COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: coronavirus disease, epidemic, international voluntary worker, social participation, student mobility, vocational training, voluntary organisation, voluntary work, young person, youth policy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.1.2022  SWD(2022) 4 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union {COM(2022) 15 final}  
 
 
Contents 
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2 

2. State of play of cross-border volunteer mobility in the EU ................................................................. 3 

2.1 The 2008 Council recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the European 
Union ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 

2.2 Evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy and the Council Recommendation on the mobility of 
young volunteers across the EU ............................................................................................................. 3 

2.3 Study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities ................................................ 5 

2.3.1  Main findings of the study .................................................................................................. 6 

2.3.2 

2.3.3 

Obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities, according to the study .......................... 8 

Policy recommendations of the study .............................................................................. 10 

2.4 Expert group report on Promoting the mobility of young volunteers and cross-border 
solidarity ................................................................................................................................................ 12 

2.4.1.  Main developments since 2008 ......................................................................................... 13 

2.4.2 Policy recommendations among different thematic areas.................................................... 14 

3.  

ANNEX: Stakeholder consultation synopsis report................................................................... 21 

3.1 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 21 

3.2   Consultation strategy ................................................................................................................ 21 

3.3. 

Survey as part of the study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities .... 21 

3.4. 
Focus Group as part of the study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity 
activities ................................................................................................................................................. 24 

3.5. 

Feedback on “Have your Say” website ................................................................................... 24 

3.6.  Open public consultation .......................................................................................................... 24 

Analysis of replies on the basis of the different stakeholder categories and per 
3.6.1. 
consultation topic .............................................................................................................................. 27 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

Volunteering, both within and beyond the Union, constitutes a rich experience in  a non-formal 
and  informal  learning  context  and  enhances  young  people’s  personal,  socio-educational  and 
professional  development,  active citizenship, civic participation  and employability.  In addition,  
volunteering  is  an  expression  of  solidarity,  which  is  at  the  core  of  the  European  project. 
Transnational  volunteering  across  the  EU  contains  an  additional  dimension,  namely  that  of 
helping a community in a different country, increasing intercultural understanding, and learning 
and  working  in  a  foreign  language.  The  European  labour  market  values  multilingualism, 
multiculturalism and adaptability.  Experience shows that moving out of one’s comfort zone by 
volunteering in a different country strongly impacts a young person’s personal and professional 
development.  Opening  up  more  transnational  volunteering  opportunities  for  Europe’s  young 
people translates into their increased employability, greater self-confidence, and greater support 
for the European project through a heightened sense of European citizenship. 

Europe’s  young  people  have  been  engaging  in  volunteering  activities  for  a  long  time,  thereby 
supporting  local  communities  and  responding  to  unmet  societal  needs.  Volunteering  activities 
have the concrete potential to mobilise young people for positive causes and help them develop 
essential  skills  and  competences  for  their  own  development.  This  is  true  for  all  young  people, 
including  those  from  disadvantaged  backgrounds.  The  recent  Covid-19  pandemic  has  shown 
once again that young people were quick to rise to the challenge and to express their solidarity, 
including inter-generational solidarity, through practical action. At the same time, the pandemic 
has  had  dramatic  effects  on  young  people’s  mental  health,  education  and  employment.  For  all 
these reasons, President von der Leyen proposed to make 2022 the European Year of Youth, “a 
year dedicated to empowering those who have dedicated so much to others”.  

This  Staff  Working  Document  accompanies  and  supports  the  proposal  for  a  Council 
Recommendation on the mobility of  young volunteers across the European Union and replaces 
the Council Recommendation of 20 November 2008 on the same topic. It contains information 
on  the  supporting  evidence  that  underpins  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  new  Council 
Recommendation.   The  proposal  retains  the main messages of the 2008  Communication, since 
many  of  them  remain  crucial,  but  supplements  and  updates  them.    It  aims  to  facilitate 
transnational youth volunteering, propose policy guidance to enhance the inclusiveness, quality, 
recognition  and  sustainability  dimensions  of  transnational  youth  volunteering,  facilitate  the 
complementarity between volunteering schemes  in  Member States and the European  Solidarity 
Corps,  and  encourage  mutual  learning  and  networking  in  the  field  of  transnational  youth 
volunteering activities. 

This Staff Working Document provides an overview of the steps undertaken to replace the 2008 
Council  Recommendation  with  a  new  Recommendation.  It  starts  with  a  summary  of  the  2008 
Council Recommendation, to provide the general context, and then presents the main outcomes 
of an evaluation, a study, and an expert group report. An annex contains the synopsis report on 
the consultation activities undertaken. 

2 

 
 
2. State of play of cross-border volunteer mobility in the EU 

2.1  The  2008  Council  recommendation  on  the  mobility  of  young  volunteers  across  the 
European Union 

On  20  November  2008,  the  Council  adopted  a  recommendation  on  the  mobility  of  young 
volunteers across the European Union. The main objective of the Council Recommendation was 
to provide more cross-border volunteering opportunities for young people. The recommendation 
suggests raising awareness of and capacity for cross-border volunteering opportunities, reducing 
barriers to participation, increasing the recognition of the experience and the inclusiveness of the 
activity. 

More specifically, the recommendation defines cross-border volunteering, recognises its benefits 
and  identifies  common  potential  obstacles  to  volunteer  mobility;  it  provides  a  framework  for 
Member  States  to  intensify  their  cooperation  in  the  field.  The  Council  recommended  that 
Member  States  promote  the  mobility  of  young  volunteers  by  enhancing  the  conditions  for 
cooperation between volunteering organisations across Europe. In accordance with their national 
frameworks,  the  Member  States  should  raise  awareness  of  volunteering  and  its  benefits 
nationally and improve access to information on cross-border volunteering, disseminate it among 
potential target groups, and simplify the relevant administrative procedures. They should support 
the  development  of  hosting  capacity  among  the  organisations  engaged  in  cross-border 
volunteering, and provide contact points in the form of National Agencies. To reduce barriers to 
cross-border  volunteering,  the  Member  States  should  increase  awareness  of  the  importance  of 
intercultural competences and language learning among young people. Furthermore, they should 
assure quality and provide sufficient information about cross-border volunteering activities and 
organisations. The Member States should ensure that volunteers are not discriminated against as 
a  result  of  national  social  protection  policies  such  as  health  care  and  social  welfare,  and  that 
special  visas  and  residence  permits  for  third  country  nationals  are  easy  to  obtain.  The 
recommendation also invited to promote appropriate recognition of competences gained through 
volunteering,  also  using  EU-wide  instruments  such  as  Europass  and  Youthpass.  People  with 
fewer opportunities should be given particular attention to enhance their access to cross-border 
voluntary activities.  

