COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT   Accompanying document to the   Proposal for a  COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION  Youth on the Move – promoting the learning mobility of young people   {COM(2010) 478 final} {SEC(2010) 1050}
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: education, education policy, knowledge economy, student mobility, teaching quality, young person, youth policy

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.9.2010 
SEC(2010) 1049 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION 

Youth on the Move – promoting the learning mobility of young people 

{COM(2010) 478 final} 
{SEC(2010) 1050} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

Procedural issues.......................................................................................................... 4 

Lead service: DG Education and Culture..................................................................... 4 

Political Background.................................................................................................... 5 

1.3.  Work on Impact Assessment........................................................................................ 7 

1.4. 

1.5. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Purpose of the impact assessment report ..................................................................... 8 

Main sources of information and consultations ........................................................... 8 

Problem definition...................................................................................................... 11 

EU instruments in support of learning mobility......................................................... 12 

Specific Problems and underlying drivers ................................................................. 13 

2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? .................................................. 17 

2.4. 

2.5. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ........................................... 17 

Basis for EU action .................................................................................................... 18 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 19 

The main policy objectives to be achieved are to make learning mobility an 
opportunity for all, via: .............................................................................................. 19 

Specific/operational objectives .................................................................................. 19 

Consistency of these objectives with other EU policies and horizontal objectives ... 20 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 21 

Policy options considered: ......................................................................................... 21 

Options considered unfeasible and discarded at an early stage: ................................ 21 

Option 1: No EU Action/Status Quo.......................................................................... 22 

Option 2: A Council Recommendation: Youth on the Move: Promoting the learning 
mobility of young people ........................................................................................... 23 

Option 3: A new Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) for the learning mobility of 
young people .............................................................................................................. 24 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 25 

Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of the short-listed options ....... 25 

Assessment of administrative burden......................................................................... 26 

Impacts outside the EU .............................................................................................. 27 

Social groups, economic sectors or particular regions affected................................. 28 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
5.5. 

Overall assessment of impact of the three options..................................................... 28 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 30 

Justification of ratings based upon the assessment of impacts .................................. 30 

Preferred option:......................................................................................................... 31 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 31 

Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives...................................... 31 

Monitoring and evaluation arrangements................................................................... 32 

Annexes - technical background material 

Annex 1: Baseline data on Mobility for Learning Purposes  

Annex 2: Analysis of Responses to the Public and Stakeholder Consultation (Green Paper on 
promoting learning mobility) 

Annex  3:  Links  to  key  studies/work  carried  out  by  external  consultants,  stakeholders  or 
academics 

Annex  4a:  Overview  of  progress 
the  2001 
Recommendation  on  mobility  within  the  Community  for  students,  persons  undergoing 
training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers (2001/613/EC) 

the  provisions  of 

implementing 

in 

Annex  4b:  Overview  of  Level  of  Progress  in  implementing  the  provisions  of  the  2001 
Recommendation (2001/613/EC) and presentation of Areas emerging since 2001 

Annex  5:  Links  between  the  problems,  objectives  and  areas  where  Member  State  action 
should be pursued 

Annex 6: Mobility Scoreboard – illustrative example 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES 

Lead service: DG Education and Culture 

Other involved services: EMPL, ENTR, INFSO, JLS, MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD and SG 

Agenda planning or WP reference: 2010/EAC/008 

This Impact Assessment is part of the Youth on the Move initiative, one of the flagship actions of 
'EUROPE 2020: A strategy for sustainable growth and jobs'. 

Modifications following the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 

The  above  impact  assessment  was  reviewed  by  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  at  its  meeting  of 
14th April 2010. 

Changes to the Report were made in  order to  take  account  of  the Board's  recommendations. In 
particular,  the  problem  definition  has  been  expanded  and  focus  improved.  Links  between 
identified problems, formulated objectives and concrete proposals for Member State action have 
been strengthened, both in the body of the text and by the inclusion of Annex 5. 

A  more  detailed  exposé  of  which  elements  of  the  existing  policy  framework  (2001  Council 
Recommendation) have been successful and which not, and which areas have emerged in the 10 
intervening years is presented, notably via the addition of a table at annex 4b and an enhanced 
textual  information..  This  is  complemented  by  the  addition  of  two  new  specific/operational 
objectives  ensures  that  all  identified  problems  are  adequately  reflected  in  the  objectives  and 
consistent with proposals for concrete action. 

The description of the policy options has been enhanced, and further assessment and comparison 
included  on  how  these  options  will  address  the  problem  drivers  and  objectives  identified  as 
priorities  for  the  initiative.  Furthermore,  an  expanded  analysis  of  the  potential  administrative 
burden of each option is provided. 

Finally,  increased  attention  is  paid  to  how  uptake  by  Member  States  will  be  assured  and  to  an 
explanation of the proposed 'mobility scoreboard' that will contribute to increased visibility and 
better monitoring. 

Disclaimer: 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 

4 

   EN 

 
Section 1: Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 

Organisation and timing 

This Impact Assessment is part of the Youth on the Move initiative, one of the flagship actions of 
'EUROPE 2020: A strategy for sustainable growth and jobs'. 

1.1.  Political Background 

Young  people  are  crucial  for  Europe's  future.  The  EU  has  close  to  100  million  young  people, 
representing a fifth of its total population. They have been hit particularly hard by the economic 
and  social  crisis.  They  continue  to  suffer  due  to  weaknesses  in  education  and  employment 
systems which see high numbers of young people leave school early or with low qualifications 
and  then  struggle  to  find  jobs.  Transnational  learning  mobility  can  contribute  strongly  to 
excellence in European education and training and to the prospects of young people to improve 
their  life  opportunities.  However,  not  enough  young  people  are  able  to  reap  the  benefits  of  a 
transnational mobility period and there remains enormous untapped potential.  

In 2008, more than half a million EU students studied abroad, 75% of these choosing to study in 
another  EU  country.  EU  Programmes  make  a  significant  contribution  to  the  number  of  young 
people  taking  up  mobility  opportunities;  in  2008  there  were  approximately  370,000  mobile 
learners in EU mobility programmes (Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Comenius, Grundvig, Youth 
in Action and Erasmus Mundus)1 

Mobility and its potential to contribute to European strategies for learning and skills has been the 
subject of considerable policy reflection over recent years. The 20th anniversary of the Erasmus 
programme  in  2007,  triggered  many  debates  on  the  benefits  of  mobility  in  higher  education  as 
calls to expand such opportunities to other areas of education and training.  

December  2007:  Portuguese  Presidency  Conclusions  call  upon  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  to  promote  greater  mobility  in  the  context  of  delivering  lifelong  learning  to  all 
citizens […] alongside its social dimension, of particular importance for more and better jobs.2 

January  to  June  2008:  High  Level  Expert  Forum  on  Mobility,  bringing  together  11 
internationally renowned experts in the field of mobility, from academia, social partners, NGOs 
and the European Economic and Social Committee. 

November 2008: Council Conclusions on youth  mobility3 which invite  the Member States and 
the Commission to adopt measures with a view to removing barriers to mobility in different areas 
and ensuring that periods of study and training abroad are recognised. Mobility is here aimed 
above  all  at  intra-European  mobility  but  it  may  also  contribute  towards  developing  mobility 
between Europe and third countries. 

1 
2 

3 

EN 

Eurostat data ; Progress report on indicators and benchmarks 2009 (Staff Working Paper SEC (2009) 1616) 
Conclusions 
December 
Brussels 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/97669.pdf  
2008/C 320/03 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:320:0006:0009:EN:PDF  

Presidency 

European 

Council 

2007 

14th 

– 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
May 2009: Council conclusions on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education 
and training (‘ET 2020’)4 set out four strategic objectives, the first of which is: Making lifelong 
learning  and  mobility  a  reality.  As  an  essential  element  of  lifelong  learning  and  an  important 
means of enhancing people’s employability and adaptability, mobility for learners, teachers and 
teacher trainers should be gradually expanded with a view to making periods of learning abroad 
– both within Europe and the wider world – the rule rather than the exception;  

April  2009:  In  the  context  of  the  Bologna  Process  (intergovernmental  co-operation  in  higher 
education)  Ministers  responsible  for  higher  education  agree  a  communiqué5  which  stresses: 
Student-centred learning and mobility will help students develop the competences they need in a 
changing labour market and will empower them to become active and responsible citizens. And 
agreeing  a  benchmark  that:  In  2020,  at  least  20%  of  those  graduating  in  the  European  Higher 
Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad 

September 2009: In his Political Guidelines, President Barroso announced: "Europe is a reality 
in everyday life also through exchange initiatives. At a time of economic and social crisis, I feel 
very strongly that it is of particular importance to further the access of the young generation to 
the European dimension. To this end, I propose to expand existing instruments like Erasmus into 
a  new  EU  youth  and  mobility  initiative,  as  part  of  the  EU  2020  strategy.  By  2020  all  young 
people in Europe must have the possibility to spend a part of their educational pathway in other 
Member  States.  Such  a  "Youth  on  the  Move"  initiative  would  be  a  decisive  contribution  to  the 
promotion of cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and multilingual learning." 

In  presenting  the  portfolio  for  Education,  Multilingualism  and  Youth  to  Mrs  Vassiliou,  the 
President underlined that "More mobility for all and in all learning experiences should become 
the  norm.  I  would  like  you  to  launch  a  "Youth  on  the  Move"  initiative  in  the  course  of  2010, 
highlighting the general needs of our young people with a particular focus on mobility." 

March  2010:  The  Commission  proposal  for  a  Europe  2020  strategy6  sets  out  as  one  of  its 
priorities  to  develop  an  economy  based  on  knowledge  and  innovation  –  "smart  growth",  and 
highlights  the  flagship  initiative:  "Youth  on  the  move"  to  enhance  the  performance  and 
international attractiveness of Europe's higher education institutions and raise the overall quality 
of  all  levels  of  education  and  training  in  the  EU,  combining  both  excellence  and  equity,  by 
promoting  student  mobility  and  trainees'  mobility,  and  improve  the  employment  situation  of 
young people. 

March  2010:  draft  Council  Conclusions  on  the  social  dimension  of  education  and  training 
highlight the need 'continue to eliminate barriers to, expand opportunities for, and improve the 
quality  of,  learning  mobility,  including  by  providing  adequate  incentives  for  the  mobility  of 
students from disadvantaged backgrounds'  

4 
5 

6 

2009/C 119/02 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF  
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/Bologna/conference/documents/Leuven_Louvain-la-
Neuve_Communiqué_April_2009.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-
%20EN%20version.pdf  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
June  2010:  expected  Commission  approval  of  a  'Youth  on  the  Move'  package  to  include  an 
overarching 'Youth on the move' strategy (Commission Communication), to be accompanied by a 
Recommendation  on  actions  necessary  to  expand  and  promote  learning  mobility  by  removing 
obstacles (Council Recommendation), the Communication will also announce further initiatives 
to be taken forward in the coming years. Proposals for programme resources in support of Youth 
on  the  Move  will  be  elaborated  within  the  context  of  an  integrated  Youth  on  the  Move 
Programme 2014-20 and will be subject to separate wide-scale consultation and a separate Impact 
Assessment Report. 

1.2.  Work on Impact Assessment 

July  to  December  2009:  Green  Paper  'Promoting  the  Learning  Mobility  of  Young  People'7 
launched a wide-scale public consultation which resulted in over 3,000 responses (2,798 via an 
on-line IPM questionnaire and 258 written responses from national, regional or local authorities, 
associations and other stakeholders). 

The preparation of this Green Paper was carried out by an Inter Service Group; DGs represented: 
EMPL, ENTR, INFSO, JLS, MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD and SG. This Group met twice (30 
January and 2 April 2009) and their input was valuable in refining the Green Paper, its associated 
consultation documents/tools and the target groups where the Green Paper should be promoted. 

March  2010:  an  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  provided  input  to  the  drafting  of  the  proposed 
Mobility Recommendation and Impact Assessment. DGs involved: EMPL, ENTR, INFSO, JLS, 
MARKT,  REGIO,  RELEX,  RTD  and  SG.  The  representatives  involved  in  this  Group  are  the 
same as those who have co-operated on the work on the Green Paper, and as such were already 
attuned to the mobility aims and key obstacles. 

Given the complementarity of the policy field and the expected positive employment and social 
impacts of the initiative, a bilateral inter-service brainstorming meeting between DGs EAC and 
EMPL was also held (8 February 2010). This meeting brought together representatives of 3 EAC 
units  and  4  EMPL  units  (Employment  Analysis,  Employment  Strategy,  Employment  Services 
and Mobility, and Social Inclusion). Information was shared on complementary initiatives, tools 
and strategies planned or in progress e.g. work on child poverty, the social aspects of migration, 
active inclusion, a thematic focus on Youth under the Cambridge process, developments on Eures 
and  a  '1st  job'  (abroad)  project.  These  inputs  have  been  taken  on  board  in  the  proposal  for  a 
Recommendation and its associated Impact Assessment.  

An  Inter  Service  meeting  of  all  DGs  involved  was  held  9th  March  to  discuss  the  draft 
Recommendation  and  accompanying  Impact  Assessment.  The  comments  of  the  services 
represented  have  been  taken  into  account  in  the  proposal  for  a  Recommendation  and  in  the 
Impact Assessment. 

A further Inter Service meeting is planned 22 April 2010 to discuss the finalisation of the draft 
Recommendation (ie. the preferred option of this Impact Assessment, which will be presented in 

7 

http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/mobility/com329_en.pdf  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the following sections) and other parts of the Youth on the Move package before the formal inter-
service consultation.  

1.3.  Purpose of the impact assessment report 

This impact assessment report aims to support a policy action at EU level to improve the cross-
border  mobility  of  young  people  for  learning  purposes,  which  includes  formal,  non-formal  and 
informal learning and volunteering. 

The Report defines the problem at stake as well as the rationale for policy action at EU level and 
addresses the aims of the initiative in terms of general and specific objectives. Finally, it presents 
a range of different policy options to achieve such objectives and an analysis and comparison of 
their possible impact. 

The results of the stakeholder consultation, as well as evidence material are presented, and ways 
to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the proposed initiative are addressed. 

1.4.  Main sources of information and consultations 

The Impact Assessment has been informed by a wide-scale public and stakeholder consultation 
which took place July–December 2009 on the Green Paper 'Promoting the Learning Mobility 
of Young People'8 More than 3,000 responses were received to this consultation, (2,798 via an 
on-line IPM questionnaire and 258 written responses from national, regional or local authorities, 
associations  and  other  stakeholders).  The  majority  of  the  individual  responses  (1,758  =  62.8%) 
were received from young people who are the focus of this initiative. 

The  questions  posed  in  the  consultation  specifically  focussed  on  key  obstacles  to  learning 
mobility and as such has direct relevance for the formulation of the Recommendation's themes. 

The  Results  of  the  Green  Paper  consultation  have  informed  this  impact  assessment  and  the 
proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation.  In  particular,  the  high  number  of  young  people  with 
direct  experience  of,  or  who  are  considering  a  learning  mobility  period  abroad,  which  have 
provided  feedback  to  the  Green  Paper  consultation  has  enhanced  our  understanding  of  the 
practical issues faced.  

Analysis of responses indicates that (in order of importance) the key issues most often cited are: 

–  "Information",  and  in  particular  a  lack  of  accessible  and  reliable  information  on  the 
possibilities for study abroad and its benefits. Furthermore, awareness of EU portals in support 
of  mobility  is  disapointing,  up  to  half  of  all  respondents  say  they  don't  know  the  portals 
mentioned in the questionnaire.  

–  "funding",  including  the  availability  of  financial  resources  in  support  of  mobility  and  the 

portability of financial support (grants and loans).  

