Dorota 

Name 
Adamczyk 
Ajour 
Alfons 
Atutxa Sarria 
Bartovic  
Berger 
Borg-Tsantekidou 
Brandner 
Brunotti 
Dalpozzo 
D'haen-Bertier 
Dissard  
Drezet-Humez 
Fuessl 
Garcia Ferrer 
Gauggel-Robinson 
Groebner 
Haas 
Horner 
Isenborghs 
Joels 
Kandziora 
Lyszkowska 

DG 
TAXUD 
SANCO 
JRC 
SG 
AGRI 
OPOCE 
ADMIN 
IAS 
ECFIN 
BUDG 
SCIC 
RDT 
DGT 
ENTR 
TREN 
ELARG 
ENV 
EMPL 
ELARG  
DEV - alt 
COMM 
JRC 
MARKT 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
Daniel 
Anna 
Vendulka 
Miguel Angel  
Francois 
Jens 
Eric 
David 
Szilvia  
Kimmo 
Gerard 
Danielle 
Michaela 
Michaela 
Peter 
Gunter  
Luc 
Joan  
Neil 
Christof  
Amira 
Ylva  
Marie  
Guy  
Chris  
Jean-Louis  
Gie 
Wolter 

Mann 
Melich 
Mulacova 
Navarrete 
Nizery 
Nymand-Christensen 
Poudelet 
Ringrose 
Rogovszky 
Rossi 
Rozet 
Saffar 
Salmasova 
Salmasova 
Sandler 
Schaefer 
Schaerlaekens 
Scott 
Shooter 
Stock  
Szonyi 
Tiveus 
Tzirani 
Van Biesen  
Van Den Brande 
Vergnolle 
Werkers  
Witteveen 

SANCO 
BEPA 
OLAF 
DGT 
AIDCO 
SG 
SANCO 
RELEX 
REGIO 
INFSO 
SJ 
OPOCE 
JLS 
JLS 
TRADE 
ESTAT 
OLAF 
ECHO 
DIGIT 
ELARG  
OLAF 
COMM 
PMO 
EPSO 
COMP  
TAXUD 
SANCO 
SCIC 

EN 

35 

   EN