2.2 Evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy and the Council Recommendation on the mobility 
of young volunteers across the EU 

An  evaluation  of  the  EU  Youth  Strategy  (EUYS)  and  the  2008  Council  Recommendation 
undertaken in 2015-20161 found out that the 2008 Recommendation addressed some of the very 
relevant and persistent issues and obstacles to cross-border volunteering. The general perception 
among stakeholders was that the 2008 Council Recommendation was one of the key initiatives in 
this  field,  and  it  benefitted  from  having  been  integrated  in  a  long-term  youth  cooperation 
framework, which allowed cross-border volunteering to be kept in EU cooperation activities. The 
internationalisation  and  mobility  aspects  of  volunteering  moved  up  on  the  agenda  in  several 

1https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2017)281&lang=en 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 
Slovenia and Slovakia), and legal frameworks and tools were developed in a number of Member 
States  to  recognise  its  value.  The  Strategy  also  complemented  Member  States’  efforts  of 
increasing cross-border volunteering opportunities through enhancing the mobilisation of funds 
for the European Voluntary Service (EVS) and the support to the dissemination of information. 
At  the  same  time,  it  is  important  to  note  that  it  was  a  challenge  during  the  evaluation  to 
distinguish the influence of activities launched under the auspices of the Recommendation from 
the volunteering activities under the 2010-2018 EUYS. The assumptions made about the positive 
effects  of  the  Council  Recommendation  cannot  be  clearly  verified,  as  the  expected  effects  are 
indirectly  linked  to  the  results  of  the  Recommendation.  Actions  implemented  within  the 
framework of the Council Recommendation are generally considered as complementary to other 
the  youth  organisations  consulted. 
implemented  by 
voluntary  activities  organised  or 
Nevertheless, the evaluation affirms that all action lines of the Council Recommendation are still 
relevant to the current needs and problems of young volunteers and volunteering organisations.  

Information about and dissemination of cross-border volunteering opportunities was identified an 
essential  aspect,  as  the  interest  to  volunteer  is  low  in  some  Member  States  (Portugal,  Estonia, 
Sweden,  Lithuania,  Hungary).  The  problem  to  find  suitable  volunteers  occurs  in  some  cases, 
which often comes from the lack of awareness about the opportunities, and volunteering abroad 
is  less  popular  among  young  people  than  participating  in  the  Erasmus+  university  exchanges. 
Therefore,  awareness-raising  actions  remain  highly  relevant  to  spread  information  about  the 
available  opportunities.  Eurodesks  and  the  European  Youth  Portal  helped  young  people  find 
information about volunteering opportunities abroad, but the tools are generally not well-know, 
and concerns exist in connection with user aspects and up-to-date information. In some countries 
(Italy,  Spain),  volunteering  serves  as  an  alternative  to  not  finding  a  job  in  their  home  country, 
and as a  consequence,  more people  from  these  countries wish to  volunteer than the number of 
available  placements  (e.g.  in  Estonia  and  Sweden).  This  demonstrates  that  there  is  still  a  great 
need for developing opportunities for cross-border volunteering within and beyond the European 
Solidarity  Corps  programme.  In  most  countries,  the  European  Voluntary  Service  (predecessor 
programme  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps)  proved  to  be  the  only  opportunity  to  volunteer 
abroad  and  that  the  majority  of  the  beneficiaries  (70%)  initiated  cross-border  activities  within 
Youth in Action/Erasmus+ programme.  

The  evaluation  concluded  that  there  is  a  need  for  simplifying  the  procedures  for  cross-border 
volunteering,  as  such  processes  were  reported  to  be  highly  bureaucratic  through  the  European 
Voluntary Service. However, this creates capacity- and resource-related challenges for local and 
small-sized  NGOs.  They  also  communicated  that  there  is  little  support  to  deal  with  the 
administrative issues when sending volunteers to  non-EU countries.  Consequently, the demand 
for simplifying the procedures remain relevant.  The need for better recognition of volunteering 
experience  remained  an  issue  at  the  time  of  the  evaluation,  even  though  the  Recommendation 
seems  to  have  contributed  to  the  increasing  popularity  and  recognition  of  the  Youthpass  and 
Europass  certificates.  Member  States  have  taken  steps  in  this  field,  but  the  demand  for  better 
recognition  and  validation  is  still  valid.  This  is  underpinned  by  that  fact  that  many  volunteers, 
who  return  from  abroad,  face  problems  with  the  value  of  volunteering  experience  and  skills 
acquired, as they are often under-estimated and that the recognition of Youthpass by employer 
still seems to be low.  

4 

 
 
 
 
The inclusion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds was identified as a more pressing issue 
in 2015 than it had been in 2008, as were visa applications and attitudes towards foreigners in the 
wake  of  the  migrant  crisis.  This  shows  that  more  work  needs  to  be  done  to  reduce  barriers  to 
cross-border mobility for young people from third countries, and make volunteering abroad more 
accessible for young people with fewer opportunities (NEETs: neither in employment, education 
or  training,  young  people  with  disabilities,  those  from  rural  areas  and  youth  from  migrant  and 
minority background).  

The  action  lines  of  the  Council  Recommendation  did  not  adequately  address  all  the  needs  and 
challenges  of  volunteering  organisations.  One  of  the  most  frequently  reported  need  was  the 
increase  in  quality  volunteering  projects,  which  can  be  limited  by  insufficient  training  and 
capacity coupled with a lack of funding opportunities.  The quality of the learning experience is 
important  for  the  volunteer  in  order  to  acquire  transferable  skills  and  competences. 
Consequently,  volunteer  management  should  be  addresses  at  policy  level  and  supported  in 
practice.  Other  emerging  needs  identified  but  not  addressed  by  the  Recommendation  included 
the  lack  of  stable  funding  resources  and/or  the  link  to  the  available  EU  instruments  (e.g. 
Erasmus+),  the  digitalisation  of  volunteering,  and  the  introduction  of  “EU  volunteer”  status  to 
facilitate visa and tax solutions for cross-border volunteers. 

Based  on  the  gathered  information,  the  evaluation  recommends  the  formulation  of  more 
ambitious objectives and more explicit links to the EU funding programmes. In order to improve 
the relevance and coherence of policy level cooperation and funded initiatives, the issue of the 
Recommendation’s  action  lines  being  more  reflected  in  the  annual  or  national  programme 
priorities of the Erasmus+ was also raised by the evaluation.  

All  in  all  the  evaluation  concludes  that  although  the  2008  Council  Recommendation 
managed  to  address  and  identify  the  needs  of  young  volunteers  and  volunteering 
organisations,  they  remained  relevant.    This  was  particularly  the  case  in  the  fields  of 
quality  in  ‘volunteer  management’,  information  and  dissemination  activities  on  cross-
border  volunteering  opportunities  accompanied  by  the  rights  and  responsibilities  of  the 
volunteers,  making  volunteering  mobility  more  accessible  to  young  people  with  fewer 
opportunities and reducing barriers to volunteering mobility. 

2.3 Study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities 

The  study  on  removing  obstacles  to  cross-border  solidarity  activities2  was  carried  out  between 
June  2019  and  January  2020  by  PPMI  Group  with  the  assistance  of  the  Office  for  Economic 
Policy and Regional Development as a subcontractor, as well as individual external experts. The 
purpose  of  the  study  was  to  identify  the  key  obstacles  to  cross-border  solidarity  activities  that 
persist  at  policy  and  organisational  levels  across  the  EU  Member  States,  and  to  formulate 
the 
concrete  policy  recommendations 

that  can  be  fed  directly 

the  review  of 

into 

2 Study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities, PPMI Group in cooperation with EPRD, 2020, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1a7042cb-e678-11ea-ad25-01aa75ed71a1 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Recommendation.  The  study  complements  the  work  of  the  Expert  Group  on  the  mobility  of 
young volunteers and cross-border as well. The main focus of the study was volunteering, but it 
also covered traineeships and jobs within the solidarity field to the extent that they are relevant to 
the activities of the European Solidarity Corps programme.  