8 

http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/mobility/com329_en.pdf  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  "motivation"  with  poor  awareness  of 

learning  mobility.  "Personal 
development"  is  considered  by  respondents  to  be  the  most  important  benefit  of  learning 
mobility followed by "foreign language skills", "Added knowledge and/or skills in the area of 
specialisation" and "Intercultural skills" .  

the  benefits  of 

–  "recognition  and  validation  after  return".  problems  with  formal  recognition  of  the  study, 
volunteering  or  traineeship  period.  When  examining  the  stay  abroad  and  follow-up,  over 
83.1% of respondents agree strongly or somewhat that: "The lack of full and easy validation 
and  recognition  of  a  learning  or  training  period  abroad  is  still  a  significant  obstacle  to 
mobility". 

–  "technical and legal barriers", such as with visas, health and social security provisions are also 

cited 

These issues are consistent with, and have informed, the problem drivers identified in section 2. 

More information on the results of the Green Paper consultation can be found at Annex 2 

In addition, proposals have also been inspired by: 

The  work  of  the  High  Level  Expert  Forum  on  Mobility  (December  2007-June  2008),  which 
brought together 11 members with expertise in fields relevant to learning mobility. These experts 
included  governmental  advisors,  representatives  from  academia,  from  agencies  involved  in  the 
management of EU mobility programmes, a member of the governing board of the Confederation 
of German Employers' Association, a member of the European Economic and Social Committee 
and Chief Executive of Irish Children's Rights, and a member of the Commission's network of the 
Group of Societal Policy Analysis, and representatives with experience of specific sectors such as 
music, the Arts, heritage and the culture sector. 

The  Group  found  that  current  levels  of  geographic  mobility  are  low.  Only  18%  of  Europeans 
have moved outside their region, while only 4% have moved to another Member State and 3% 
outside the Union, which contrasts with the USA, where almost a third (32%) of the citizens live 
outside  the  state  in  which  they  were  born.  Nevertheless,  while  almost  70%  of  the  European 
citizens have no intention to move on the near future, most of them view geographical mobility 
very positively. In addition, different Member States and social groups show different mobility 
intentions; the propensity is currently higher in the new Member States and in the Member States 
with liberal or social-democratic welfare regimes; more vulnerable workers are exposed to more 
involuntary  job  changes  than  their  higher-skilled  or  better  protected  counterparts;  voluntary 
mobility  goes  hand  in  hand  with  economic  success,  both  at  country  level  and  for  individuals; 
young and educated workers are the most likely to move. 
The Group concluded that learning mobility should become a natural feature of being European 
and an opportunity provided to all young people in Europe. And stated that such mobility would 
contribute to two vital policy goals:  

–  to strengthen Europe's competitiveness, building its knowledge-intensive society; 

–  and to deepen the sense of European identity and citizenship within its youth generation. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Their  final  report  -  'Making  learning  mobility  an  opportunity  for  all'  is  available  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/2008/mobilityreport_en.pdf  

In the area of higher education, a Eurobarometer Survey9 was conducted, which interviewed 
15,000  students  across  31  countries  on  their  perceptions  of  higher  education  reform,  including 
notably on questions relation to mobility and obstacles to the ambition of studying abroad. The 
survey  asked  students  about  mobility  issues  such  as  plans  to  study  in  another  country  and 
obstacles  that  might  prevent  (or  have  prevented)  them  following  such  a  path.  The  majority  of 
interviewees  (53%)  said  they  had  intention  to  study  abroad,  with  11%  stating  that  they  had 
planned  to,  but  had  abandoned  their  plans  to  study  in  another  country.  When  asked  about  the 
various potential reasons for not studying abroad, they cite a range of obstacles such as a lack of 
funds, language barriers, and recognition difficulties. 

9

Eurobarometer Special Target Survey (March 2009) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_260_en.pdf  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Mobility is an area which has been the subject of many studies and academic work, a review of 
this  material  has  been  undertaken  in  consideration  of  the  key  obstacles  to  mobility  and 
conclusions on action needed to remove these obstacles. In addition to the work of DG EAC, the 
JRC ipts (Sevilla) has provided support in this exercise. 

No  external  expertise  has  been  used  for  the  preparation  of  the  Impact  Assessment;  however, 
external expertise has been used for the analysis of responses to the public consultation (Green 
Paper on Promoting the Learning Mobility of Young People) 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Mobility has an important impact in that, as part of the freedom of movement of persons, it is a 
means of promoting employment, reducing poverty, and promoting active European citizenship 
by  improving  mutual  and  intercultural  understanding  in  the  EU  and  boosting  economic,  social 
and regional cohesion.Learning mobility, i.e. transnational mobility for the purpose of acquiring 
new skills is one of the fundamental ways in which individuals, particularly young people (aged 
16-35), can strengthen their future employability as well as their personal development.  

Studies confirm that learning mobility adds to human capital, as students access new knowledge 
and  develop  new  linguistic  skills  and  intercultural  competences.  Furthermore,  employers 
recognise  and  value  these  benefits.  Evidence  shows  that,  Europeans  who  are  mobile  as  young 
learners  are  more  likely  to  be  mobile  as  workers  later  in  life.  They  also  tend  to  enjoy  higher 
salaries and more rewarding careers.  

EU action, in particular through flagship programmes such as Erasmus in higher education and 
Youth in Action in the field of non-formal education, has done much to increase mobility and to 
provide  financial  support  to  individuals  to  make  this  happen.  Tools  such  as  ECTS  (European 
Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) and ECVET (European Credit system for Vocational 
Education and Training) for Credit Transfer and Accumulation and Europass and Youthpass to 
make  an  individual's  skills  and  qualifications  more  clearly  and  easily  understood  throughout 
Europe, act as powerful levers to facilitate mobility. 

However, still relatively few young people reap the benefits of a learning experience abroad and 
some  groups,  such  as  young  people  from  disadvantaged  backgrounds  are  particularly 
underrepresented10 (for example, during 2007/8 the number of disabled students participating in 
Erasmus mobility represented only 0.1% of the total)11. At present, 380,000 mobilities per year 
are realised under the EU programmes (Lifelong Learning Programme, Youth in Action, Erasmus 
Mundus, Marie Curie Actions). There is a huge untapped potential for increasing this number.  

Obstacles to learning mobility persist, too often, young people are deterred from engaging in 
mobility  for  learning  purposes  or  encounter  problems  when  they  undertake  such  mobility. 
Problems  most  often  cited,  as  indicated  above,  are:  lack  of  information  and  guidance  about 

10  
11  

Key issues for the European Higher Education Area – Social Dimension and Mobility (2009) 
European Commission, DG EAC – Erasmus Statistics 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
mobility opportunities; difficulties with the recognition of studies completed in another country; 
limitations  on  the  portability  of  financial  support  for  study  (grants  and  loans),  legal  hurdles 
relating  to  the  status  of  young  researchers,  trainees  and  volunteers;  and  national  restrictions 
which impede the development of joint programmes.  

Furthermore,  there  is  an  uneven  distribution  of  flows  of  young  people  between  Member  States 
(with  some  countries  net  senders  and  others  net  receivers  of  mobile  learners).  There  are  no 
specific EU wide studies available on this particular topic and the reasons behind imbalances, but 
available evidence suggests that the language spoken in the host country is a strong determining 
factor as well as the overall attractiveness and perceived quality of the education system.  

Imbalances  over  the  short-term  do  not  have  a  substantial  impact  on  the  system  or  present  an 
undue  burden  to  individual  Member  States,  but  longer-term  unbalances  can  place  a  strain  on 
receiving  countries  educational  systems  in  particular,  and  upon  sending  countries  if  mobile 
learners  choose  not  to  return  to  their  home  country  ('brain  drain').  Evidence  from  European 
mobility  programmes  shows  that  the  East-West  imbalance  which  currently  exists,  is  gradually 
shrinking  and  some  countries  have  introduced  national  policies  aimed  at  rebalancing  mobility 
flows, for example, by giving higher grants for students going to 'less popular destinations'.  

It should be stressed that freedom of movement between Member States is a fundamental pillar of 
EU rights, safeguarded by the Treaty. Restrictions on cross-border mobility for the purposes of 
study  have  been  the  subject  of  high  profile  court  cases.  A  guidance  note  on  the  rulings  of  the 
European Court of Justice in this area is being elaborated. 

2.1.  EU instruments in support of learning mobility (baseline) 

Several instruments already exist at the European level in the context of removing obstacles to 
such  mobility.  In  particular,  three  separate  Recommendations  in  the  areas  of  Education  and 
Training and Youth: 

•  A  2001  Council  Recommendation  on  mobility  within  the  Community  for  students,  persons 

undergoing training, volunteers, teachers12,  

•  A  complementary  2006  Council  Recommendation  on  the  European  Quality  Charter  for 

Mobility13.  

•  A  2008  Council  Recommendation  on  mobility  of  young  volunteers  across  Europe14,  which 
seeks to boost cooperation between organisers of voluntary activities in the Member States of 
the European Union. 

Other provisions exist where the EU has competence to legislate, notably Directive 2004/38/EC 
on  the  right  of  citizens  and  their  family  members  to  reside  freely  within  the  territory  of  the 

12 
13 
14 

2001/613/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:215:0030:0037:EN:PDF  
2006/961/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0005:0009:EN:PDF  
2008/C 319/03 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:319:0008:0010:EN:PDF  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member  States  and  a  Directive  on  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  (205/36/EC). 
However,  it  should  be  noted  that  Directive  205/36/EC  is  aimed  professional  recognition  for 
employment purposes and not for citizens wishing to study in another Member State (academic 
recognition) and has a particular focus on certain professions such as in medicine. 

In addition, EU programmes seek to provide direct financial support for mobility. Most notably 
the Lifelong Learning Programme (€ 7bn), Eras mus Mundus (€ 953m), Youth in Action (€ 885 
m), and Marie Curie (€ 4.75 bn). In 2008 there we re approximately 370,000 mobile learners in 
EU mobility programmes (Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Comenius, Grundvig, Youth in Action 
and Erasmus Mundus) 15 

Erasmus,  the  EU's  flagship  mobility  programme,  celebrated  its  2  millionth  mobile  student  in 
2009.  Growth  in  participation  in  Erasmus  has,  however,  slowed  in  recent  years.  In  2008  there 
were  183,000  Erasmus  students  and  it  is  estimated  that  only  around  4%  of  European  students 
have had the opportunity to participate in the Erasmus programme during their studies. Further 
baseline data on mobility can be found at Annex 1. It should be noted that baseline data on youth 
mobility  outside  European  programmes  is  lacking.  A  Member  State  Expert  Group  has  been 
established (2010) to examine available data and propose an EU benchmark on mobility. 

The  Bologna  process,  an  intergovernmental  process  involving  47  counties  (including  all  EU 
member states), offers potential for synergies in the area of higher education. A work programme 
is agreed, which receives orientations from ministerial conferences every two/three years, this is 
supported and receives input from working groups and seminars. Higher education priorities for 
the decade 2010-20 are: 

•  social dimension: equitable access and completion,  
•  lifelong learning;  
•  employability;  
•  student-centred learning and the teaching mission of higher education;  
•  education, research and innovation;  
•  international openness;  
•  mobility;  
•  data collection;  
•  multidimensional transparency tools;  
•  funding.  

Progress within the framework of Bologna can act as an impetus for agreements at an EU-level, 
for  example,  an  EU  level  target  on  mobility  will  be  inspired  by  the  20%  higher  education 
mobility target agreed by Bologna Ministers in 2009.  

2.2. 

Specific Problems and underlying drivers 

The  specific  problems  are  summarised  below.  The  underlying  problem  drivers  which  prevent 
learning  mobility  becoming  a  realistic  opportunity  mainly  arise  from  obstacles  in  the  national 

15 

European Commission DG EAC 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
context. In some cases this is a result of administrative or legal barriers, in others it is due to lack 
of information about opportunities for mobility and individual rights and entitlements.  

Information  shortfalls  and  motivation:  insufficient  information  is  available  and  easily 
accessible  to  young  people  considering  a  mobility  experience,  for  example,  66%  of  those 
interviewed  by  Eurobarometer  on  the  subject  cited  this  as  a  problem  (see  1.4  above).  Student 
guidance  services,  teachers,  trainers  and  counselors  are  often  unaware  of  the  possibilities  for 
study abroad and of the benefits of such mobility.  

Set  against  the  provisions  of  the  2001  Council  Recommendation,  evaluation  indicates  that 
Member State progress is mixed in this area. Such mixed progress may be linked to the nature of 
this problem, which is dynamic and requires ongoing efforts as new potentially mobile learners 
emerge.  Furthermore,  whilst  efforts  may  have  been  made  to  increase  the  availability  of 
information, these may have failed to reach their target groups.  

Similarly, success in encouraging students and pupils to complete part of their studies in another 
Member State is very mixed, with many Member States not prioritising such actions. 

Language and culture: mastery of a foreign language is instrumental in engaging in successful 
cross-border learning mobility; yet too few young people have the requisite language skills. 70% 
of those interviewed by Eurobarometer (see section 1.4 above) highlighted lack of language skills 
as  a  barrier  to  their  mobility.  Increased  awareness  of  cultural  and  social  differences,  including 
those relating to teaching and learning, are also needed to foster a positive learning experience. 

Good progress can be noted in the availability of linguistic and cultural preparation for mobility 
periods, and to some degree in the expansion of language learning in the mainstream curriculum. 
However, continued problems are reported as regards to the level of fluency attained in order to 
undertake  learning  programmes  in  a  foreign  language.  Furthermore,  lesser-spoken  languages 
continue to be disadvantaged in this regard, with many smaller countries increasingly opting to 
offer programmes in English.  

Legal issues: such as the status of young researchers, trainees, volunteers, problems relating to 
health  and  social  security  coverage  and  the  absence  of  a  coherent  legal  framework  for  the 
mobility  of  minors  continue  to  pose  unnecessary  hurdles,  which  in  some  cases  prove 
insurmountable. Added to this, are difficulties surrounding visas and the implementation of visa 
Directives for third country nationals wishing to come to the EU to study, do research or engage 
in volunteering. 

Cross-border working on curriculum development between institutions and agencies can also be 
impeded by national legislative frameworks which place restrictions on the development of joint 
(cross-border)  education  and  training  programmes  and  degrees  e.g.  by  specifying  that 
programmes must be  delivered  and assessed in the national language. In several countries, it is 
not legally possible for universities to deliver an international joint degree. 

Evaluation of progress shows that legal issues are an area where progress is particularly lacking 
and many problems remain. Given the broad range of legal issues, the reasons for shortcomings 
in  implementation  are  varied;  however,  legal  changes  which  could  give  rise  to  rights  or 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
entitlements  that  may  lead  to  an  increased  demand  upon  public  finances  (in  particular  where 
benefits  are  not  available  in  other  countries)  may  face  particular  scrutiny  or  resistance  eg. 
extending  accessibility  of  benefits  (other  than  social  security)  available  to  domestic  students  to 
students from other Member States – public transport subsidies, accommodation support etc. 

Restrictions on the portability of financial support (grants and loans): trainees, researchers 
and students are often faced with difficulties when moving between countries and accessing, or 
continuing to benefit from grants and loans. 

Despite rulings of the European Court on the portability of grant assistance, this continues to be 
an area of confusion and frustration for many mobile citizens. Portability of loans for education 
and training purposes, especially as concerns support for living costs, are even more fraught; with 
accessibility  a  particular  issue  and  substantial  differences  in  residency  requirements  between 
Member States. Aside from concerns over the potential cost implications of full portability of all 
types of grants and loans and the potential for imbalanced burden between Member States, lack 
of  progress  in  this  area  may  also  be  attributable  to  accessibility  of  information  on  national 
schemes to the target groups, and the absence of a clear presentation of the EU jurisprudence in 
this area for administrative levels. 