This  study  required  the  collection,  processing  and  synthesising  of  both  qualitative  and 
quantitative  data.  It  embraced  a  mixed-methods  research  design,  tailored  by  study  team 
specifically  for  this  assignment.  These  included  extensive  desk  research  and  the  mapping  of 
information  at  country  level  (resulting  in  the  preparation  of  28  country  fiches),  analysis  of 
administrative and monitoring data on European Solidarity Corps projects and the Commission’s 
survey of European Voluntary Service participants. Interviews with officials from the European 
Commission,  stakeholders at  EU level,  National  Agencies and  National  Authorities, as well as 
representatives  of  the  schemes/projects  selected  for  good-practice  case  studies  and  a  survey  of 
organisations  that  hold  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  Quality  Label  or  are  accredited  under 
Erasmus+ youth volunteering were carried out. In addition, five good-practice case studies were 
prepared and a workshop with the Expert Group on the mobility of young volunteers and cross-
border solidarity was organised in Brussels to discuss the study’s findings.  

2.3.1 

Main findings of the study 

The  study  underlines  the  importance  of  the  2019-2027  EU  Youth  Strategy  in  terms  of  youth 
solidarity,  as  it  includes  the  removal  of  the  obstacles  to  and  the  facilitation  of  volunteering 
among  its  objectives.  The  Strategy  aims  to  expand  the  2008  Council  Recommendation  on  the 
cross-border  mobility  of  volunteers,  and  to  strengthen  the  potential  and  inclusiveness  of  the 
European Solidarity Corps programme through policy cooperation and community building.  

Youth participation in organised volunteering  activities has been increasing since 2011, but the 
participation of young people is still relatively low. The number of volunteers going abroad grew 
in  most  countries  with  Greece  and  Austria  having  the  sharpest  increase  rate  (8%).  Lithuania, 
Bulgaria, Slovenia and the Netherlands demonstrated a decrease in the number of this category, 
while stagnation could be observed in Latvia. In general, the share of cross-border volunteers 
remains relatively low (at 8%) when compared to in-country solidarity activities, although 
the overall increase of 2% between 2014 and 2017 demonstrates a positive trend. 

Volunteering traditions and cultures differ among the Member States, but volunteering is popular 
and  developing.  People  generally  prefer  episodic  and  occasional  (short-term  and 
spontaneous) volunteering activities to regularly organised ones, which usually require long-
term  commitment.  This  also  underpins  the  problem  of  finding  dedicated  long-term  volunteers, 
which  had  been  identified  as  a  challenge  in  previous  studies  as  well.  Apart  from  the  low 
popularity  of  cross-border  volunteering,  the  tradition  and  culture  of  volunteering  in  the  EU 
appear  to  be  well-developed  and  favourable  to  both  volunteers  and  volunteering  organisations. 
The  study  divides  Member  States  into  four  categories  on  the  basis  of  volunteering  culture  and 
tradition:  Member  States  with  comparatively  well-developed  tradition  of  volunteering  with  the 
related  activities  being  popular  and  valued  by  society;  countries  that  have  a  volunteering 
tradition,  but  solidarity  activities  are  relatively  unpopular;  Member  States  with  a  developing 

6 

 
 
volunteering  tradition,  but  where  such  activities  are  popular  and  countries  with  developing 
volunteering  tradition,  where  solidarity  activities  are  relatively  unpopular.  Based  on  these 
categories,  the  study  concludes  that  different  measures  are  needed  to  address  the  existing 
obstacles and challenges in Member States.  

17 Member States (Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Slovenia, France, Slovakia, Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Cyprus,  Finland,  Germany,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Poland,  Malta,  Spain)  possess  one  or  more 
national/regional  schemes  supporting  cross-border  solidarity  activities,  although  these  do  not 
necessarily  target  young  people.  However,  the  absence  of  a  national  cross-border  volunteering 
scheme  does  not  mean  that  no  volunteering  opportunities/activities  exist  in  that  country. 
Volunteering activities in these Member States may be provided by privately run organisations, 
some of which can be international. The supply for cross-border volunteering opportunities 
varies  across  Europe.  The  study  found  that  there  are  opportunities  for  the  mobility  of  EU 
volunteers 
to  non-European  countries,  bilateral  volunteering  projects  usually  between 
neighbouring  countries  and  broader  national  civic  schemes  have  developed  opportunities  for 
foreign exchanges as well. For Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Cyprus and 
Croatia however the European Solidarity Corps Programme is  the only structured cross-
border  volunteering  programme  offering  funding  for  young  persons,  although  local 
organisations  in  these  countries  may  also  provide  cross-border  volunteering  opportunities.  The 
Corps therefore is highly relevant in countries that lack opportunities for young people to engage 
in  cross-border  solidarity  activities,  and  it  serves  as  a  complementary  instrument  to  other, 
existing solidarity activities.  

The  study  indicates  that  most  countries  make  efforts  to  build  and  develop  capacities  of 
volunteering  organisations  by  improving  their  organisational  practices  and  the  competences 
and skills of the people who manage groups of volunteers. The most common policy instrument 
is training and information dissemination initiatives organised by public authorities and agencies. 
Capacity building is also aided by developing different guidelines and standards, which mainly 
possess  recommendatory  nature.  It  can  also  be  observed  that  there  are  generally  no  rigid 
centralised quality assurance frameworks for volunteering organisations and projects in Member 
States.  The  evaluation  of  individual  projects  relies  largely  on  the  organisations  that  implement 
them. Quality assurance is usually ensured through the conditions required for organisations to 
receive public funding, for example with an obligation for financial reporting.  

Countries are committed to awareness-raising about cross-border volunteering opportunities 
for  young  people,  but  the  information  on  available  volunteering  opportunities  are  usually 
not  integrated  into  a  single  system.  Nevertheless,  countries  tend  to  have  centralised  youth 
information  portal/online  volunteering  database  on  the  available  volunteering  opportunities. 
Awareness-raising  actions  include  the  organisation  of  regular,  dedicated  events  aimed  at 
popularising raising awareness of volunteering and local/municipal volunteering and information 
centres also contribute to the dissemination of volunteering opportunities.  

As far as the 2008 Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the 
European Union concerned, the study came to similar conclusions as the Evaluation of the EU 
Youth Strategy and the Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the 

7 

 
 
EU.  The  Recommendation  provided  a  clearer  understanding  of  what  cross-border  volunteering 
entails,  but  the  lack  of  quality  assurance  mechanisms  persists  and  there  is  still  more  room  in 
terms  of  recognition  of  skills  and  competences  acquired  through  volunteering  activities.  The 
study  concludes  that  Recommendation  pushed  volunteering  up  the  on  the  agenda  of  policy-
makers and  into national  youth  strategies. However, its general  provisions makes it difficult  to 
measure  the  Council  Recommendation’s  impacts,  which  varied  among  Member  States  from 
widespread stakeholder consultations to having a limited impact and awareness. The non-binding 
character  of  the  Recommendation  and  the  lack  of  ambition  and  direct  link  to  EU  funding 
instruments were listed as major reasons why the Council Recommendation did not have major 
impact on Member States.   

2.3.2 

Obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities, according to the study 

The study found that no common definition of solidarity or solidarity activities exists across 
the  EU,  aside  from  the  definition  provided  by  the  European  Solidarity  Corps.  This  lack  of  a 
shared understanding of key terms often leads to poor understanding of the programme. The term 
“solidarity activities” is not used in connection with volunteering in many Member States.  