Recognition and validation of the stay abroad: A key consideration for young people thinking 
about a mobility period abroad is the value of such an experience, not only as enriching personal 
development (which in itself is important), but also to enhance their employability and to deepen 
their  knowledge  and  understanding  of  their  field  of  study  or  practice  in  another  setting. 
Understandably, where doubts exist over the recognition and formal validation of such a mobility 
period, many people choose not to go. Recognition is one of the most frequently cited difficulties 
by  young  people  engaging  in  mobility  (65%  of  those  interviewed  on  the  subject  by 
Eurobarometer); and is especially problematic as concerns non formal and informal learning and 
for volunteering moves. 

Analysis  of  the  implementation  of  the  2001  Council  Recommendation  indicates  that  good 
progress exists as regards the recognition of qualifications completed in another Member State. A 
clear commitment and concrete action on the part of Member States to 'encourage the creation of 
a  European  Qualification  Area'  can  be  seen,  including  via  the  establishment  of  national 
qualifications  frameworks  linked  to  the  European  Qualifications  Framework.  The  existence  of 
European-level  tools  and  frameworks  to  facilitate  the  recognition  of  formal  academic  study,  in 
particular  the  ECTS  (European  Credit  Transfer  and  Accumulation  System),  and  the  'Diploma 
Supplement'  in  higher  education,  which  makes  the  content  of  individual  qualifications  more 
transparent,  has  done  much  to  stimulate  progress.  Monitoring  and  assessment  of  Member  State 
progress  in  this  area  has  been  closely  followed  up  at  European  level,  via  the  production  of 
specific  and  regular  analysis  and  the  agreement  of  timelines,  and  active  sharing  of  experience 
through peer learning and the promotion of good practices.  

Member  State  progress  on  recognition  and  validation  of  informal  and  non-formal  learning 
undertaken  in  another  country  (including  volunteering)  is  notably  lacking.  This  is  much  more 
complex in its nature and in many Member States the frameworks to make this happen (including 
for  the  validation  of  such  learning  undertaken  in  a  domestic  context)  are  not  yet  developed.  In 
addition,  decisions  on  recognition  and  validation  may  fall  under  the  competence  of  several 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
different  agencies,  or  individual  learning  institutions,  and  as  such  will  suffer  from  any  lack  in 
joined-up working.  

Linked  to  issues  of  recognition,  quality  assurance  and  the  importance  of  high  quality  in  all 
mobility  activities  is  essential,  with  62%  of  those  interviewed  by  Eurobarometer  on  barriers  to 
mobility citing concerns over quality as an obstacle to mobility. A European Quality Charter for 
Mobility  was  agreed  in  2006,  but  outside  European  programmes,  uptake  of  this  Charter  is 
disappointing. Information on the reasons for this is not available. 

In  addition,  structural  rigidities  result  from  sectorally-focussed  working.  Too  often 
national/local  departments  and  agencies  dealing  with  different  target  groups  (higher  education 
students, school pupils, volunteers etc) do not work in a joined-up fashion, despite the potential 
for synergies and the existence of shared problems between target groups. 

This  assessment  of  key  obstacles  is  echoed  by  the  Bologna  process  on  co-operation  in  higher 
education, which highlights that many challenges to mobility remain, especially with regard to: 
visas,  residence  and  work  permits;  recognition  of  qualifications;  financial  incentives  (including 
portable  student  loans  and  grants);  pension  arrangements;  and  joint  programmes  and  flexible 
curricula16  

Overall, when looking at the different approaches taken by individual Member States, the reasons 
why  a  specific  provision  highlighted  in  the  2001  Council  Recommendation  was  successful  (or 
not)  are  many  and  varied.  Some  countries  have  introduced  mobility  strategies  or  established 
interdepartmental committees as is the case in Ireland to look at barriers across all areas. Whilst 
others  have  focussed  on  specific  initiatives  or  areas  of  specific  concern  in  their  country,  e.g. 
Belgium  Flanders  has  ensured  that  foreign  students  in  Flemish  institutions  have  access  to  the 
same  social  benefits  as  domestic  students  (housing,  cheap  meals,  free  public  transport  etc),  in 
some cases leading to mixed results.  

Furthermore,  and  in  line  with  the  assessment  by  specific  problem  above,  it  is  clear  that  some 
elements of the 2001 Recommendation were 'easier' to deliver upon than others and bring more 
visible outcomes. More problematic areas are often those which required changes to legislation 
and/or administrative regulations and which involve cross-agency working at Member State level 
eg. for the portability of grants and loans or measures to apply equal or comparable treatment to 
different target groups such as the legal status of volunteers/trainees. 

Problems,  challenges  and  opportunities  which  have  emerged  since  the  2001  Council 
Recommendation include:  

Substantial  technological  progress,  including  Information  and  Communication  Technologies 
(ICTs),  brings  new  opportunities  for  virtual  mobility  and  for  accessibility  of  information  on 
mobility possibilities/preparing mobility 

16 

EN 

Bologna 
Stocktaking 
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Stocktaking_report_2009_FINAL.pdf  

Process 

Report 

2009 

16 

- 

   EN 

 
                                                 
More  emphasis  is  increasingly  placed  upon  the  social  dimension  eg.  as  HE  becomes  more 
accessible to non-traditional learners such as those from disadvantaged backgrounds these groups 
will  have  different  needs  to  the  traditional  student  body,  perhaps  more  financial  support  but 
especially cultural/aspirational and guidance support 

New  partnership  models  and  new  alliances  are  an  increasingly  common  aim  of  educational 
establishment,  yet  these  can  be  restricted  due  to  administrative  and  legislative  barriers  to  co-
operation.  Joint  working  is  more  of  a  feature  than  10  years  ago  eg.  for  the  delivery  of  joint 
degrees, yet many countries do not permit their accreditation bodies to certify joint programmes. 

Extra  EU  mobility  is  increasingly  demanded  by  students  as  part  of  the  curriculum,  yet  the 
availability  of  information  on  opportunities  for  learning  mobility  outside  the  EU  and  academic 
recognition  of  periods  spent  outside  the  EU  is  particularly  weak  and  in  the  case  of  incoming 
students legal and administrative barriers are particularly acute (e.g. visa restrictions). 

The economic crisis has led to a reduction in budgets available to support mobility initiatives and 
implementing institutions in many countries, making it more difficult for young people to afford 
a  mobility  period.  Conversely,  more  young  people,  faced  with  a  difficult  labour  market,  are 
seeking  to  differentiate  themselves  in  order  to  be  more  attractive  to  employers  and/or  defer 
potential unemployment  

Furthermore,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  existing  legislative  framework  (the  2001  Council 
Recommendation) was agreed before the accession of newer Member States. The circumstances 
and  mobility  challenges  of  these  countries  may  differ  somewhat  to  'older'  Member  States  Eg. 
Central and Eastern European countries have experienced large mobility outflows for study and 
employment.  

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

Those  affected  are  young  people  (primarily  those  aged  16-35),  and  in  particular  students  and 
learners  who  have  chosen  (or  who  wish)  to  pursue  a  part  of  their  learning  pathway  in  another 
Member  State.  They  face  unnecessary  obstacles  and  restrictions  which  inhibit  their  ability  to 
engage in cross-border learning. The extent of these barriers to mobility results in many people 
being deterred from engaging in mobility.  

2.4.  How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 

A  2001  Council  Recommendation  on  mobility  within  the  Community  of  students,  persons 
undergoing training, volunteers and teachers and trainers17 seeks to guide Member State action in 
removing  obstacles  to  learning  mobility.  A  2004  Report  on  the  implementation  of  this 
Recommendation  by  Member  States18  recognised  that  some  progress  has  taken  place,  and  the 
Recommendation was effective to a certain extent., but highlights that '..the share of the actually 

17 
18

2001/613/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:215:0030:0037:EN:PDF 
COM(2004) 21 Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions - Report on the follow-up to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 
July 2001 on mobility within the Community of students, persons undergoing training, volunteers and teachers and trainers 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
mobile persons in education and training clearly indicates that much more still has to be done. 
People have to be persuaded of the benefits of a learning related mobility experience.'  

Without  substantial  increased  visibility  and  renewed  efforts  by  Member  States  and  competent 
national,  regional  and  local  organisations,  progress  in  reducing  obstacles  will  be  insufficient  to 
realise the shared goal of the EU and Member States of making mobility an opportunity for all. 
The  low  and  static  proportion  (approximately  10%  of  the  relevant  population  cohort,  of  which 
4% in EU supported programmes) of people who effectively participate in mobility in education 
and  training  make  it  clear  that  much  more  effort  is  needed  (see  Annex  1  for  a  detailed 
presentation) 

Following the specific Report on the follow-up of the Recommendation (2004), 19 monitoring was 
subsequently  integrated  into  national  reporting  in  the  context  of  the  broader  Education  and 
Training  Work  Programme  2010  (open  method  of  co-ordination).  The  incorporation  of  the 
monitoring  and  follow-up  of  the  Recommendation  into  the  Education  and  Training  2010  OMC 
from  2004  onwards  led  to  a  shift  in  focus  away  from  mobility.  It  is  fair  to  say  that  the  2001 
Council Recommendation  has largely fallen into disuse.  Whilst  progress against some areas is 
substantial, this has been more marked in areas followed up within the context of specific actions 
or initiatives at  EU level.    Other  areas, notably at the national or regional level have  fared less 
well overall, and in some cases insufficient information is available to assess if adequate progress 
has  been  made.  A  detailed  presentation  of  to  what  degree  areas  of  the  2001  Recommendation 
have worked is included at Annex 4.  

2.5.  Basis for EU action 

Education, Youth and Training Policy is an area where the EU has supporting competence as 
defined by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Lisbon Treaty). 

The  Treaty  (articles  165  and  166)  provides  that  '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'  and  in  particular,  foresees  that 
Community  action  shall  be  aimed  at  'encouraging  mobility  of  students  and  teachers,  by 
encouraging inter alia, the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study' as well as at 
"encouraging  the  development  of  youth  exchanges  and  of  exchanges  of  socio-educational 
instructors". 

This  Recommendation  conforms  to  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  referred  to  in  Article  5  of  the 
Treaty insofar as Community action, complementing action by the Member States, is necessary 
for the obstacles to mobility to be removed. It is important to that end, to emphasise that mobility 
requires  Community  intervention  because  by  its  nature  it  entails  transnational  aspects.  This 
Recommendation  also  conforms  to  the  principle  of  proportionality  referred  to  in  that  Article 
because it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued.  

19 

COM(2004) 21  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The EU adopts a twin-track approach to taking forward this mission, through policy cooperation 
with EU Member States, and through the implementation of the Lifelong Learning and Youth in 
Action  Programmes  which  provide  funding  in  support  of  mobility  actions  (i.e.  Erasmus, 
Comenius, Leonardo, Grundtvig).  

Much  progress  has  been  made  in  opening  up  mobility  opportunities  for  young  people  across 
Europe. However, further and sustained action will be necessary to make transnational learning 
mobility truly an opportunity for all. Policy initiatives and programme resources at the EU level 
have been put in place to facilitate mobility, but challenges remain, especially at the national and 
regional level. Proposals for removing obstacles to learning mobility for young people will seek 
to  update  and  refocus  the  existing  2001  Council  Recommendation  on  mobility  within  the 
Community for students, persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers and trainers, and will 
be complementary to other initiatives in this area, including notably proposals for a Community 
spending programme for Youth on the Move. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1.  The  main  policy  objectives  to  be  achieved  are  to  make  learning  mobility  an 

opportunity for all, via: 

–  The elimination of barriers to learning mobility at national/regional levels 

–  The promotion of learning mobility 

3.2. 

Specific/operational objectives 

Based upon the underlying drivers/obstacles to mobility set out in section 2.1 above,  

•  improve  the  availability  and  accessibly  of  reliable  information  on  the  possibilities  for  study 

abroad and its benefits 

•  improve language skills, consistent with the aims of the multilingualism strategy, including the 

target of "Mother tongue plus two (foreign languages) for every citizen20  

•  remove  legal  and  administrative  barriers  to  the  development  of  cross-border  joint  study 

programmes and other forms of learning mobility 

•  reduce  legal  and  administrative  barriers  relating  to  health  and  social  security  coverage  for 

young researchers, trainees and volunteers  

•  promote a coherent legal framework for the mobility of minors 

•  reduce or remove restrictions on the portability of student financial support (grants and loans) 

20 

EN 

Council  Resolution  on  a  European 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:320:0001:01:EN:HTML  

strategy 

for  multilingualism  2008/C  320/01http://eur-

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  improve  recognition  and  validation  for  formal,  non-formal  and  informal  learning  completed 

abroad 

•  increase opportunities for young people from underrepresented groups (lower socio economic 

backgrounds, minority ethnic groups, disabled people) to participate in learning mobility  

•  encourage  a  focus  not  only  on  increasing  mobility  in  quantitative  terms  but,  above  all,  on 
improving  its  quality,  including  via  increased  take-up  of  the  voluntary  European  Quality 
Charter for mobility 

•  encourage cross-sectoral working, in order to facilitate shared solutions common to different 

target groups 

•  enable  a  better  comparison  of  progress  between  Member  States  and  reinforce  peer  learning, 

via an effective monitoring process 

It should be stressed that whilst it is appropriate to set out the areas where action is particularly 
needed by Member States in order to realise mobility as an opportunity for all, Recommendations 
at  the  EU  level  should  not  be  overly  prescriptive:  it  will  be  for  Member  States  themselves,  in 
respect of the subsidiarity principle, to define how this will be taken forward  

3.3.  Consistency of these objectives with other EU policies and horizontal objectives 

As  one  of  the  four  strategic  objectives  of  the  Education  and  Training  2020  work  programme, 
mobility contributes to the creation of the European Area of Education and Training and plays an 
essential  part  in  supporting  'smart  growth'  as  set  out  in  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  proposals. 
Promoting mobility of young people is also underlined in the EU Youth Strategy: Investing and 
Empowering as a means to achieve the overall objectives of European youth cooperation. 

The  elimination  of  obstacles  to  mobility  and  the  promotion  of  mobility  for  the  purposes  of 
learning are fundamental to the aspirations set out in the 'Youth on the Move' initiative. Youth on 
the Move (YoM) is a flagship EU initiative to support the Europe 2020 Strategy. The aim is to 
"enhance  the  performance  and  international  attractiveness  of  Europe's  higher  education 
institutions  and  raise  the  overall  quality  of  all  levels  of  education  and  training  in  the  EU, 
combining both excellence and equity, by promoting student mobility and trainees' mobility, and 
improve the employment situation of young people.21 It will pursue five main lines of action: 

•  Higher  education  educates  highly  skilled  workers  and  contributes  to  the  research  base  and 
capacity  for  innovation  that  determine  competitiveness  in  a  knowledge-based  economy. 
Europe needs to raise the percentage of young people participating in higher education to keep 
up  with  competitors.  It  also  needs  to  improve  the  quality  and  attractiveness  of  higher 
education  and  make  university  studies  more  open  to  the  rest  of  the  world  and  equipped  to 
respond  to  the  challenges  of  globalisation.  Student  mobility  has  played  a  key  role  in  the 
"internationalisation" of higher education, which has raised standards considerably and led to 

21 

"A strategy for smart,sustainable and inclusive growth". COM (2010) 2020 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  emergence  of  worldwide  university  rankings.  The  EU  should  step  up  efforts  to  promote 
more and better student mobility. 

•  The EU's long track record of supporting mobility through various programmes and initiatives 
will need to be reviewed, expanded and linked up with national and regional resources in order 
to  meet  the  ambitions  of  Europe  2020.  Obstacles  to  mobility  need  to  be  tackled.  The  aim  is 
that by 2020 all young people in Europe should have the possibility to spend a part of their 
educational pathway in another Member State.  

•  Smart and inclusive growth also depends on actions throughout the lifelong learning system, 
to  secure  key  competences,  including  solid  basic  skills,  and  quality  learning  outcomes.  The 
high  level  of  early  school  leaving  needs  to  be  tackled.  Opportunities  for  learning  mobility 
should also be more widely accessible to all young people, including those in non-formal and 
informal learning arrangements. 

•  Europe  must  improve  the  employment  situation  of  young  people.  A  Youth  employment 
framework  should  be  launched  outlining  policies  aimed  at  reducing  youth  unemployment 
rates, facilitating the transition from school to work and promoting labour mobility 

•  Europe  needs  to  extend  and  broaden  learning  opportunities  to  young  people  as  a  whole  and 

promote their active involvement in society.  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Policy options considered: 

•  No EU Action/Status Quo 

•  A  new  Council  Recommendation:  Youth  on  the  Move:  Youth  on  the  Move:  Promoting  the 
learning  mobility  of  young  people,  monitored  through  the  existing  Education  and  Training 
2020 Open Method of Co-ordination 

•  A  new  and  standalone  Open  Method  of  Co-ordination  (OMC)  for  the  Learning  Mobility  of 

Young People 

•  Legislative options such as a Regulation or Directive  

•  Increased investment via an EU programme  

•  Commission Recommendation  

4.1.  Options considered unfeasible and discarded at an early stage: 

•  Legislative options such as a Regulation or Directive – the Community has no competence to 
issue such instruments in the area of Education and Training policy. Furthermore, in the case 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
of  a  Regulation,  the  nature  of  the  problems  to  be  addressed  and  the  diversity  of  national 
approaches do not lend themselves well to this type of instrument 

•  Increased investment via an EU programme – the Commission will explore the possibility 
to make extra resources available to support learning mobility when it makes proposals for the 
integrated  Youth  on  the  Move  Programme  in  2011.  However,  whilst  increased  resources 
would certainly assist in achieving the general objectives of increasing learning mobility, and 
provide  support  to  individuals  to  overcome  some  of  the  obstacles  identified  (eg.  financial 
barriers to mobility, or information campaigns to promote the value of mobility),extra funding 
alone  will  not  be  sufficient  to  unblock  progress  in  some  key  areas  eg.  legal  restrictions  on 
portability of grants and loans, or continued problems with recognition and validation.  

•  Commission  Recommendation  –.  Given  the  importance  of  the  objectives  and  the  focus  of 
proposed  follow-up,  and  in  particular  that  some  of  the  key  obstacles  to  mobility  are  at 
national/regional  level,  a  Council  Recommendation  would  set  a  strong,  and  consistent 
message  for  implementation  (the  existing  texts  which  this  initiative  seeks  to  build  upon  are 
Council Recommendations). In the event that a Commission Recommendation were pursued it 
is unlikely that this would be sufficiently powerful to trigger the changes required to achieve 
the specific and operational objectives outlined in section 3 above.  

Following an assessment of possible options, three main options emerge as those most realistic 
and feasible, and are in line with the narrow scope for EU intervention in the field of education 
and training. 

4.2.  Option 1: No EU Action/Status Quo 

The  status  quo  is  based  upon  three  separate  Recommendations  in  the  areas  of  Education  and 
Training and Youth as detailed in section 2.5 above. 

The  implementation  of  these  Recommendations  is  monitored  via  the  Open  Method  of  Co-
ordination (OMC) in Education and Training and via a separate OMC in the 'Youth' field. 'Open 
method  of  coordination'  focuses  on  the  definition  of  common  objectives  and  the  monitoring  of 
progress towards agreed benchmarks, supported by peer learning amongst Member States.  

As highlighted above, the 2001 Council Recommendation is the key text in this area but is now 
somewhat  out  of  date  and  has  fallen  into  disuse.  Much  progress  has  been  made  in  some  areas 
(such as the introduction of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and 
the European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET), quality assurance 
and  the  development  of  EU  programmes  in  support  of  learning  mobility),  but  in  other  areas 
progress has been slow and is still lacking (eg. full validation and recognition of learning periods 
abroad,  legal  and  administrative  barriers  for  trainees,  portability  of  grants  and  loans). 
Furthermore,  new  challenges  have  emerged  in  the  10  years  since  the  Recommendation  was 
adopted, which were not addressed by the original text: a greater awareness of the employability 
benefits  and  a  stronger  focus  on  the  social  dimension  (disadvantaged  groups)  of  mobility,  and 
substantial  increases  in  mobility  beyond  the  EU's  borders  both  in  terms  of  EU  citizens  going 
further afield to study and in students from outside being attracted to study in the EU. A fuller 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
analysis of uptake of this Recommendation and new challenges can be found in section 2.3 and 
Annex 4. 

Even if fully implemented, the 2001 Recommendation would be insufficient to address all current 
obstacles  to  mobility,  as  a  result  of  new  challenges  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  revive  this 
Recommendation  in  its  current  form  and  the  sectoral  approach  taken  by  the  Recommendation 
may compound structural rigidities.  

Based  upon  past  experience,  it  can  be  expected  that  the  current  pace  of  progress  in  removing 
obstacles to mobility will not deliver a change consistent with the political aspiration of mobility 
as  an  opportunity  for  all  and  will  be  insufficient  to  raise  mobility  levels  in  line  with  agreed  or 
planned benchmarks. 

4.3.  Option 2: A Council Recommendation: Youth on the Move: Promoting the learning 

mobility of young people 

Building upon the 2001 Council Recommendation and subsequent texts on learning mobility and 
on  transnational  volunteering  a  new  Recommendation  would  be  elaborated  to  take  account  of 
progress since 2001 and new obstacles which have arisen in the intervening 10 years. 

Whilst  the  2001  Recommendation  adopted  a  sectoral  approach  to  examining  obstacles  and 
formulating  proposals,  a  new  Recommendation  should  focus  on  a  cross-sectoral  approach  thus 
ensuring increased visibility and a more co-ordinated approach across sectors where obstacles are 
often shared rather than distinct. 

Evaluation  of  progress  in  implementing  the  2001  Recommendation  has  revealed  that  obstacles 
remain entrenched, and in some areas and for some countries efforts to remove obstacles are not 
visible at all eg. national legislation facilitating the portability of grants to support living expenses 
of  students  or  volunteers.  A  new  2010  Recommendation  to  Member  States  would  call  for 
renewed  action  on  areas  where  progress  lags  behind,  advocate  increased  cross-sectoral  work  to 
remove obstacles and set out which further obstacles have emerged in recent years and for which 
action  is  required  as  detailed  in  section  2.3  above  and  Annex  5.  The  role  of  this  Council 
Recommendation in removing obstacles to learning mobility are part of a wider suite of Youth on 
the Move actions, which together represent a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach covering 
both policy and programme elements, with action foreseen at both national and European levels  

A Council Recommendation would propose Member State action in the following areas:  
•  Providing  easily  accessible,  up-to-date  and  comprehensive 

information  on  mobility 
opportunities  (eg.  by  reaching  out  to  underrepresented  groups  via  the  use  of  innovative  ICT 
tools  such  as  social  networking  websites,  or  by  setting  up  mobility  counselling  facilities  in 
university campuses) 

•  Motivating young people to be mobile by explaining the benefits of learning mobility (eg. by 
providing targeted information/case studies in co-operation with business about the value of a 
learning mobility experiences to employers) 

•  Improving language skills and intercultural awareness (eg. through changes to the curriculum, 

including the provision of mobility preparation courses) 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
•  Facilitating mobility to and from the EU by reducing administrative and legal burdens related 
to the exchange with Third Countries (e.g. by addressing visa restrictions for non-EU learners) 

•  Removing restrictions on the development of cross-border joint study programmes and other 

forms of learning mobility 

•  Reducing legal and administrative barriers relating to health and social security coverage for 
young researchers, trainees and volunteers (eg. by clarifying the legal status of some groups of 
mobile young people (apprentices, volunteers, researchers)) 

•  Reducing  or  removing  restrictions  on  the  portability  of  student  financial  support  (grants  and 

loans) 

•  Improving recognition and validation procedures for formal, non-formal and informal learning 
completed  abroad  (eg.  through  adoption  of  validation  procedures  which  adequately  evaluate 
and certify learning gained as part of volunteering in another Member State) 

•  Addressing specific obstacles faced by disadvantaged groups (eg. financial constraints, better 

guidance and support to increase aspiration) 

•  Mobilising actors via 'mobility partnerships', in particular the business community, NGOs and 

local level authorities in co-operation with learning institutions.  

All elements above are equally important. See annex 5 for more detail on concrete actions to be 
proposed at Member State level. 

A  'mobility  scoreboard'  would  be  introduced  as  part  of  the  existing  monitoring  and  reporting 
framework under the Open Method of Co-ordination in Education and Training (ET2020). This 
scoreboard would allow for transparent assessment of progress and comparison across countries. 

As  set  out  in  section  1.2,  the  political  commitment  (at  both  EU  and  Member  State  level)  to 
increasing learning mobility and addressing the barriers to mobility has never been higher. This 
strong political commitment linked to recommendations for action in areas of identified need, and 
followed up by a transparent and focussed monitoring mechanism is expected to lead to a good 
uptake  of  the  Recommendation  and  represents  a  significant  advance  on  the  circumstances 
surrounding the earlier 2001 Recommendation.  

4.4.  Option 3: A new Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) for the learning mobility of 

young people 

Description 

Member States will be asked to  formulate national action  plans for the  removal  of obstacles to 
mobility and to report on progress on a bi-annual basis to the Commission. Common objectives 
and benchmarks would be agreed at the EU level in order to monitor progress. Based upon the 
national  reports,  the  Commission  would  present  a  bi-annual  assessment  of  progress  across 
Member  States  and  observations  at  country-level  regarding  strengths  and  weaknesses  in 
removing obstacles to learning mobility. 

A 'mobility scoreboard' would be introduced and incorporated into the new OMC monitoring and 
reporting  framework,  in  order  to  complement  the  country-specific  analysis  and  allow  for 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
transparent  assessment  of  progress  and  comparison  across  countries.  This  element  is  common 
with Option 2. 

The new OMC would work in parallel and be independent of other existing OMCs, such as on 
Education and Training Strategic Framework 2020 and the Youth OMC. 

A fresh impetus and an increased visibility, combined with the potential for clear comparison of 
progress between countries could be expected to act as a stimulus to driving forward progress in 
this  area,  in  particular  in  addressing  objectives  which  are  linked  to  information  sharing  and 
learning  from  experience  elsewhere  eg.  encouraging  the  development  of  partnerships  and 
exchanges between education intuitions to address linguistic and cultural obstacles, or using more 
creative methods for language learning.  

However, the establishment of a new OMC would bring an additional administrative burden, both 
at  national  and  EU  levels.  Furthermore,  this  option  is  limited  to  its  nature  of  'soft  law'  which 
could  weaken  its  potential  impact  compared  to  a  legal  instrument,  in  particular  as  regards 
addressing legal and administrative barriers at the Member State level. As compared with Option 
2,  the  absence  of  a  Recommendation  as  the  initial  driver  of  the  exercise  risks  to  weaken  the 
collective effort. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1.  Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of the short-listed options 

The  estimated  economic,  social  and  environmental  impact  assessment  below  is  based  upon 
qualitative judgement. 

The option "status  quo"  would have  a small but limited economic and social  impact because it 
implies no further action at EU level.  

Both options 2 (a new Council Recommendation) and 3 (a new standalone OMC) would lead to 
more  substantial  positive  economic  and  social  impacts  due  to  an  increased  volume  of  young 
people  engaging  in  learning  mobility,  which  has  proven  benefits  for  their  employment  and 
cultural integration. It is expected that Option 2 has greater impacts for social groups, as it will 
bring about concrete action on the part of Member States across all objectives. Given the nature 
of the instrument, it is could be expected to be more successful than Option 3 in driving progress 
in  'harder'  areas,  such  as  those  involving  revisions  to  legislation  or  changes  in  administrative 
procedures  eg.  making  study  grants  and  loans  more  portable,  introducing  changes  to  the 
curriculum or ensuring national laws do not impede joint (cross-border) educational programmes, 
and in cross-sectoral issues. See Annex 5 for a fuller assessment. 

In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  in  particular  young  people  from  disadvantaged 
backgrounds or for whom mobility was beyond reach, are expected to benefit particularly from 
the removal of specific barriers which disadvantage them. Thus they can expect to benefit from 
increased  social  (re)integration  through  the  expansion  of  opportunities  (to  all)  for  learning 
mobility. These options offer the potential to strengthen commitment to improve young people's 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
economic  integration  through  the  development  of  increased  and  broader  skills  and  through  the 
expansion of their horizons and aspirations. 

This  is  in  line  with  the  New  Skills  for  New  Jobs  initiative  which  specifically  highlights  the 
importance of the removal of obstacles, including administrative barriers, to the free movement 
of workers in the EU, as well as more transparent information on labour market trends and skills 
requirements,  would  contribute  to  the  promotion  of  occupational,  sector  and  geographical 
mobility and allow a better match between peoples' skills and job opportunities. Mobility periods 
during  education  and  training  (e.g.  via  the  Erasmus  and  Leonardo  programmes)  help  make 
people  more  open  to  mobility  later  in  their  working  lives.  22As  regards  environmental  impact, 
increased  mobility  may  give  rise  to  increased  carbon  emissions  as  a  result  of  more  travel. 
However,  the  overall  increase  in  volume  is  likely  to  be  relatively  discrete  when  compared  to 
overall  emissions.  Furthermore,  several  projects  supported  by  the  European  Commission 
Lifelong  Learning  Programme  are  seeking  to  explore  new  and  joint  curricula  in  areas  of 
environmental sustainability and 'green' sectors. At the same time, several activities financed by 
the  Youth  in  Action  Programme  also  contribute  to  raising  the  awareness  of  young  people  on 
environmental 
such  as  virtual 
mobility/internationalisation  at  home,  can  be  a  valuable  complement  to  physical  mobility,  but 
should not act as a substitute. 

issues  and  promoting  "green"  behaviours.  Options 

5.2.  Assessment of administrative burden 

The  criteria  used  for  the  estimation  of  the  administrative  costs  combine  quantitative  (EU  level 
only) and qualitative aspects (at EU and Member State level).  

Option 1 (status quo) requires no additional administrative burden or cost because it involves no 
further action on the part of the EU or national authorities.  

Option 2 (a new Council Recommendation) will  imply  some  additional costs for implementing 
agencies, institutions and government departments in the design of new strategies or revision of 
legislation  to  make  learning  mobility  easier  for  young  people.  However,  such  costs  could  be 
partly  offset  by  the  benefits  of  mobility  and  through  improved  information  sharing  and  cross-
sectoral working at national and local level. Furthermore, such costs would largely be limited in 
time  e.g.  during  the  revision  of  legislation.  The  administrative  burden  of  monitoring  and 
reporting  is  expected  to  be  neutral  as  this  would  be  incorporated  into  existing  frameworks 
(Education  and  Training  2020  OMC),  which  would  be  re-oriented  for  this  purpose.  Guidelines 
issued  to  Member  States  for  the  completion  of  their  national  reports  would  include  a  specific 
section  on  removal  of  obstacles  to  mobility,  including  a  requirement  for  self-assessment  by 
Member  States  in  the  format  of  the  mobility  scoreboard,  supported  by  relative  qualitative  and 
quantitative  data.  Whilst  this  represents  an  innovation,  it  will  replace  some  of  the  existing 
reporting  under  ET2020  and  as  such  lead  to  no  overall  increase  in  the  administrative  burden, 
which is already provided for at national and European-level). 