There are substantial differences in administrative and legal frameworks on volunteering 
across  the  Member  States.  The  study  concludes  that  the  key  barrier  in  relation  to  the 
administrative  and  regulatory  frameworks  governing  the  volunteering  field  is  their  diversity, 
which  results  in  a  lack  of  alignment  among  EU  Member  States,  and  developing  common 
guidelines  would  be  a  challenge  because  of  their  national  circumstances.  Most  Member  States 
have  legal  acts  and  definitions  of  volunteers  and  volunteering  in  place,  but  they  differ 
significantly and do not ensure a clear legal status for volunteers. Too rigid or loose definitions 
can  lead  to  barriers  and  obstacles  in  terms  of  working  conditions  and  the  definition  of  roles. 
Formal  and  informal  types  of  volunteering  can  also  create  obstacles  when  it  comes  to  the 
formulation  of  legal  frameworks  in  Member  States.  These  frameworks  can  also  change 
dynamically, and in some cases, the process of its development is slower which often stems from 
the lack of political will. A number of countries do not have a dedicated law on volunteering, but 
provisions on volunteering are included in other policy documents.  

Difficulties  in  obtaining  visa  and  residence  permits  as  a  volunteer  coming  from  a  third-
country are still relevant.  

Provision  and  portability  of  entitlements  and  benefits  to  volunteers  are  not  uniformly 
ensured. The provision and portability of entitlements and benefits such as health insurance and 
unemployment  or  disability  benefits,  along  with  the  taxation  of  various  reimbursements,  are 
important  factors  for  long-term  cross-border  volunteers.  Information  about  the  governance  of 
these provisions are scattered in many cases and volunteering and traineeships might fall under 
the supervision of different policy areas and strategies.  

Another  key  obstacle  is  the  lack  of  sufficient  awareness  of  cross-border  volunteering 
opportunities.  Even  though  the  majority  of  volunteering  organisations  agree  that  sufficient 
opportunities exist for both in-country and cross-border volunteering, the fragmentation or lack 
of efforts to raise awareness of the value and benefits of cross-border volunteering experience, as 

8 

 
 
well  as  of  opportunities  to  volunteer  abroad,  are  further  obstacles  identified  by  the  study. 
Although most EU Members States have instruments and tools aimed at promoting and raising 
awareness  of  existing  volunteering  opportunities,  these  efforts  are  usually  neither  systemic  nor 
integrated and it is one of the key challenges facing the volunteering/solidarity sector in Europe. 
Lack of awareness can also originate from the differences in the socio-economic background of 
young  people,  as  persons  from  disadvantaged  groups  and  those  from  rural  areas  are  often 
reported as being less informed. 

The  study  concluded  that  there  is  a  lack  of  sufficient  recognition  of  volunteering 
experience.  There  is  mixed  feedback  about  the  employers’  perceptions  of  volunteering 
experiences and their value. The absence of a unified national framework for the recognition of 
skills  and  competences  acquired  through  volunteering  activities  (especially  for  European 
Solidarity Corps and cross-border volunteering) was identified by a number of stakeholders from 
different Member States as one of the key challenges and obstacles that provide a disincentive to 
the  participation  of  young  people  in  (cross-border)  volunteering  activities.  In  certain  Member 
States, the formal recognition  mechanisms available (for instance Youthpass) are insufficiently 
integrated,  and  as  a  result,  newly  developed  skills  often  go  unrecognised  by  prospective 
employers.  The  ability  of  the  volunteer  to  communicate  the  skills  and  competences  they  have 
acquired is also a factor when it comes to recognition.  

Even  though  the  majority  of  volunteering  organisations  have  a  positive  view  on  their 
capacity to implement volunteering activities, there is a stronger need to ensure the quality 
of volunteering and increase the capacity of organisations in some areas. The lack of stable 
funding was found as a relevant obstacle. The study also identified the need to ensure the quality 
of volunteering placements. Evidence from a survey indicates that another key obstacle to (cross-
border)  volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  is  the  misuse  of  volunteers‘  work  and  its 
exploitation as a substitute for regular work among some host organisations.  

The study indicates that the insufficient inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities 
is  still  relevant.    Desk  research  confirmed  that  in  a  number  of  countries,  volunteering  is  still 
widely  considered  an  activity  for  upper/more  affluent  classes,  and  people  with  fewer 
opportunities  are  underrepresented  in  the  sector.  However,  67%  of  the  organisations  surveyed 
positively  assessed  their  capacity  and  willingness  to  include  young  people  with  fewer 
opportunities in solidarity activities. At the same time, one-third of the organisation reported that 
negative attitudes towards people with fewer opportunities exist in voluntary organisations. The 
study determined that the obstacles and challenges faced by the European Solidarity Corps are 
similar  to  those  pertaining  to  cross-border  solidarity  activities  in  general.  However,  several 
additional  challenges  exist  that  relate  specifically  to  the  development  and  successful 
implementation of the Corps. 

Besides the above-described obstacles, the study identified a number of individual reasons, 
which may be obstacles to cross-border volunteering of young people. These reasons include 
uncertainty  or  anxiety,  lack  of  confidence  and  independence,  adaptation  problems,  existing 
mental  and  physical  conditions,  and  commitments  and  not  being  able  to  cope  with  the  arising 
challenges.  One  of  the  main  concerns  is  the  poor  command  of  foreign  languages  for  both  the 

9 

 
 
volunteering organisations and young people. Financial barriers can occur both on individual and 
organisational level, and additional financial support is especially important for the inclusion of 
young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. As reflected in the recently adopted Framework 
of  inclusion  measures  of  the  Erasmus+  and  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  Programmes  2021-
2027,  persons  with  disabilities  often  face  costs  linked  to  their  disability  and  targeted  financial 
support may facilitate the participation of young people with disabilities.  

2.3.3 

Policy recommendations of the study 

Based  on  the  above-mentioned  findings,  the  study  formulated  recommendations  to  address  the 
key obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities in general. These recommendations are relevant 
at  both  national  and  EU  levels.  A  recommendation  was  also  provided  in  connection  to  the 
structure  and  implementation  of  a  revised  Council  Recommendation  and  possible  measures  to 
enhance 
the  2008  Council 
Recommendation.  The  recommendations  and  proposed  actions  relevant  to  cross-border 
volunteering are the following:  

it,  building  on 

in  relation 

identified 

the  key 

issues 

to 

  Increase  collaboration  to  ensure  the  better  alignment  of  legal  and  administrative 

frameworks and knowledge sharing between Member States 

The  recommendation  entails  that  Member  States  should  provide  openly  accessible  information 
about the national and legal administrative framework governing volunteering. YouthWiki could 
potentially  become  the  main  source  of  information  in  this  area,  and  it  could  also  further  align 
information.  There  is  also  a  need  for  a  closer  collaboration  between  Member  States  by  peer-
learning  activities  and  exchange  of  good  practice  case  studies.  The  new  Council 
Recommendation could also promote measures to be taken in this field. 

  Clarify legal status of volunteers and participants in other solidarity activities 

Member  States  should  take  steps  towards  the  clarification  of  volunteers’  legal  status  and  it 
should include the provisions of obligations and rights of volunteers (entitlements, benefits and 
their portability). Countries should aim towards a status of volunteers, which would be the same 
for  national  schemes  with  cross-border  opportunities  and  the  European  programmes.    At  the 
same time, the definition of legal  rules  and regulations, as well as the status  of volunteers  and 
participants  in  other  solidarity  activities  should  not  be  so  strict  as  to  make  it  impossible  for 
communities or local organisations to initiate volunteering activities. 

The European Commission could provide guidelines, toolkits and recommendations to Member 
States.  At  a  later  stage,  these  minimum  standards  and  requirements  should  be  referenced  and 
included in existing instruments. 