22 

COM/2008/0868 Commission Communication New Skills for New Jobs - Anticipating and matching labour market and skills needs 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option  3  (a  new  standalone  OMC)  will  lead  to  the  highest  additional  administrative  burden  at 
both  EU  and  national  levels,  as  it  will  require  the  establishment  of  a  new  framework  for 
monitoring and reporting (agreement of common objectives, submission of action plans/national 
reports,  EU-level  monitoring  and  reporting).  This  would  be  in  addition  to  existing  OMC 
processes,  and  based  upon  the  model  which  exists  in  the  areas  of  Education  and  Training, 
Employment,  Social  Protection  and  Inclusion  and  would  have  resource  implications  both  at 
national  and  at  European  level.  Based  upon  experience  of  such  co-operation  in  Education  and 
Training policy, the estimated direct cost at European level would be approximately 3.3 m€ per 
year,  plus  a  human  resource  implication  of  5  full  time  equivalent  posts.  Costs  at  national  level 
associated  with  monitoring  and  reporting  have  not  been  estimated,  but  these  would  be 
commensurate with the levels of resource committed to existing OMC processes. 

5.3. 

Impacts outside the EU  

Both  inward  mobility  (third  country  nationals  travelling  to  the  EU  for  learning  purposes)  and 
outward  mobility  (EU  citizens  travelling  abroad  to  study,  volunteer  or  to  do  research)  have 
positive  and  far-reaching  benefits  in  cultural  understanding  and  increased  propensity  for 
academic  and  economic  links.  This  may  also  include  positive  spill-over  effects  in  the  area  of 
external relations through improved understanding and partnerships. The conditions of admission 
of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or 
voluntary service are set out in a Council Directive23. EU Member States should make all efforts 
possible  to  facilitate  such  mobility  experiences  e.g.  by  improved  study  visa  arrangements, 
promotion  of  the  value  of,  and  providing  adequate  recognition  for,  studying  in  other  world 
regions. Qualitative criteria have been used for the estimation of impacts. 

Whilst all three options aim for an increase in mobility flows due to reduced obstacles, Option 1 
is  expected  to  have  a  limited  impact  on  extra  EU  mobility,  since  the  2001  Council 
Recommendation does not address this specifically. 

Option  2  is  expected  to  bring  wider  positive  impacts  for  mobility  outside  the  EU,  given  that  a 
new  Council  Recommendation  will  explicitly  target  this  aspect,  eg.  by  promoting  greater  co-
operation and the establishment of partnerships and bilateral agreements with non-EU institutions 
and in addressing difficulties associated with obtaining visa requirements and residency permits 
for non-EU residents . This will provide an important update and enhancement compared to the 
baseline. 

Option  3  will  have  more  limited  impact  for  extra-EU  mobility  as  the  absence  of  a  legal 
instrument might provide less of an incentive for action by Member States. 

23 

2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
5.4. 

Social groups, economic sectors or particular regions affected 

Statistical and  qualitative evidence from EU  programme  evaluations  and  from  studies24 tells us 
that  young  people  engaging  in  learning  mobility  are  predominantly  from  relatively  privileged 
backgrounds.  Young  people  from  disadvantaged  backgrounds,  such  as  lower  socio-economic 
status/low income families, people with disabilities, youngsters who have dropped out of formal 
education  are  significantly  underrepresented  in  existing  mobility  flows,  whether  through 
organised EU/national mobility programmes or as independent 'free movers'. Women are slightly 
overrepresented in mobility actions. Improving access to reliable information on possibilities for 
mobility experiences, and putting in place tools and resources to facilitate mobility will help all 
young  people  to  take  up  mobility  opportunities.  It  is  expected,  that  disadvantaged  or 
underrepresented groups will particularly benefit e.g. improved portability of grants and loans for 
study  abroad  will  help  those  from  modest  backgrounds  who  would  otherwise  struggle  with  the 
financial cost of mobility.  

Qualitative criteria have been used for the estimation of impacts, with all three options expected 
to  have  positive  impacts  for  social  groups  to  date  underrepresented  in  mobile  learning,  with 
options 2 and 3 particularly advantageous. The impact on human rights is expected to be broadly 
neutral  for  all  three  options;  although  access  to  learning  mobility  opportunities  is  highly 
supportive of the fundamental 'right to education'. The effects of all three options are also likely 
to be largely consistent across regions, but Options 2 and 3 offer increased effectiveness. 

In  addition,  there  are  expected  benefits  to  the  educational  sector,  and  the  NGO  volunteering 
sector brought about by increased internationalisation bringing increased openness and enhanced 
performance.  Students,  young  researchers,  volunteers  and  others  engaging  in  cross-border 
learning experiences will widen horizons in teaching and learning approaches and foster mutual 
understanding. There is no substantive difference between the individual options. 

5.5.  Overall assessment of impact of the three options 

It should be stressed, that irrespective of the option chosen, the overall objective is to remove 
obstacles to mobility and promote mobility with a view to making it 'an opportunity for all' 
– which will in turn lead to more young people choosing to study, train, volunteer and engage in 
research in another country. 

The status quo (Option 1) might allow for some improvements in evolution, but these are likely 
to  be  insufficient  to  realise  the  aspiration  of  learning  mobility  as  an  opportunity  for  all.  The 
current set of legal documents do not cater for important developments in recent years within the 
education  and  training  sector  which  have  influence  on  learning  mobility.  Furthermore,  the 
sectoral approach of the 2001 Recommendation makes it difficult to address cross-sectoral issues 
common to more than one target group. Obstacles to mobility have emerged more recently which 
are not adequately recognised or addressed and as such are likely to remain areas of concern.  

24 

See for example, http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/publ/evalcareersum_en.pdf  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As  concerns  options  2  and  3,  both  options  offer  good  potential  for  progress  and  positive 
economic and social impacts combined with neutral to mildly negative environmental impacts as 
highlighted above. The nature of the instrument proposed in Option 2 is stronger and therefore 
will offer higher visibility and an increased commitment on the part of Member States for action. 
In particular, a Council Recommendation should update, refocus and revitalise action in this area 
and boost Member State commitment, acting as a stimulus at both national and regional levels, 
which  will  substantially  increase  visibility  and  benefit  many  potential  students  and  learners.  A 
further differentiating factor between options 2 and 3 lies in the potential administrative burden, 
with  Option  3  representing  an  increased  burden  at  both  EU  and  national/regional  levels 
associated with a new standalone OMC process.  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

++ 

+ 

0 

- 

-- 

Impact 
baseline scenario 

compared  with 

positive 

slightly 
positive 

neutral 

slightly 
negative 

negative 

Option 1  
(status quo – 
continuing with 
existing framework) 

Option 2 
 (2010 Council 
Recommendation 
Youth on the Move) 

Option 3 
 (new 'Youth on the 
Move' OMC) 

Effectiveness in terms of achieving objectives 

Objective 1 

Eliminate  obstacles  to  mobility  at 
national/regional levels  

Objective 2 

Promotion of learning mobility  

Financial impacts (EUR million) 

Implementation costs 

Administrative burden 

Including Member States 

Coherence  

Feasibility of implementation 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

not quantified 

not quantified 

0* 

-- (4.3m€ pa) 

0 

** 

not quantified

++ 

+ 

++ 

- 

* Costs associated with monitoring and reporting are expected to be neutral as the existing OMC in Education 
and Training would be re-oriented to include a focus on mobility and to incorporate a mobility scoreboard. 

** potential for cost savings based upon increased cross-sectoral and cross-agency working  

6.1. 

Justification of ratings based upon the assessment of impacts 

Whilst Option 1 is expected to be neutral overall, both Options 2 and 3 represent the potential 
for  increased  effectiveness  in  eliminating  obstacles  to  mobility  and  to  promoting  learning 
mobility, through the prioritisation of mobility and the implementation of specific measures at 
national  and  regional  levels  in  areas  identified  as  obstacles,  as  set  out  in  the  problem 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
description  above.  Option  2  offers  the  potential  for  the  highest  impact  based  upon  the 
agreement  by  the  Council  of  a  new  legal  instrument  and  its  potential  triggering  effects  at 
Member State level. 

In  terms  of  financial  impact,  option  1  remains  the  baseline  position,  with  Options  2  and  3 
representing  an  overall  net  cost  implication,  although  for  Option  2  this  is  expected  to  be 
relatively  small.  For  Option  2,  costs  associated  with 
the 
Recommendation will include, for example, adaptation of legislation to make grants and loans 
more  portable,  the  provision  of  more  information  on  mobility  opportunities  via  careers  and 
study guidance/counselling offices. The administrative burden of monitoring and reporting for 
Option 2 is expected to be broadly neutral as administration will be incorporated into existing 
monitoring  and  reporting  frameworks  (Education  and  Training  Open  Method  of  Co-
ordination 'ET2020'). For Option 3, substantial administrative costs at both EU and Member 
State level will stem from the establishment of a new standalone OMC process. 

implementation  of 

the 

In  comparing  the  feasibility  of  implementation,  Option  2  will  be  readily  possible  under 
existing  administrative  frameworks,  but  will  require  extra  efforts  on  the  part  of  Member 
States to remove obstacles – legal, technical and administrative – to improve opportunities for 
learning  mobility.  Option  3,  however,  presents  more  challenges  as  a  standalone  monitoring 
and  reporting  framework  would  need  to  be  introduced  to  assess  progress.  All  options  are 
highly coherent with EU and national agreed policy priorities and strategies. 

6.2.  Preferred option:  

Option 2 – A Recommendation on Youth on the Move: Promoting the learning mobility of 
young  people  -  represents  the  best  potential  for  achieving  the  desired  objectives,  when 
balanced with the potential for administrative burden and increased cost.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

7.1.  Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives 

Result Indicators: 

•  Decrease  in  significant  problems  with  obstacles  to  mobility  reported  by  mobile 

students/volunteers/researchers (as measured by surveys) 

•  Specific  indicators  to  be  elaborated  based  upon  progress  in  each  field  of  obstacle,  to  be 

monitored via a proposed 'Mobility Scoreboard'  

Impact Indicators: 

•  An increase in the number of young people (16-35) engaging in mobility for the purposes 

of learning; 

•  An EU-level mobility benchmark(s) for learning mobility (by the end of 2010 in the field 
of  Higher  Education,  and  subsequently  extended  to  VET  and  teachers)  will  be  proposed 
(foreseen  within  the  context  of  the  Strategic  Framework  on  Education  and  Training 
ET2020) 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
•  In  higher  education:  In  2020,  at  least  20%  of  those  graduating  in  the  European  Higher 
Education  Area  should  have  had  a  study  or  training  period  abroad.  (Bologna  Process 
mobility benchmark) 

7.2.  Monitoring and evaluation arrangements 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  should  take  place  within  the  context  of  the  reporting  structures 
which already exist within the framework of the Open Method of Co-ordination in Education 
and Training (ET2020). This framework provides for (biennial) reporting by Member States 
which leads to a Joint (Commission-Council) Report.  

Experience has led to the conclusion that stronger mechanisms for monitoring are needed to 
ensure that the pace of progress is accelerated. With this in mind, a 'mobility scoreboard' will 
be introduced as part of the existing monitoring and reporting framework.  

Member  States  will  be  invited  to  report  specifically  on  progress  in  removing  obstacles  to 
learning  mobility  as  part  of  their  ET2020  country  reports;  this  will  be  a  standing  item  in 
national  reports  submitted  for  the  period  2011-2020.  The  Commission  will  analyse  this 
information  based  upon  transparent  criteria  and  present  an  overall  assessment  of  progress 
including  via  the  compilation  of  a  comparative  assessment  across  countries  (Mobility 
Scoreboard).  The  precise  criteria/indicators  upon  which  the  assessment  will  be  based  still 
need to be developed and agreed. Whilst criteria and result indicators may be fairly easy to 
define, impact indicators (what is the ultimate and quantifiable effect on citizens ability to be 
mobile) are more difficult to estimate. A Member State working group on mobility indicators 
within  the  framework  of  ET2020  has  been  set  up  and  would  be  consulted  on  the  most 
appropriate indicators for the mobility scoreboard. 

The  scoreboard  will  support  monitoring  and  peer  review  and  as  such  will  reinforce  the 
commitment of Member States to driving forward progress in this area. See Annex 6 for an 
illustrative example of what a mobility scoreboard may look like. 

In  addition  to  the  strong  political  commitment  on  the  part  of  both  Member  States  and  the 
Commission,  uptake  of  the  Recommendation  by  the  Member  States  will  be  ensured  via  the 
increased focus on visibility and on monitoring, as detailed above and in section 4.3.  

In  addition,  an  evaluation  is  proposed  to  assess  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the 
implementation of a new Recommendation after the first four years of implementation of the 
Recommendation (ie. by end 2014). 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
Annexes - technical background material 

Annex 1: Baseline data on Mobility for Learning Purposes  

Annex 2: Analysis of Responses to the Public and Stakeholder Consultation (Green Paper on 
promoting learning mobility) 

Annex  3:  Links  to  key  studies/work  carried  out  by  external  consultants,  stakeholders  or 
academics 

Annex  4a:  Overview  of  progress 
the  2001 
Recommendation  on  mobility  within  the  Community  for  students,  persons  undergoing 
training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers (2001/613/EC) 

the  provisions  of 

implementing 

in 

Annex  4b:  Overview  of  Level  of  Progress  in  implementing  the  provisions  of  the  2001 
Recommendation (2001/613/EC) and presentation of Areas emerging since 2001 

Annex  5:  Links  between  the  problems,  objectives  and  areas  where  Member  State  action 
should be pursued 

Annex 6: Mobility Scoreboard – illustrative example 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
Annex 1: Baseline data on Mobility for Learning Purposes  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 2: Green Paper on promoting learning mobility – Consultation 

In July 2009 the European Commission published a Green Paper on Promoting the learning 
mobility  of  young  people.  The  public  consultation  closed  on  15  December  200925  and  was 
open to all parties including individuals, European, national, regional and local organisations 
involved in mobility. 

The  Green  Paper  highlighted  the  benefits  of  mobility  in  supporting  acquisition  of  new 
knowledge  and  skills.  It  also  highlighted  the  contribution  to  opening  up  the  education  and 
training  institutions  to  a  wider  world,  different  audiences  of  learners  and  consequently 
contributing to enhancing the quality of education and training. Other benefits noted are those 
of combating isolation, protectionism and xenophobia as well as the contribution to fostering 
a deepened sense of European identity and citizenship among young people. 

The ambition of the Green Paper is to set the road for further developing and strengthening 
the European and national policies and programmes supporting mobility. It affirms that every 
young person should have the opportunity to participate in some form of mobility.  

There were three main channels available to submit responses. These were:  

An online questionnaire for citizens 
An online questionnaire for organisations 
Sending a written response to DG EAC 

2798 on-line responses were received and 258 written responses were received. 

Respect of the Commission's minimum standards on consultation:  

The  Green  Paper  consultation  was  fully  in  line  with  the  General  principles  and  minimum 
standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission26  

Information provided on the consultation was clear and concise, facilitating responses. With 
over 3,000 replies received to this consultation; this represents twice the average expected for 
Commission consultations. 

The  Green  Paper  consultation  was  publicised  widely  to  reach  relevant  consultation  target 
groups.  The  consultation  was  targeted  both  at  the  public  at  large  and  at  interested 
stakeholders:  

•  a  press  release  and  news  story  on  the  European  Commission  and  DG  EAC  home  pages, 

supplemented by further information and relevant links on DG EAC webpages; 

•  the consultation was announced via the 'Your-Voice-in-Europe' webportal27 and responses 
were received via  the on-line  IPM Questionnaire or by written contribution to  a  mailbox 
set up for this purpose; 

•  presentations  to  consultation  target  groups  (Government  officials  and  policy-makers  at 
different territorial levels, student groups; national agencies for the promotion of mobility; 

25 
26 
27 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/consult/mobility_en.html  
COM(2002)704 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/consult/index_en.html  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
University  associations  and  networks,  recognition  experts  via  the  National  Academic 
Recognition Information Centres, youth organisations, Vocational Education and Training 
experts and other stakeholders within education and training; 

•  standardised presentation materials were developed and circulated to maximise multiplier 

opportunities;  

•  a  mailing  list  of  around  10.000  people  contacts  was  constructed  to  reach  as  many  key 

stakeholders as possible and to ensure balance in the consultation. 

Adequate  time  was  provided  for  preparation  and  planning  of  responses.  The  consultation 
period  ran  from  8  July  to  15th  December  2009.  The  volume  of  responses  received  and  the 
wide range of stakeholders participating are testament to the success of this consultation and 
the effectiveness of the approach chosen.  

Analysis of the 2,798 on-line (IPM questionnaire) responses 

Responses  received  were  primarily  from  individuals  (78.8%)  but  also  from  organisations 
(19%).  The  majority  of  the  respondents  are  female  (61.4%)  and  given  the  nature  of  the 
initiative,  it  is  particularly  welcomed  that  a  high  number  of  young  people  under  35  years 
participated in the consultaiton (1,758 = 62.8%). Replies come from a broad cross section of 
coutnries with the highest numer of replies coming from Italy (19.5%), France (10%), Spain 
(7.8%) and Germany (7.5%), followed by Romania, Turkey, the UK and Belgium.  

Analysis  of  responses  indicates  that,  "Information"  seems  to  be  the  most  important  issue  in 
order to increase learning mobility followed by "funding", "motivation" and "recognition and 
validation after return".  

According  to  the  replies,  "Personal  development"  is  considered  to  be  the  most  important 
benefit of learning mobility followed by "foreign language skills", "Added knowledge and/or 
skills in the area of specialisation" and "Intercultural skills" .  

Awareness of EU portals in support of mobility is disapointing, up to half of the respondents 
say they don't know the portals mentioned in the questionnaire.  

When examining the stay abroad and follow-up, over 83.1% of respondents agree strongly or 
somewhat that: "The lack of full and easy validation and recognition of a learning or training 
period abroad is still a significant obstacle to mobility". 

Furthermore,  responses  indicate  that  the  "European  Union  and  its  institutions"  followed  by 
"Education  and  training  institutions"  and  "National  governments"  play  the  most  important 
role in promoting learning mobility of young people. 

A  full  analysis  of  the  results  of  the  questionnaire  will  be  published  on  the  Education  and 
Training pages of the Europa website: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/index_en.htm  

Analysis of the 258 in-depth written responses  

Responses by organisational type 

(nb.  These  numbers  cannot  be  considered  as  fully  representative  of  the  wider  consultation 
process as they do not take into account the consultations organised at national level.) 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Composition  of  responses  by  organisational  type  and  country  (plus  EU-level  organisations 
such as social partners, organisations, networks) 

Key messages from the consultation 

Preparing for a mobility period  

Information  and  Guidance:  There  is  a  very  clear  message  from  all  respondent  types  to 
improve the quality of information and guidance related to mobility. Central to effective, clear 
and transparent information is however the need to redefine what is understood by mobility 
and  potential  target  groups  eligible  for  mobility.  This  is  necessary  to  provide  dedicated 
information and guidance to meet specific needs of learners.  

To ensure information and guidance reach learners, the need for a single integrated EU web 
portal  was  proposed  not  only  as  a  tool  to  provide  relevant  information  but  to  promote  the 
benefits of mobility to learners, parents, education institutions and employers. However, there 
was much support (particularly from governments) for new and creative ways to disseminate 
information  (e.g.  through  social  networks,  bars,  rock  concert  and  cafes,  though  other 
respondents  emphasised  the  need  for  associated  funding  to  ensure  the  effective  availability 
and dissemination of quality information and guidance through more creative channels. 

Ensuring  teachers,  trainers,  administrative  staff  and  social  workers  are  experienced  in 
mobility  was  also  highlighted  as  a  necessary  requirement  by  all  respondents  to  improve 
information and guidance. Making use of learners with previous mobility experience to act in 
the capacity of mobility ambassadors was also proposed.  

Promotion and motivation: Promoting the benefits of mobility for young people by providing 
evidence  of  the  added  value  of  mobility  in  terms  of  future  employability  and  their 
professional and intercultural skills development was recommended by all respondents.  

Better  cooperation  at  European  level  and  networking  between  agencies,  regional,  local 
authorities, 
institutions,  youth  workers,  multipliers,  ex-beneficiaries,  policy  makers, 
employers, civic society, young people and their families with a view to an improved ‘joined 
up’ approached is encouraged. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
All  respondents  highlighted  the  need  for  clear  factual,  practical  and  targeted  information 
tailored to individual learners is central to the success of mobility and is required in advance 
of mobility. Peer exchange with a focus on the experiences of young people returning from 
mobility experiences was proposed as one way to better promote and motivate young people.  

It  was  noted  that  more  focus  on  systematic  preparation  within  the  curriculum,  improving 
opportunities for recognition and validation of learning is critical however adequate funding 
and resources must be made available to support mobility in its entirety. 

Individuals focused on a number of practical issues in order to better promote and motivate 
young  people  to  be  mobile,  these  range  from  finding  suitable  temporary  accommodation, 
subsidised  transport,  simplifying  application  procedures,  improve  preparatory  arrangements 
and  information  exchange,  improving  informal  language  development  and  increasing  the 
number of places available for learners to access mobility opportunities.  

Languages and culture: The importance of language learning to begin during early stages of 
education (primary and secondary) through to continued education was stressed. Using more 
creative  methods  for  the  delivery  of  language  learning  and  ensuring  disadvantaged  learners 
are  not  excluded  from  languages  and  mobility  opportunities  is  recommended.  Here,  many 
respondents  emphasise  the  requirement  for  higher  levels  of  funding  to  promote  preparatory 
and continued language learning. 

There is a call for Member States to revisit and where appropriate reform national education 
polices to embed language learning into the national curriculum.  

Emphasising  the  cultural  and  linguistic  value  of  mobility  experiences  in  the  context  of 
employability was highlighted as an important factor to address.  

Some respondents expressed support for a mandatory mobility period for teachers and trainers 
(a  small  number  of  respondents  proposed  up  to  a  one  year  mandatory  requirement). 
Developing  partnerships  and  exchanges  between  education  institutions  was  also  considered 
necessary to address linguistic and cultural obstacles.  

Legal issues: Legal issues relating to difficulties associated with obtaining visa requirements 
(residency permits, cot of visa, timings) together with implications in relation to the lack of 
legal status of mobility learners were highlighted by nearly all respondents as the main legal 
obstacles to mobility encountered. Serious concerns about the implications for social welfare 
arrangements  were  expressed.  Legal  issues  linked  to  the  recognition  of  learning  were  also 
raised  as  a  barrier  to  mobility.  The  overarching  message  is  that  there  is  no  clear  legal 
framework for learners or employers participating in mobility periods. 

In relation to the proposal to establish a framework to support minors, it was noted that the 
different  legal  rules  exist  across  Member  States  may  make  it  difficult  for  a  European 
framework to be developed and implemented.  

Further  to  the  proposal  to  introduce  a  European  Trainee  Statue,  few  but  mixed  views  were 
received. On the one hand a European Trainee Statute would help to ensure equal treatment 
and  provide  much  needed  clarity  on  legal  matters.  On  the  other  hand  however,  views  were 
expressed that the status of the individual as a ‘learner’ or as a ‘worker’ is blurred and reflects 
the  complexity  in  the  relationship  between  education  and  training  and  the  labour  market 
across Member States more generally.  

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
Portability  of  Grants  and  Loans:  All  respondent  types  cited  variations  in  the  eligibility, 
portability  of  grants  and  funding  arrangements  from  one  Member  State  to  another  as  key 
obstacles.  Lack  of  information  together  with  administrative  and  bureaucratic  burdens  were 
cited  as  adding  to  difficulties  associated  with  the  portability  of  grants  and  loans  where 
evidence  suggests  late  payments  or  delays  in  funds  reaching  learners  is  problematic  and 
especially  difficult  for  economically  disadvantaged  learners.  A  key  message  from  European 
Associations  in  particular  is  that  all  funding  arrangements  associated  with  learner  mobility 
should be revisited. 

A  number  of  government  responses  discussed  the  possibility  to  formulate  guidance  at 
European Level applicable to Member States in relation to the portability of grants, loans and 
access to benefits. Generally speaking, governments highlighted some reservations and voiced 
concerns that common guidance may be difficult for individual countries to implement. 

Mobility to and from the European Union: All organisational types highlighted the need to 
reduce  administrative  and  legal  burdens  in  order  to  promote  mobility  to  and  from  the 
European  Union.  Government  and  Regional  Associations  called  for  greater  cooperation  and 
partnerships  with  third  countries  and  agreements  between  competent  authorities  across 
Member States and bilateral agreements between institutions. 

European  Associations,  National  Associations  and  education  institutions  were  mainly  more 
focused on the need to improve access to quality information; enhance funding opportunities 
for non-nationals and create more programmes/opportunities for learners in order to promote 
mobility  to  and  from  the  European  Union.  Specific  attention  was  given  to  educational 
arrangements and the need for greater flexibility in terms of the recognition and accreditation 
in  addition  to  the  relationship  between  non-ECTS  arrangements/systems  with  ECTS  for 
example. 

Preparation  of  the  mobility  period  and  quality  assurance  issues:  Nearly  all  organisational 
types were in support of using existing quality charters to ensure mobility is of high quality. 
There  was  also  support  for  introducing  monitoring  and  evaluation  methods  –  suggestions 
include  systematic  quality  assurance  procedures  for  each  aspect  of  mobility  and  qualitative 
and  quantitative  measures  for  example.  Other  quality  assurance  measures  cited  include 
continuous dialogue and clearly established contractual arrangements between all actors and 
beneficiaries,  a  standardised  approach  to  guidelines  and  templates,  transparent  selection 
procedures,  peer  exchange  and  structured  learner  support  (through  student  associations, 
counselling and networks for example). 

Reaching  out  to  Disadvantaged  Groups:  The  main  barriers  cited  by  all  respondent  types 
concern financial constraints, lack of information regarding specific provision for learners and 
existing programmes not meeting the needs of learners. 

The  need  for  greater  flexibility  in  mobility  opportunities  in  order  to  encourage  the 
participation  of  disadvantaged  learners  is  required,  however  it  was  noted  that  the  difficult 
personal constraints learners experience will require targeted learner support and appropriate 
levels of funding.  

There  was  a  clear  view  that  those  involved  in  mobility  such  as  teachers,  trainers,  youth 
workers and social workers must be aware of and experienced in dealing with specific issues 
facing disadvantaged learners. There is however a call for the term ‘disadvantaged learners’ to 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
be further defined as this term is wide reaching and encapsulates a wide range of learners with 
very different needs.  

Supporting the stay abroad  

Mentoring  and  Integration:  All  respondent  types  underline  the  importance  of  good 
mentoring  and  integration  for  supporting  young  people  throughout  the  learning  mobility 
phase. Academic mentoring and peer buddying schemes are seen as central in this process by 
all  respondents.  Mentoring  and  buddying  should  be  provided  to  students  in  the  form  of  a 
single  academic  advisor  or  tutor  by  the  educational  institution.  The  role  of  peer  support  is 
equally  important  in  providing  guidance  to  students  and  facilitating  their  integration.  Peer 
tutoring should take place in the accommodation where students reside. In this regard, there 
are differences of opinions in what kind of accommodation students should be placed ranging 
from mixed accommodation and dormitories to host families. 

Since adaptation to the new environment is very important, particularly in the first few weeks 
of  arrival,  specially  programmed  orientation  events  should  be  made  available  to  incoming 
students to orientate them in academic and practical matters. Such events should be organised 
by  the  host  educational  institution  or  by  a  student  organisation.  Through  membership  in 
student organisations incoming students can also take part in social and intercultural activities 
with a view to enhancing their integration in the new country. 

Recognition and Validation: There is a unanimous view shared by all respondent types that 
the  validation  and  recognition  of  both  formal  and  non-formal  learning  constitutes  a 
considerable obstacle to the mobility of young people. The most common problems with the 
validation  and  recognition  of  learning  are  associated  with  the  variability  of  validation  and 
recognition  practices  among  institutions  and  the  lack  of  a  common  language  about  them. 
Other relevant issues include: 

–  Lack  of  information  about  existing  EU  instruments  which  facilitate  the  transfer  of 

educational qualifications between Member States 

–  Lack of recognition of the value of non-formal learning 

–  Lack of flexibility in validation and recognition in primary and secondary schools 

–  Lack of flexibility in validation and recognition in some profession-oriented programmes 

(e.g. nursing, engineering, social work) 

–  Problems with ECTS in universities – this include recognition verses replacement, heavy 

ECTS requirements, lack of transparency and comparability 

–  Further development of ECVET and compatibility with ECTS 

In  order  to  address  the  above  issues  respondents  emphasise  as  a  general  rule  the  need  for 
establishing  a  good  definition  and  synergies  between  formal  and  non-formal  learning. 
Furthermore,  the  development  of  good  partnerships  based  on  mutual  trust  and  dialogue 
between  different  educational  institutions  is  essential  in  harmonising  validation  and 
recognition practices.  

In  particular,  recognition  instruments  such  as  Europass  and  Youthpass  should  be  better 
promoted,  particularly  among  employers  who  are  presently  not  familiar  with  them.  It  is 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
suggested  that  perhaps  a  common  recognition  tool  should  be  established  which  would  help 
individuals to document all the knowledge, skills and competences acquired throughout their 
lifetime.  A  broader  understanding  of  the  value  of  non-formal  learning  for  the  acquisition  of 
key competencies for lifelong learning should be promoted in society. The use of ECTS and 
ECVET should be expanded through greater collaboration in this area. 

New partnerships for mobility 

Mobilising  actors  and  resources:  All  respondent  types  agree  that  creating  or  improving 
partnership  involvement  as  well  as  improving  funding  opportunities  and  information  and 
support structures would help to mobilise all actors in the interest of youth mobility.  

Successful  mobility  partnerships  should  be  formed  with  both  public  and  private  actors 
operating at local level; chambers of commerce, business associations, and NGOs can be very 
valuable  non-educational  partners.  In  addition,  networks  of  schools  and  universities 
exchanging information, news and experience should be created.  

Furthermore, it is noted that regional authorities should play an increasing role in promoting 
mobility  through  building  on  existing  networks  and  creating  new  partnerships  and 
encouraging  it  through  financial  support.  On  the  same  issue  of  financing  mobility,  it  is 
suggested that a system with funding from different sources needs to be established. The EU 
should streamline mobility notably in the Structural Funds and the Research and Development 
Framework programme. It is also noted that the ESF should become an additional source of 
funding. 

More  active  involvement  from  the  business  world:  All  respondent  types  perceive  the 
involvement of businesses as an important factor in strengthening youth mobility. In order to 
improve  the  motivation  of  businesses,  active  cooperation  and  communication  (including 
awareness-raising and advocacy about the value of mobility) between the educational and the 
business sector is essential. 