  Facilitate  the  obtaining  of  visas/residence  permits  for  the  purpose  of  volunteering 

and other solidarity activities 

Relevant rules need to be fully and correctly implemented and, where appropriate, enforced (in 
particular  the  provisions  of  Directive  (EU)  2016/801).  In  addition,  relevant  laws  of  Member 
States  should  include  volunteering  and  other  solidarity  activities  as  a  ground  to  obtain  a  visa 

10 

 
 
and/or residence permit. The development of a fast-track visa procedure with relevant safeguards 
to  avoid  fraud  is  recommended.  This  could  be  achieved  through  special  agreements  on  visa 
facilitation  for  participants  in  EU  programmes,  but  cross-border  volunteering  that  takes  place 
outside EU programmes should also be taken into account.  

  Ensure the provision and portability of social benefits for volunteers 

Member States should clarify the available entitlements and benefits to volunteers, ensure cross-
border  portability  of  certain  benefits  (other  than  social  security  benefits)  and  develop  cross-
sectoral  policies  to  address  social  benefits.  A  review  of  the  relevant  rules  in  order  to  avoid 
taxation  of  benefits  is  also  recommended  for  Member  States.  There  is  a  need  for  agreement 
between  Member  States  on  minimum  standards  for  benefits  and  entitlements  given  to  cross-
border  volunteers.  The  European  Commission  could  mediate  these  efforts  and  develop  a 
roadmap  with  specific  recommendations  for  Member  States  to  implement  the  minimum 
European standards agreed for volunteers’ benefits and entitlements. Mediation processes could 
also be supported by the Presidency of the Council.  

  Improve  the  promotion  and  outreach  of  EU  and  national-level  cross-border 

volunteering schemes 

National Authorities should support the spread of information for example with ”one-stop-shop “ 
websites.  Member  States  should  be  encouraged  to  promote  information  as  part  of  formal 
education  and  secondary  education  curricula,  and  employment  agencies  could  also  promote 
volunteering opportunities as part of skills- and career development. The European Commission 
could  organize  cross-ministerial  discussions  and  stakeholder  groups  and  the  updates  on  the 
European  Youth  Portal  could  also  be  carried  out  to  add  information  about  national-level 
schemes.  

  Improve the formal and informal recognition within EU Member States of skills and 

competences acquired through volunteering activities 

The European Commission could update recognition instruments  like Youthpass, Europass and 
Diploma  Settlement,  and  Member  States  should  also  be  encouraged  to  use  EU  recognition 
instruments.  The  European  Commission  and  Member  States  together  should  support  and 
coordinate various events and initiatives related to recognition, and the sharing of good practices 
through cross-ministerial and stakeholder meeting should also be facilitated. Societal recognition 
of  volunteering  and  other  solidarity  activities  at  local  level  should  be  enhanced  through  the 
development  of  more  embedded  and  sustainable  comparative  analysis  of  evidence-based 
research on the benefits of volunteering in relation to community impact. Support for the further 
development  of  quality  standards  for  volunteering  is  needed  as  well.  Finally,  the  Commission 
should  encourage  the  involvement  of  local  policy  makers  and  communities  through  the 
development of a new ‘quality and community impact label for volunteering’.  

  Support the further development of quality standards for volunteering 

The  European  Commission  should  work  to  further  develop  quality  standards  for  volunteering, 
including recommendatory minimum standards and guidelines. It should focus on priorities such 

11 

 
 
as developing specific strategies, practices, methods and tools to reach and include young people 
with fewer opportunities in volunteering activities. Specific actions and strategies to ensure that 
the  involvement  of  volunteers  complements  and  supplements  the  work  of  paid  staff  should  be 
identified. 

  Increase the inclusion within cross-border solidarity activities of young people with 

fewer opportunities 

In  connection  with  this  recommendation,  Member  States  should  build  on  existing  inclusion 
policies, strategic approaches and tools to improve outreach and access of EU programmes to a 
wider  audience.  Measures  to  improve  the  capacity  of  local  organisations  to  work  with  young 
people with fewer opportunities is also a proposed action for the European Commission and the 
Member States.  

  Equip  the  new  EU  Council  recommendation  with  measurable  goals  and  targets  as 

well as an action plan for implementation 

According  to  the  study,  the  revised  Council  Recommendation  should  be  more  ambitious  and 
should  include  more  concrete  measures,  as  well  as  targets  to  remove  obstacles  to  cross-border 
solidarity  activities.  Relevant  developments  since  2008  and  the  increased  importance  of 
volunteering  at  the  policy  level  should  be  considered.  It  is  proposed  for  Member  States  to  set 
their own national targets and prioritise specific areas from the Recommendation that are most 
relevant  to  their  national  context.  An  action  plan  for  implementation  and  a  monitoring 
framework  –  providing  long-term  oversight  –  should  also  be  developed  by  the  European 
Commission. This should take into account the individual targets and priorities set by Member 
States. Actions in order to ensure awareness among key stakeholders and policymakers are also 
desirable,  which  could  be  achieved  by  creating  concrete  links  to  EU  funding  instruments  and 
programmes, such as to Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps.  

2.4 Expert group report on  Promoting the mobility of young volunteers and cross-border 
solidarity 

An expert group, made up of (public and private) experts from Member States, REY Europe, the 
European Youth Forum and the Centre for European Volunteering met between September 2019 
and September 2020. The above-mentioned study informed the expert group. The report3 of the 
expert group was published in October 2021, with the aim to inform and inspire actors interested 
in the cross-border mobility of volunteers and solidarity activities. It presents examples of good 
practices  in  this  field,  and  it  also  serves  to  propose  inputs  to  the  review  of  the  2008  Council 
recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers in Europe.  

3 Expert Group on the mobility of Young volunteers and cross-border solidarity, Background paper to support the 
Commission in reviewing the 2008 Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers, Ecorys, February 
2020 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/50effcd2-271e-11ec-bd8e-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en/format-PDF/source-235472968  

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.4.1. 

Main developments since 2008 

The report introduces the developments that took place since the adoption of the 2008 Council 
Recommendation,  for  example  the  EU  Youth  Strategy  for  2019-2027  period,  which  was 
adopted by the Council in November 2018. Under the ‘connect; core area, it invites Member 
States and  the Commission within their respective field  of competence to  enable access  for all 
young  people  to  cross-border  mobility  by  eliminating  obstacles  and  implementing  support 
measures,  with  special  attention  to  young  people  with  fewer  opportunities.  It  also  calls  to 
encourage  young  people’s  engagement  in  solidarity,  promoting  support  schemes  and  seeking 
complementary synergies between EU funding instruments. Furthermore, Member States and the 
Commission  are  invited  to  share  best  practices  and  further  work  on  effective  systems  for 
validation and recognition of skills and competences gained through solidarity and volunteering 
activities. This shows that the EU agenda was set to review the 2008 Council Recommendation 
and to establish an expert group to provide inputs to this exercise. 

One  of  the  main  developments  in  the  field  is  the  2016  launch  of  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps  programme,  which  replaced  the  European  Voluntary  Service.  The  Corps  extended  the 
programme not only in terms of funding, but also with the introduction of new types of activities, 
such  as  traineeships  and  jobs.    Volunteering  remained  the  main  action  of  the  programme,  and 
under this action, solidarity activities take the form of voluntary unpaid activities that last from 2 
weeks to 12 months. Young people have the opportunity to volunteer for organisations that work 
for the benefit of communities and in the service of general interest, in the forms of volunteering 
projects, volunteering partnerships and volunteering teams in high priority areas. 

New  activities  and  areas  emerged,  which  can  be  regarded  as  possible  factors  to  cross-
border  solidarity.  Cybervolunteering  is  undertaken  via  the  internet  and  does  not  require 
physical presence or the mobility of the volunteer. It provides new opportunities for less mobile 
young  people,  and  it  can  be  used  to  underpin,  complement  and  prepare  for  later  physical 
mobility.  Service  learning  is  a  ‘grey  zone’  between  volunteering  and  formal  education,  as  it 
includes placements that are undertaken in a solidarity context but as part of the curriculum of a 
formal  education  programme.  Voluntourism  refers  to  the  practice  of  combining  volunteering 
and a holiday, with people participating in volunteering activities as an integral part of a touristic 
experience. Many tour operators and NGOs recognised its business potential and started to offer 
travel packages that include a volunteering experience abroad. However, there is a concern that 
the introduction of a financial motive opens it up to risks of misuse. Climate crisis should also 
be  addressed,  as  cross-border  volunteering  activities  involve  large  numbers  of  people  moving 
across borders in Europe. 

The report found that  volunteering is increasingly popular among young people, which is 
demonstrated by a growing demand for it. According to the 2019 Eurobarometer report4, about 
31  %  of  young  people  have  been  involved  in  organised  volunteering  activities  in  2019.  The 
majority  of  activities  (69  %)  are  aimed  at  changing  something  in  the  local  community,  but 
participation  in  cross-border  volunteering  has  also  increased,  with  8  %  of  young  respondents 
having volunteered abroad in 2019. 

4 https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2224  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.4.2 Policy recommendations among different thematic areas 

The  experts  identified  15  themes  that  need  to  be  addressed  in  order  to  determine  specific 
messages  and  recommendations.  Some  of  these  were  already  included  in  the  2008  Council 
Recommendation, while other themes reflected on new developments since the adoption of the 
Recommendation. The COVID-19 crisis introduced a new type of barrier to the organisation and 
implementation of cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities. The lessons learnt from the 
pandemic should be addressed in the new Recommendation due to its impact on these activities. 
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the expert group decided to keep the original 15 themes, but 
small  amendments  and  changes  were  added.  The  themes  were  formulated  among  three 
categories, namely organisational framework, participants and processes.    

Organisational frameworks 

1. Capacity building  
The  theme  of  the  2008  Council  Recommendation  in  terms  of  the  need  for  supporting  the 
development  of  the  hosting  capacity  for  cross-border  volunteers  is  still  important.  Several 
organisations would commit to cross-border solidarity activities, but they lack the capacity or the 
funds to prepare young people to go abroad. Budget cuts across Europe worsened this problem in 
the 5–10 years up to 2019 and it has constrained organisational capacity. The lack of ability to 
self-assess and self-improve also  plays  an important  role in  organisational capacity. The  report 
suggests that the revised recommendation should not only be addressed to ‘youth workers’, but 
also explicitly encompass all voluntary organisation practitioners. 

Therefore  the  expert  groups  recommends  to  ensure  that  organisations  are  able  to  adequately 
prepare  and  monitor/accompany  volunteers,  as  well  as  offer  returning  volunteers  support  to 
continue their engagement in solidarity activities, especially youth with fewer opportunities. The 
mobility  and  training  of  youth  workers  and  voluntary  organisation  practitioners  should  be 
supported, and cooperation and networking between mobility providers should be strengthened. 
Furthermore, efforts should be made to strengthen the (financial) sustainability of organisations 
to ensure the sufficient number of organisations with the motivation and resources to carry out in 
practice  the  intentions  enshrined  in  the  recommendation.  Financial  stability  is  especially 
important for those organisation whose main revenue comes from physical mobility.  

2. Community involvement and impact 
The  2008  Recommendation  mainly  focused  on  volunteers  and  the  outcomes  of  their 
participation.  The  acquisition  of  competences  and  the  development  of  active  citizenship  were 
considered as well. However, the report states that besides the hosting community,  the sending 
community should also receive particular attention. It is important to recognise that community 
impact is also a major benefit of volunteering and solidarity activities. 

The  specific  recommendations  in  relation  to  this  theme  include  the  recognition  of  the  two 
beneficiaries of cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities: the individual participants and 
the communities. Support should be given to returning volunteers to enable them to continue to 
engage  in  solidarity  activities.  The  impact  of  volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  should  be 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
emphasised,  in  particular  the  value  of  intercultural  exchanges  to  communities.  Programmes 
should make provisions so that when physical cross-border mobility is not possible, adaptations 
can  easily  be  made.  Programmes  should  contain  clauses  that  allow  budget  flexibility  and,  in 
extreme cases, budget increases to alleviate the consequences of force majeure. 

3. Complementarity 
The  evidence  shows  that  there  is  a  need  to  create  more  synergies,  complementarities  and 
continuities  between  the  different  European  and  national  schemes  and  initiatives.  The  new 
recommendation  should  reflect  the  fact  that  the  European  Youth  Strategy  includes  an  element 
about the complementarity and synergy between EU funding instruments and national, regional 
and  local  schemes.  Complementarity  between  European  schemes  themselves  (such  as  the 
European  Solidarity  Corps,  Erasmus  internships,  Your  first  EURES  job,  EU  Aid  Volunteers5, 
Interreg and Europe for Citizens) are also important factors. 

As for the recommendations for this theme, the report proposes the promotion of peer learning 
and  the  exchange  of  good  practice,  the  mutual  recognition  of  quality  labels  and  other  support 
mechanisms between European and national/regional schemes for cross-border volunteering and 
solidarity activities to reduce the administrative work of the organisations involved. The Youth 
Wiki database should be used to promote and inform local, national and European cross-border 
volunteering schemes in a coherent way. In crisis situations that prevent cross-border mobility, 
established  relationships  and  complementarity  between  EU-funded  cross-border  schemes  and 
national  schemes  should  be  leveraged  as  essential  tools  for  finding  flexible,  fast  and  suitable 
solutions for reassigning participants. 

learning  between  organisations  participating 

4. Knowledge sharing and networking  
in  cross-border 
Sharing  knowledge  and 
volunteering and solidarity activities is crucial to improve the quality of activities and practices 
in  Europe.  Platforms  for  knowledge  sharing  already  exist  (European  Youth  Portal,  SALTO-
YOUTH  centres,  Youth  Wiki  database),  as  well  as  various  communities  of  practice.  Alumni 
networks  can  also  constitute  another  important  resource.  However,  there  is  potential  for  the 
further  development  of  this  aspect  and  exploitation  of  the  opportunities  presented.  It  is  also 
important to consider relevant organisations outside the youth sector, as expertise and experience 
on  issues  impinging  on  cross-border  volunteering  and  solidarity  are  distributed  among  many 
actors. 

Recommendation for this  theme include  the better use of  existing spaces,  where resources and 
knowledge  can  be  shared  among  Member  States  and  NGOs.  Space  for  innovation  and  peer 
learning  activities  should  be  made  available  to  further  develop  new  forms  and  methods  of 
volunteering. Networking through alumni communities and the exchange of youth workers and 
voluntary  organisation  practitioners  should  be  intensified.  Enhanced  training  and  qualification 
opportunities should be made available. 