The  latter  should  not  only  be  familiarised  with  the  benefits  of  mobility  but  also  given 
incentives to engage more young people in training periods abroad. It is suggested that such 
incentives should be in the form of special grants or tax exemptions, or ethical awards such as 
‘mobile  excellence  label’.  Where  financial  compensation  is  lacking,  the  importance  of 
exchange  in  order  to  find  substitutes  replacing  missing  employees  in  enterprises  during  a 
mobility phase should be considered. 

Virtual Networking and eTwinning28: There is a clear message from all respondent types that 
virtual  mobility  should  accompany  physical  mobility  rather  than  replace  it.  Virtual  mobility 
and  ICTs  play  an  important  role  in  strengthening  the  support  for  learners  when  it  comes  to 
preparing  them  for  the  physical  mobility  phase  as  well  as  maintaining  follow-up 
communication  and  networking  once  the  mobility  stage  is  over.  In  order  to  make  virtual 
mobility  and  ICTs  a  valuable  source  of  preparation,  it  is  suggested  that  there  should  be  a 
range  of  electronic  guidance  and  counsellor  services  and  that  teachers  and  trainers  should 
undergo regular training to ensure an adequate provision of such services. In addition, online 
learning  communities  between  teachers  and  learners  should  be  established  to  support  those 

28 

eTwinning enables schools across Europe to link online and engage in ICT-based partnerships 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
willing to go abroad through peer learning. ICTs should also offer online language courses to 
learners prior to the stage of mobility.  

Several types of respondents alert to the need to introduce or significantly  improve  the ICT 
infrastructure at schools before aiming at using it for the purpose of promoting mobility. 

The eTwinning approach is embraced by all types of respondents who underline that it should 
be extended to all forms of formal and non-formal learning, in particular the vocational and 
voluntary  sector.  eTwinning  is  seen  as  a  very  good  way  to  develop  partnerships  with 
educational institutions and to exchange experiences and good practices. 

Mobility  opportunities  for  ‘multipliers’:  Respondents  of  all  types  clearly  indicate  that 
mobility opportunities for ‘multipliers’ should be given additional support and prominence in 
European  programmes.  ‘Multipliers’  such  as  teachers,  trainers,  youth  workers  and  students 
who previously participated in a mobility stage could be a great source of inspiration for their 
students and peers which is considered as a sure way to promote young people’s mobility in 
Europe.  

To  provide  more  mobility  opportunities  for  multipliers,  teacher/trainer  courses  should  be 
modernised  to  include  a  mandatory  period  of  mobility.  Later  on,  employers  in  education 
should  be  able  to  accommodate  teachers/trainers’  professional  mobility  involvement  so  that 
additional workload is avoided. Public and school authorities should be strongly involved in 
the  management  and  allocation  of  resources.  It  is  also  proposed  that  they  should  provide 
incentives and recognition to staff with particular commitment to mobility. 

Mobility Targets: Nearly all respondents consider targets a useful tool in defining a mobility 
strategy,  though  preferences  for  at  what  level  the  targets  should  be  set  varied.  Most 
respondent  types  were  of  the  view  targets  should  be  set  at  European  and  National  levels, 
though many education institutions, felt targets should be set at an institutional level.  

There  is  a  general  view  that  on  the  one  hand  targets  would  help  to  ensure  coherence  and 
efficiency, however on the other hand, there is a concern that targets in terms of quantity may 
have  a  negative  consequence  in  distorting  the  initial  principles  of  mobility  and,  thus,  affect 
quality.  As  such,  there  was  an  overarching  view  that  mobility  targets  should  be  realistic, 
supported  by  adequate  financial  tools  and  not  primarily  focused  on  quantitative  aspects  of 
improvement at the cost of qualitative aspects 

The full analysis of the in-depth submissions will be published on the Education and Training 
pages of the Europa website: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/index_en.htm 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
mobility: 

Annex 3: Links to key studies/work carried out by external consultants, stakeholders or 
academics 
Report  of  the  High  Level  Expert  Forum  on  Mobility:  'Making  learning  mobility  an 
opportunity for all' (2008) - http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/2008/mobilityreport_en.pdf  
Open  Method  of  Co-ordination  in  Education  and  Training  -  Peer  Learning  on  Ways  to 
increase 
(2008) 
http://www.kslll.net/Documents/PLA_Ways%20to%20increase%20mobility_final%20report_
Oct.%2008.pdf  
Eurobarometer Special Target Survey 'Students and Higher Education Reform' (March 2009) 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_260_en.pdf  
A  Study  on  the  Professional  Value  of  ERASMUS  Mobility  (2006)  which  surveyed  former 
ERASMUS  students  and  teachers,  university  leaders,  employers,  and  mobility  experts  on 
experiences  of  Erasmus  mobility  and  the  perceptions  of  the  role  and  impact  of  learning 
mobility http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/publ/evalcareersum_en.pdf  

examined 

funding 

models 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
implementing  the  provisions  of  the  2001 
Annex  4a:  Analysis  of  Progress 
Recommendation  on  mobility  within  the  Community  for  students,  persons  undergoing 
training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers (2001/613/EC) 

in 

Key to symbols: (cid:57): positive progress  X: poor progress  ~: mixed progress 

2001 Recommendation  

Assessment of Progress to 

Comments 

date 

1. Member States are called on to take the measures they consider appropriate in order to: 

1. (a) remove the legal and administrative obstacles 

~  

Very  limited  reporting  by 

to the mobility of persons 

MS in this area 

1.  (b)  reduce  linguistic  and  cultural  obstacles, 

notably by  

-  encouraging 

the 

learning  of  at 

least 

two 

Community languages and  

-  encouraging  linguistic  and  cultural  preparation 

before any mobility measure;  

1. (c) promote the development of the various forms 

of financial support for mobility,  

-  facilitate  the  portability  of  scholarships,  national 

aids and other support arrangements 

1.  (d)  encourage  the  creation  of  a  European 

qualification area 

1.  (e)  extend  to  persons  participating  in  mobility 

schemes  the  benefits  (other  than  social  security 

benefits) available to the same categories of persons 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

X 

(cid:57)  

X 

Variety  of  efforts  in  all 

countries.  Trend  towards 

two  foreign  languages  at 

school. 

Improved 

portability 

sometimes  mentioned,  but 

also  controversial  issue  to 

be 

tackled  at  European 

level. 

Efforts  made 

in 

all 

countries.  

Few 

reported  measures. 

Some  countries  report  the 

system 

to  be 

already 

in the host State, such as fare reductions for public 

implemented. 

transport,  financial  assistance  with  accommodation 

and meals, etc.;  

Introduction of a 'mobility card'  

1. (f) facilitate access to all useful information.  

~ 

Information 

available 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- information dissemination 

-  ensuring 

that  citizens  are  aware  of 

their 

entitlements  under  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1408/71 

(social security) 

- training on community aquis on mobility  

-  creation  of  a  database  on  jobs  and  learning 

opportunities 

(g) take the measures they consider appropriate so that 

the categories of persons concerned by this 

Recommendation  are  not  subjected  to  discrimination 

in  their  home  Member  State  in  relation  to  the  same 

categories  of  persons  who  do  not  undertake  a 

transnational mobility experience; 

(h) take measures they consider appropriate to remove 

obstacles  to  the  mobility  of  third  country  nationals 

who,  when  participating  in  Community  programmes, 

~ 

~ 

X 

(cid:57) 

X 

~ 

throughout  Europe 

by 

many initiatives which are 

being 

extended 

and 

improved.  Internet  portals 

complement 

traditional 

means.  

Specific  new  initiatives  are 

not common 

Some 

improvements 

in 

simplified 

admission 

procedures 

and 

specific 

including  Socrates,  Leonardo  da  Vinci  and  Youth, 

financial help 

pursue study or training, do voluntary work or provide 

teaching or training. 

2. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern students include 

2. (a) facilitate the recognition in the home Member 

(cid:57) 

Increasing  use  of  ECTS 

State  of  the  period  of  study  undertaken  in  the  host 

Member  State.  To  this  end,  use  of  the  European 

Credit  Transfer 

[and  Accumulation]  System 

(ECTS),  

reported.  Used 

in 

all 

countries. Also adjustment 

of national systems.  

2.  (b)  ensure  that  the  decisions  of  the  competent 

~ 

Autonomy  of  HEIs  in  this 

authorities responsible for academic recognition are 

made within reasonable timescales, are justified and 

are open to administrative and/or legal appeal;  

area.;  normally 

appeal 

procedure available.  

2. (c) encourage educational establishments to issue 

(cid:57) 

Use 

of 

Diploma 

a European supplement as an administrative annexe 

to the diploma, describing the studies undertaken, in 

supplement  increasing  and 

widely supported. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
order to facilitate their recognition;  

2.  (d)  encourage  students  and  pupils  to  complete 

~ 

Mobility 

encouraged 

part of their studies in another Member State and to 

facilitate recognition 

through 

legislative  and 

non-legislative measures 

2.  (e)  take  appropriate  measures  to  make  it  easier 

X  

No 

specific 

actions 

for students on mobility schemes to prove that they 

have  the  health  cover  or  insurance  needed  in  order 

to obtain a residence permit 

undertaken.  Although 

in 

some  countries  incoming 

students  part  of  national 

health care system. 

2.  (f)  facilitate  the  integration  (academic  guidance, 

~ 

Varied 

actions 

taken. 

educational psychology etc) of students undergoing 

mobility  into  the  education  system  of  the  host 

Member State 

Often  practical  services 

provided  by  HEIs  without 

reference  to  wider  policy 

measures. 

3.  Measures  proposed  by  the  Recommendation  which  specifically  concern  persons  undergoing  training 

include: 

3.  (a)  facilitate  the  recognition  of  the  training 

undertaken in another country. To this end, the use 

of  the  "  EuropassTraining  "  document,  designed  to 

promote  European  pathways 

in  work-linked 

training, should be encouraged;  

~ 

The  use  of  Europass-

Training  implemented  in 

all  MS  as  action 

to 

increase 

status 

of 

a 

mobility  period  abroad. 

Lack of other actions. 

3. (b) encourage the use of more transparent models 

~ 

Signs of converging views 

for  vocational  training  certificates.  For  example, 

official national certificates should be accompanied 

by a translation of the certificate and/or a European 

certificate supplement;  

and 

successful 

cooperation. 

Certificate 

Supplement 

is 

being 

prepared. 

3.  (c)  take  the  measures  they  consider  appropriate, 

~ 

Significant 

variation 

in  accordance  with  Community  law  and  in  the 

across Member States 

framework  of  their  national  law,  so  that  persons 

travelling  to  another  Member  State  for  the purpose 

of  undergoing  recognised  training  there  are  not 

subject,  because  of  their  mobility  to  discrimination 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with respect to relevant social protection, including 

the  administrative  formalities  for  this  protection, 

such as in the area of health care and other relevant 

areas; 

3.  (d)  take  appropriate  measures  to  make  it  easier 

(cid:57) 

Following 

Directive 

for  persons  undergoing  training  to  prove  that  they 

have  the  financial  resources  needed  in  order  to 

obtain a residence permit.  

93/96/EEC  a  declaration 

of sufficient resources (not 

proof of) is enough. 

4. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern young volunteers include: 

4.  (a)  ensure  that  the  specific  nature  of  voluntary 

X 

Volunteering  still  mostly 

activity  is  taken  into  account  in  national  legal  and 

administrative measures;  

informal  activity;  unclear 

status,  varying  between 

countries. 

4.  (b)  promote  the  introduction  of  a  certificate  of 

~ 

The only case seems to be 

participation  for  persons  who  have  taken  part  in 

voluntary activity projects, with a view to bringing 

about  a  common  European  format  for  curricula 

vitae;  

4.  (c)  ensure  that  volunteers  on  transnational 

mobility  schemes  are  not  discriminated  against  in 

terms of entitlement to social protection measures.  

4. (d) ensure that recognised voluntary activities are 

not treated as employment.  

~ 

~ 

volunteers  within  EVS 

(European 

Voluntary 

Service)  who  receive  a 

certificate.  

Only volunteers within the 

EVS 

are 

automatically 

insured. 

In 

many 

countries 

volunteering 

treated  as 

employment. 

Influences 

taxation,  but  gives  access 

to social security benefits. 

5. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern teachers and trainers include: 

5.  (a)  take  into  account  the  problems  of  short-term 

X 

Some  countries  point  to 

mobility  covered  by  legislation  of  several  Member 

States and encourage co-operation 

the 

employer's 

responsibility. 

General 

absence 

of 

policies 

supporting 

short-term 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
5.  (b)  promote  the  European  mobility  of  teachers 

and trainers by  

-  making 

arrangements 

for 

the 

temporary 

replacement of teachers  

-  measures  to  facilitate  integration  in  the  host 

establishment 

- introducing European training periods;  

5.  (c)  encourage  the  introduction  of  a  European 

dimension into the professional  

- in the context of teacher training programmes  

-  by  encouraging  contacts  and  exchanges  between 

establishments  within  Europe  which  train  teachers 

and trainers 

5.  (d)  promote  inclusion  of  European  mobility 

experience  as  a  component  of  the  careers  of 

teachers and trainers.  

~ 

~ 

x 

~ 

~ 

~ 

mobility. 

In  some  cases  a  national 

strategy  on  mobility,  in 

some  cases  regional  and 

local 

initiatives.  Little 

action 

to 

facilitate 

integration 

in 

the  host 

institution. 

Except  some  initiatives,  a 

general lack of a European 

dimension 

in 

teacher's 

training at national level. 

For  university 

teaching 

staff  mobility  is  in  some 

countries 

considered 

standard. On general weak 

link 

between 

teaching 

exchanges 

and 

career 

development. 

II Member States are called on to 

submit to the Commission every two years a report 

(cid:57) 

A 

first 

report  was 

on the implementation of the proposals made in the 

Recommendation. 

III The Commission is called on to: 

submitted,  reporting  was 

subsequently 

subsumed 

into the ET2010 OMC 

(a)  set  up  a  group  of  experts  in  order  to  permit 

(cid:57) 

A  working  group  with  a 

exchanges 

of 

information 

and 

experience 

double  mandate  was  set 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
concerning 

the 

implementation 

of 

the 

up. 

Recommendation  and  of  the  Action  Plan  for 

Mobility ; 

(b)  continue  to  cooperate  with  the  Member  States 

within  the  European  Forum  on  the  transparency  of 

professional qualifications;  

(c)  submit  no  later  than  two  years  and  six  months 

after  the  adoption  of  the  Recommendation,  and 

thereafter  every  two  years,  an  analytical  summary 

of the national reports on the implementation of the 

Recommendation;  

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

Common  structure  for  a 

certificate supplement. 

(2004  Report.  Reporting 

subsequently  incorporated 

into 

the  Education  and 

Training OMC Framework 

– biennial Joint Report) 

(d)  study  the  procedures  for  introducing  a  pass  for 

X 

schoolchildren/ students/ trainees/ volunteers within 

the  Community,  giving  holders  entitlement  to 

various concessions during their period of mobility;  

(e)  draw  up  proposals  designed  to  promote  the 

(cid:57) 

Implemented through NRP 

transparency  of  professional  qualifications  and  the 

and Europass. 

exchange  of 

information  on  opportunities  for 

studying, performing voluntary work or teaching in 

other Member States.  

(f) study appropriate procedures and measures with 

(cid:57) 

Ploteus 

Internet  Portal 

Member  States  for  the  exchange  of  information  on 

opportunities  for  education,  training  or  voluntary 

work  or  providing  teaching  or  training  in  other 

Member States 

(launched  March  2003) 

and  development  of  a 

service  to  make  national 

services inter-operable.  