Participants  

5 The EU Aid Volunteers programme allowed for the deployment of 788 volunteers to third countries between 2016 
and 2020, out of which 86% were aged between 18 and 35 years old. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5. Access and inclusion  
International  volunteering  and  cross-border  solidarity  activities  are  often  not  accessible  to  all 
segments of the youth population, rather just to the privileged few. Simplifying application and 
reporting  procedures  may  provide  easier  access  for  volunteers,  especially  with  the  aid  of 
technology.  Nevertheless, digitalisation is not necessarily an answer in itself. It can create new 
barriers, complicating procedures that may prevent some young people from applying. Particular 
attention should be paid to making sure that websites and online tools are accessible for persons 
with disabilities. The availability of insurance for certain groups (e.g. persons with disabilities) is 
limited, and this can discourage them from participating in cross-border solidarity activities. The 
2008  Council  recommendation  made  reference  to  access,  particularly  for  young  people  with 
fewer  opportunities,  and  highlighted  the  exploitation  of  existing  mechanisms  and  adopting  a 
for  cross-border  volunteering.  These 
flexible  approach 
recommendations  should  be  retained  in  a  revised  recommendation,  but  with  clearer  and  more 
detailed messages. 

to  developing  opportunities 

The specific recommendations of the expert group in relation to this theme are as follow: more 
opportunities  should  be  provided  for  young  people  with  fewer  opportunities  and  enhance  the 
range of opportunities for those who cannot afford to go abroad (e.g. through cybervolunteering), 
youth organisations and other civil society organisations should develop motivational aspects to 
enable  young  people  with  fewer  opportunities  to  become  more  comfortable  with  the  idea  of 
going abroad. There is a need for the simplification of application and reporting procedures and 
the  promotion  of  existing  European  mechanisms  that  foster  youth  mobility.  National 
governments should work with insurance providers to make insurance available for all groups of 
volunteers.  

6. Administrative obstacles 
Many  Member  States  do  not  have  a  dedicated  legal  framework  regulating  cross-border 
volunteering and solidarity activities, and this can lead to a number of administrative obstacles, 
notably to  obtaining visas and residence permits for non-EU nationals.  In some cases,  it is  not 
possible to obtain a visa or residence permit as  cross-border volunteering is not a legal  ground 
for obtaining one. While significant progress has been made in recent years at EU level (notably 
with  Directive  (EU)  2016/801),  the  report  found  very  few  developments  in  this  area.  Even  in 
Member  States  where  this  option  does  exist,  complicated  and  burdensome  administrative 
procedures may create barriers to participation. The expert group suggests including the relevant 
EU legislation relating to free movement, the granting of visas and residence permits and mutual 
recognition  within  the  preamble  to  the  new  recommendation.  In  the  expert  group’s  view,  this 
would  make  the  responsible  authorities  at  national  level  more  aware  of  the  relevant  EU 
legislation. 

Within this theme, the group recommends that national authorities should provide easier access 
for  participants  in  cross-border  volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  to  visas  and  residence 
permits  by  simplifying  application  procedures.    Cross-border  solidarity  activities  should  be 
recognised as grounds for applying for a visa or residence permit and administrative procedures 
(including digitalised procedures) should, be simplified. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Awareness  
The  evidence  shows  that  only  a  minority  of  people  in  the  potential  target  group  are  aware  of 
opportunities for cross-border volunteering and other solidarity activities. It is important to note 
that  awareness  goes  beyond  information;  it  is  also  about  the  motivation  and  commitment  of 
young  people.  Therefore,  there  is  a  need  to  develop  people’s  knowledge  of  the  benefits  of 
volunteering.  The  need  for  increased  awareness-raising  was  an  important  issue  in  the  2008 
recommendation, and it is a challenge that still needs to be addressed. Overall consciousness of 
quality  in  cross-border  volunteering  should  be  also  be  raised  to  enable  young  people  to  make 
informed choices between the many opportunities that exist, as potentially dangerous and poor-
quality volunteering opportunities are a growing phenomenon in Europe.  

Developing  people’s  knowledge  of  the  benefits  of  volunteering,  traineeships  and  other  cross-
border solidarity activities are among the recommendations proposed for this theme. Awareness 
in the national volunteering sector of the opportunities for international volunteering should be 
strengthened.  Young  people’s  awareness  of  the  importance  of  intercultural  competences, 
language learning, EU citizenship and solidarity should also be increased. The creation of local 
contact  points  to  provide  information  all,  including  people  with  disabilities,  young  volunteers, 
and youth and civil society/solidarity organisations generally, should be supported. Organisations 
involved  in  cross-border  volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  should  receive  information  and 
assistance  to  develop  aspects  of  inclusion  and  support  in  their  strategies.  There  should  be 
sufficient information about a voluntary activity, its organisers and the volunteer to enable both 
parties  to  make  an  informed  decision  about  the  activity’s  suitability  and  meet  any  legal 
requirements. 

8. Protection 
Adequate  mechanisms  for  protecting  both  participants  and  those  organising  the  activities  are 
essential, so that problems can be detected before they develop and emergency situations can be 
dealt with in a timely and concerted manner. Such protection should cover both the physical and 
the mental well-being of those involved. The experts also emphasised that young people are not 
provided  with  support  services  on  their  return.  Consequently,  the  report  indicates  that  is 
particularly important to include the ‘return’ period in a revised recommendation. 

The  group  recommends  that  the  protection  should  cover  volunteers,  staff  and  other  people 
involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  activities,  and  the  beneficiaries  of  the  activities. 
Organisations  involved  in  the  implementation  of  cross-border  volunteering  and  solidarity 
activities  should  have  clear  and  adequate  procedures  in  place  for  dealing  with  crises  and 
emergency  situations,  and  these  should  be  communicated  to  all.  Force  majeure  clauses  should 
ensure that in crisis situations all participants, irrespective of project context and organisational 
attachment, receive proper attention and care. 

9. Social and legal status  
The  social  and  legal  status  of  cross-border  volunteers  is  often  unclear  or  not  defined  at  all  in 
legislation, both at home and abroad. This can lead to participants facing barriers to accessing the 
host Member State’s social security system, and social security benefits being lost in their home 
Member State on return. The concept of ‘solidarity jobs  and traineeships’ does not  yet exist in 
any structured form other than in the framework of the European Solidarity Corps programme. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Provisions governing the right to insurance, compensation for costs incurred while volunteering, 
taxation  of  allowances/pocket  money  and  travel  refunds  are  usually  included  in  different  legal 
documents and a unified source of information is lacking. The 2008 Recommendation underlined 
the  need  to  examine  further  relevant  social  protection  provisions  to  make  full  use  of  the 
possibilities  under  EU  and  national  legislation.  Volunteers  should  also  be  entitled  to  social 
security benefits when they return and should not be penalised for their absence from the country 
to undertake solidarity activities. 

Based  on  the  above,  the  specific  recommendations  in  relation  to  this  theme  include  the 
development  of  a  common  understanding  of  cross-border  solidarity  activities  in  relation  to 
existing  schemes  and  the  recognition  of  the  legal  status  of  cross-border  volunteers  at  national 
level.  Information  on  the  status  of  people  engaging  in  cross-border  volunteering  and  solidarity 
activities should be provided on the Youth Wiki platform. Cross-border volunteers should have 
access to the host country’s healthcare facilities and healthcare professionals.  