Assessment of progress is based upon the findings of the Report on the follow-up to the Recommendation of the 
European Parliament and the Council of 10 July 2001 on mobility within the Community of students, persons 
undergoing  training,  volunteers  and  teachers  and  trainers  (Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the 
European  Parliament,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions) 
COM(2004)  21,  supplemented  with  additional  information  from  Education  and  Training  Joint  Reports  2006, 
2008 and 2010 where available. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4b: Overview of Level of Progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 
Recommendation (2001/613/EC) and presentation of Areas emerging since 2001 

identified  by 
2001  Council 

  Areas 
the 
Recommendation 
where 
mixed  or 
information 
available 

progress 
limited 

  Areas  identified  by 
the  2001  Council 
Recommendation 
where  progress 
lacking  

is 

  Areas  emerging  since  the 
Council 

2001 
Recommendation 

  Ensure  decisions  of 
competent  academic 
recognition 
authorities  are  made 
within 
reasonable 
timescales 

  Recognition  of  non-
formal  and  informal 
learning  undertaken 
in  another  Member 
State, 
including 
volunteering 

technological 
including 
and 

  Substantial 
progress, 
Information 
Communication 
Technologies  (ICTs),  brings 
new  opportunities  for  virtual 
mobility and for accessibility 
of  information  on  mobility 
possibilities/preparing 
mobility 

Areas identified by the 
2001 
Council 
Recommendation 
where  progress  has 
been positive  

of 

State, 

Recognition 
qualifications 
completed  in  another 
Member 
in 
particular  through  the 
the  ECTS 
use  of 
Credit 
(European 
Transfer 
and 
Accumulation 
System),  and  use  of 
the 
'Diploma 
Supplement'  in  higher 
education,  and  the  use 
of  more 
transparent 
models  for  vocational 
training certificates 

Availability 
of 
linguistic  and  cultural 
for 
preparation 
mobility periods  

awareness 

  Facilitation  of  access 
people 
for 
learning 
considering 
all 
to 
mobility 
information 
relevant 
of 
eg. 
for 
possibilities 
awareness 
mobility, 
of  rights 
to  social 
security, and facilitate 
integration in the host 
(guidance 
country 
and support services) 

  Encourage 

students 
to 
pupils 
and 
complete part of their 
studies 
another 
in 
Member State 

  Take 

appropriate 
measures  to  ensure 
that  mobile  students 
are  not  subject  to 
discrimination 
in 
their  home  Member 
State, 
when 
compared  to  people 
not 
undertaking 
transnational 
mobility 

  There  is  a  greater  emphasis 
eg. 
employability 
on 
placements 
stages/work 
increasingly  popular  as  part 
of  a  study  programme  and 
mobility  experience  –  this 
brings  different  challenges 
facilitating  mobility 
for 
compared 
'traditional 
learning mobility' 

to 

  Make  it  easier  for 
students  on  mobility 
schemes 
to  prove 
they  have  health 
cover  or 
insurance 
needed  in  order  to 
obtain  a  residence 
permit. 

  More 

emphasis 

is 
increasingly  placed  upon  the 
social  dimension  eg.  as  HE 
becomes  more  accessible  to 
non-traditional  learners  such 
as  those  from  disadvantaged 
these  groups 
backgrounds 
will  have  different  needs  to 
the  traditional  student  body, 
financial 
perhaps  more 
especially 
support 
cultural/aspirational 
and 
guidance support 

but 

  Removal  of  legal  and 

administrative 

  Ensure  the  specific 
nature  of  voluntary 
activity  is  taken  into 

  New  partnership  models  and 
new 
an 
alliances 
increasingly  common  aim  of 

are 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
obstacles to mobility 

account  in  national 
and 
legal 
administrative 
measures,  including 
ensure 
that 
recognised  voluntary 
are  not 
activities 
treated 
as 
employment 

educational 
establishment, 
yet  these  can  be  restricted 
to  administrative  and 
due 
legislative  barriers 
to  co-
operation.  Joint  working  is 
more  of  a  feature  than  10 
years ago eg. for the delivery 
of  joint  degrees,  yet  many 
countries  do  not  permit  their 
accreditation 
to 
certify joint programmes. 

bodies 

  Promote 

the 
European  mobility  of 
teachers  and  trainers, 
the 
and  encourage 
introduction 
a 
of 
European  dimension 
into their professional 
development 

into  account 
  Take 
the 
of 
problems 
short-term  mobility 
for 
and 
teachers 
trainers,  covered  by 
legislation of several 
Member  States  and 
encourage 
co-
operation 

  Extra  EU  mobility 

for 

yet 

is 
increasingly  demanded  by 
the 
students  as  part  of 
curriculum, 
the 
availability of information on 
opportunities 
learning 
mobility  outside  the  EU  and 
academic 
of 
periods spent outside the EU 
is  particularly  weak  and  in 
the case of incoming students 
administrative 
legal 
barriers are particularly acute 
(e.g. visa restrictions). 

recognition 

and 

  Remove 

third 

national 
obstacles  to  mobility 
of 
country 
nationals 
in  EU 
participating 
mobility programmes 

  Portability  of  grants 
and 
loans.  Many 
Member  States  have 
new 
introduced 
support 
student 
mechanisms  which 
have 
differing 
portability 
provisions  (also  the 
ECJ 
subject 
rulings 
recent 
years) 

of 
in 

  Extend 

the 
accessibility 
of 
benefits  (other  than 
social 
security) 
available to domestic 
students  to  students 
from  other  Member 
eg.  public 
States 
transport 
subsidies, 
accommodation 
support 

before 

agreed 

  The  2001  Recommendation 
was 
the 
accession  of  new  Member 
States.  The  circumstances 
and  mobility  challenges  of 
these  countries  may  differ 
somewhat  to  'older'  Member 
States  Eg.  Central 
and 
Eastern  European  countries 
large 
experienced 
have 
mobility  outflows  for  study 
and employment. 

in 

  The  economic  crisis  has  led 
to  a  reduction  in  budgets 
available  to  support  mobility 
initiatives  and  implementing 
many 
institutions 
countries,  making  it  more 
difficult  for  young  people  to 
afford  a  mobility  period. 
Conversely,  more  young 
people, faced with a difficult 
labour market, are seeking to 
differentiate 
in 
order to be more attractive to 
defer 
employers 
potential unemployment.  

themselves 

and/or 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5: Links between the problems, objectives and areas where Member State action should be pursued 

PROBLEM  

SPECIFC OBJECTIVE 

PROPOSED MEMBER STATES' ACTION 

Information shortfalls and motivation 

improve  the  availability  and  accessibly  of 
reliable information  on the possibilities for 
study abroad and its benefits 

Take  appropriate  measures  to  improve  the  information  and  guidance  on  mobility 
opportunities in their countries:  

COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 
OPTIONS  

S
U
T
A
T
S

/

O
U
Q

.
1

W
E
N

.
2

A
D
N
E
M
M
O
C
E
R

N
O
T

I

C
M
O
W
E
N

.
3

(cid:190) 

Improve  the  quality  of  information  and  guidance  and  target  it  to  specific 
groups of learners.  

(cid:190)  Make information easily accessible to all young people interested in learning 

mobility,  

(cid:190)  Cooperate with the Commission to further develop the PLOTEUS portal on 

learning opportunities. 

(cid:190) 

Provide evidence of the added value of learning mobility  

(cid:190) 

Encourage the use of ICTs to support physical mobility,  

(cid:190)  Use ICTs to set up electronic guidance and counselling services and online 

learning communities 

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Enhance  the  motivation  of  young  people  to  participate  in  transnational  mobility 
activities: 

(cid:190) 

Encourage networking between agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure 
a coordinated approach to motivating young people.  

(cid:190) 

Encourage  "peer  exchange"  between  mobile  and  not  yet  mobile  young 
people. 

(cid:190) 

Promote  the  value  of  learning  mobility  to  learners,  their  families  and 
employers  

(cid:190)  Wherever  feasible,  make  a  mobility  period  for  teachers  and  trainers 

mandatory.  

Role of multipliers 

(cid:190) 

Encourage  the  use  of  ‘multipliers’  who  previously  participated  in  a  mobility 
stage as an important source of inspiration and motivation.  

(cid:190) 

Include  a  European  mobility  experience  as  a  component  of  the  careers  of 
teachers and trainers. 

(cid:190) 

Encourage employers in education to recognise and reward mobility  

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Language and culture 

improve  language  skills,  consistent  with 
the  aims  of  the  multilingualism  strategy, 
including the target of "Mother tongue plus 
two (foreign languages) for every citizen 

(cid:190)  Use more creative methods for the delivery of language learning.. 

(cid:190) 

Encourage  the  development  of  partnerships  and  exchanges,  such  as 
eTwinning.  

(cid:190) 

Embed linguistic and cultural preparation for mobility into the curriculum.  

(cid:190)  Use more creative methods for the delivery of language learning..  

Legal issues 

such as: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the status of young 
researchers, trainees, 
volunteers, including problems 
relating to health and social 
security coverage  
the absence of a coherent legal 
framework for the mobility of 
minors  
difficulties surrounding visas 
and the implementation of visa 
Directives for third country 
nationals wishing to come to the 
EU to study, do research or 
engage in volunteering. 
Impediments to cross-border 
working on curriculum 
development between 
institutions and agencies  

(cid:190) 

Simplify and co-ordinate national procedures  

reduce  legal  and  administrative  barriers 
relating 
to  health  and  social  security 
coverage  for  young  researchers,  trainees 
and volunteers  

promote  a  coherent  legal  framework  for 
the mobility of minors 

remove legal and administrative barriers to 
the  development  of  cross-border 
joint 
study  programmes  and  other  forms  of 
learning mobility 

(cid:190) 

(cid:190) 

(cid:190) 

Ensure  that  the  legal  provisions  related  to  the  free  movement  of  workers 
within 
fully  respected  and  applied  where 
appropriate.  

the  European  Union  are 

Address the lack of legal status of some groups of mobile learners, notably 
minors taking part in mobility schemes. 

Address  legal  issues  relating  to  difficulties  associated  with  obtaining  visa 
requirements and residency permits for non-EU residents.  

(cid:190)  Reduce administrative and legal burdens in order to promote mobility to and 

from the European Union.  

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
(cid:190) 

Ensure  that  national  laws  encourage  and  don't  impede  joint  programmes 
and degrees in education and training.  

Restrictions  on 
financial support (grants and loans) 

the  portability  of 

reduce  or  remove  restrictions  on 
portability  of  student 
(grants and loans) 

the 
financial  support 

(cid:190) 

Ensure that policies in relation to the portability of grants, loans and access 
to benefits are fully in line with the rulings of the European Court of Justice.  

Recognition and validation of the stay 
abroad 

improve  recognition  and  validation 
for 
formal,  non-formal  and  informal  learning 
completed abroad 

(cid:190) 

Improve procedures and guidelines for the validation and recognition of both 
formal and non-formal learning . 

(cid:190)  Commit  to  changing  attitudes  and  creating  a  broader  understanding  in 
society  of  the  role  played  by  knowledge  and  skills  acquired  in  informal  or 
non-formal learning environments. 

(cid:190) 

Take  a  pragmatic  approach  to  the  issue  of  validation  and  recognition  of 
knowledge acquired elsewhere (e.g. foreign language skills acquired during 
a stay abroad) 

(cid:190) 

Set up a central reference point where individuals seeking to be mobile for 
learning purposes could have their qualifications recognised and certified. 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quality  assurance  and  concerns 
regarding  the  quality  of    mobility, 
including  disappointing  uptake  of  the 
2006 Quality Charter for Mobility 

encourage a focus not only on increasing 
mobility  in  quantitative  terms  but,  above 
all,  on  improving  its  quality,  including  via 
increased 
the  voluntary 
take-up  of 
European Quality Charter for mobility 

(cid:190) 

Ensure  mobility  is  of  high  quality,  and  consider  the  introduction  of  quality 
assurance procedures for each aspect of mobility  

(cid:190) 

Encourage  continuous  dialogue  and  clearly  established  contractual 
arrangements  between  the  sending  and  the  hosting  institutions  and  a 
standardised approach to guidelines and templates  

(cid:190)  Organise  regular  reporting,  stocktaking  and  feedback  mechanisms,  to 
reassure  prospective  mobile  learners  regarding  the  high  quality  of  their 
mobility experience. 

(cid:190) 

Encourage mentoring and peer learning schemes to ensure good integration 
of mobile young people. 

(cid:190) 

Encourage  public  actors  to  better  exploit  existing  structures  for  hosting 
young people in convenient and affordable facilities. 

(cid:190) 

Provide guidance to mobile individuals after their return on how to make use 
of  the  competences  acquired  during  their  stay  abroad,  and  help  with 
reintegration 

from 

encourage cross-sectoral working, in order 
to  facilitate  shared  solutions  common  to 
different target groups 

(cid:190) 

Encourage  mobility  partnerships  with  both  public  and  private  actors 
operating at local level. 

(cid:190) 

Encourage  regional  authorities  to  play  an  increasing  role  in  promoting 
mobility.  

(cid:190) 

Stimulate  active  cooperation  and  communication  between  the  educational 
and the business sector.  

Structural 
sectorally-focussed working.   

rigidities 

resulting 

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(cid:190) 

Pay  attention  to  the  coherence  and  complementarity  of  national  and 
European programmes  

(cid:190) 

Encourage national agencies to ensure that their work is integrated with that 
of all stakeholders  

Still  relatively  few  young  people  reap 
the  benefits  of  a  learning  experience 
abroad  and  some  groups,  such  as 
from  disadvantaged 
young  people 
backgrounds 
particularly 
underrepresented.  

are 

increase  opportunities  for  young  people 
from  underrepresented  groups 
(lower 
socio  economic  backgrounds,  minority 
ethnic  groups,  disabled  people) 
to 
participate in learning mobility  

(cid:190) 

Ensure  that  those  involved  in  mobility  are  aware  of  and  experienced  in 
dealing  with  specific  issues  facing  disadvantaged  learners.  (including  the 
disabled) 

(cid:190)  Develop a mobility culture during the period of compulsory education  

(cid:190) 

Pay  particular  attention  to  providing  disadvantaged  learners  with  targeted 
information on programmes and support tailored to their specific needs. 

Lack  of  information  on  progress  in 
removing barriers to learning mobility  

enable  a  better  comparison  of  progress 
between  Member  States  and  reinforce 
peer  learning,  via  an  effective  monitoring 
process 

(cid:190) 

 Encourage the setting of mobility targets  

(cid:190) 

Provide  the  Commission  with  data  on  national  performance  which  the 
Commission  will  use 
through  a  "mobility 
to  monitor  developments 
scoreboard" 

Key to colour-coding 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Very good potential for progress 

Good potential for progress 

Neutral progress/status quo 

Negative progress  

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Mobility Scoreboard – illustrative example 

The  proposed  mobility  scoreboard  model  could  be  based  upon  a  traffic-light  approach, 
inspired by the Stocktaking of progress made in the area of Higher Education Reform in the 
context of the Bologna Process.  

Here,  countries  are  assessed  on  a  range  from  red  =  poor  performance  to  dark  green  =  very 
good performance (see below).  

This  'traffic-light'  system  has  an  advantage  of  being  well  known  in  the  education  sphere, 
easily understandable and relatively light in its approach. 

Source: Bologna scorecard, Bologna Process stocktaking report 200929  

29

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Stocktaking_report_2009_FINAL.pdf  

EN 

61 

   EN