Processes 

10. Digital forms of cross-border volunteering and solidarity 
The 2008 Recommendation referred only to the physical mobility of persons in relation to cross-
border volunteering. However, new forms of volunteering and cross-border solidarity activities 
based on IT have since been gathering pace and became an integral part of the overall picture of 
European  solidarity.  Digital  volunteering  or  cybervolunteering  play  a  crucial  role  in  recruiting 
volunteers and delegating and completing voluntary work.  During the COVID-19 crisis, digital 
volunteering  has  become  the  major  –  if  not  only  –  mechanism  for  implementing  cross-border 
volunteering and solidarity activities. However, it is important not to see digital volunteering as 
just an independent activity; it should also be considered alongside physical mobility.  It can be 
an alternative for physical mobility only in situations where physical mobility is not possible. 

The acknowledgement of digital  forms of  cross-border volunteering  and  solidarity  activities as 
an  opportunity  to  strengthen  cross-border  volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  is  among  the 
recommendations  for  this  theme.  They  provide  an  alternative  means  of  including  participants 
who are not in a position to travel physically (e.g. because of severe physical disabilities, mental 
health  difficulties  and  caring  responsibilities).    Digital  forms  of  volunteering  can  be  fostered 
during  crises  that  prevent  cross-border  mobility  and  digital  forms  of  cross-border  volunteering 
and solidarity activities can also be used in connection with the physical mobility of volunteers 
as  a  means  of  motivation  and  preparation.  A  precise  definition  of  digital  cross-border 
volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  should  be  provided,  as  well  as  what  it  means  in  the 
European solidarity context.  Funding opportunities for cross-border volunteering and solidarity 
activities should be extended to cover digital activities.  

11. Environmental context 
Since  the  2008  recommendation  was  implemented,  concern  for  the  environment  has  grown 
dramatically, especially among young people. Cross-border activities are a source of greenhouse 
gas  emissions,  especially  when  they  involve  air  transport,  and  it  is  therefore  important  to 
consider climate impacts when implementing cross-border activities. However, all volunteering 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  solidarity  projects  should  incorporate  an  environmental  dimension  in  their  activities  and 
consider how the carbon footprint they leave behind can be reduced as much as possible. 

The specific recommendations of the  expert group in  relation  to  this theme are as  follows:  the 
environmental impact of all actions in a volunteering project should be taken into account (e.g. 
travel,  resource  consumption,  food  consumption),  participants  should  be  involved  in  these 
reflections to ensure that they develop an awareness of environmental issues;  and funds should 
be  available  to  offset  the  additional  costs  of  making  environmentally  friendly  choices  (e.g. 
travelling trips of less than 500 km by train rather than by air or by car wherever it is possible). 
Volunteering projects concerned with the protection of the environment should be given specific 
attention, as actions to protect the environment and combat climate change can constitute a form 
of solidarity. 

12. Learning 
In addition  to  benefiting communities, participation in  cross-border volunteering and solidarity 
activities  also  benefits  participants.  It  enables  them  to  acquire  essential  competences  that 
contribute  to  their  personal  and  socio-educational  development  and  foster  their  active 
participation in society. This way they can improve their employment prospects and strengthen 
their  role  as  active  citizens.  This  aspect  was  already  acknowledged  in  the  2008  Council 
Recommendation,  but  it  needs  to  be  included  and  further  developed  in  the  revised 
recommendation. It should be noted that learning potential does not necessarily unfold by itself; 
it needs to be supported before, during and after an activity to take effect. 

outcomes 

activities, 

The  expert  group  proposed  the  following  recommendations  within  this  theme:  organisations 
should  consider  documenting  learning  outcomes  together  with  participants  before,  during  and 
preparation, 
after 
mentoring/supervision  and  debriefing  interventions  in  order  to  support  learning  processes  and 
additional focus should be placed on language learning in view of the transnational context of the 
activities. In emergency situations, when participants are forced to end their stay abroad through 
no  fault  of  their  own,  they  should  be  considered  for  participation  in  complementary  or  further 
activities that allow them to complete their learning journey. 

underpinned 

structured 

should 

by 

be 

13. Recognition 
Participation has important potential for the learning and personal development of those involved 
in solidarity activities that are undertaken for the benefit of others and without personal gain. It is 
important that learning outcomes in this field are made visible, documented and – where feasible 
–  validated  and  recognised  in  relation  to  formal  learning  trajectories.  The  2012  Council 
recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning underlines the important 
role that non-formal and informal learning can play in  enhancing employability  and increasing 
motivation for lifelong learning, especially for people with few or no qualifications. Therefore, it 
is essential that non-formal and informal learning receive proper recognition. It can be observed 
however that validation procedures are still not universally implemented for learning outcomes 
acquired  in  a  volunteering  context.  The  report  provides  four  forms  of  recognition  of  learning 
outcomes  of  non-formal/informal  learning  processes:  formal,  political,  social  recognition  and 
self-recognition. Many methods exist for validating and recognising youth work and non-formal 
learning/education at European and national levels.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  first  specific  recommendation  made  by  the  expert  group  in  relation  to  this  theme  is  that 
organisers of cross-border solidarity activities should ensure that participants’ learning outcomes 
are  adequately  identified,  documented  and  –  where  feasible  –  validated,  recognised  and  made 
visible. Secondly, maximum use should be made of existing European-level tools and processes 
serving  this  purpose,  e.g.  Europass  and  Youthpass,  and  the  review  of  the  2012  Council 
recommendation on validation of non-formal and informal learning. 

14. Quality assurance 
The popularity of cross-border volunteering gave rise to ‘voluntourism’ (described above). The 
introduction  of  fees  and  a  profit  motive  places  an  added  emphasis  on  the  concept  of  quality, 
meaning that it should be clear what activities will be carried out so that young people can make 
informed  choices.  This  also  means  that  it  should  be  clear  how  activities  will  benefit  genuine 
causes based on real local community needs and that participants are not exploited as free labour 
to the detriment of local employment opportunities. This aspect was only indirectly addressed in 
the  2008  Council  Recommendation.  Given  the  proliferation  of  opportunities  for  cross-border 
volunteering  and  solidarity  activities,  it  is  important  that  these  are  transparent  to  prospective 
participants and other concerned parties. The development of a European-level ‘quality charter’ 
for  transnational  volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  is  a  complex  task  that  lies  outside  the 
scope of the revised recommendation, but  this  issue should be acknowledged  and addressed in 
more detail than in the 2008 Council recommendation. 

In  relation  to  this  theme,  the  report  recommends  that  cross-border  volunteering  and  solidarity 
activities should be based on a needs analysis to ensure that they support an identifiable need and 
lead to beneficial outcomes. Organisers should have a clear idea of what they want to achieve by 
a  particular  project  and  develop  indicators  that  can  help  them  determine  if  the  objectives  have 
been met. These indicators should reflect the target group and the circumstances. Projects should 
be properly evaluated to ascertain their degree of success and identify important lessons that can 
help  improve  future  activities.  In  the  quest  for  quality,  organisers  should  draw  on  existing 
knowledge and tools and strive for a common understanding of what quality is. 

15. Research 
Cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities remain an under-researched phenomenon, and 
the  existing  research  usually  covers  a  national  context  and  is  not  systematically  translated  and 
disseminated  across  borders.  The  word  ‘research;  was  not  mentioned 
the  2008 
Recommendation, but the text included the need to ‘improve the level of knowledge of voluntary 
activities’ and ‘exchange information’. Even though there were some progress in this area, there 
is  still  an  important  gap  in  understanding  the  phenomenon  of  cross-border  volunteering  and 
solidarity activities. Research therefore needs to be actively encouraged to fill the many gaps in 
our knowledge and provide the necessary basis for the development of policies and practices. 

in 

The  specific  recommendations  of  the  expert  group  in  relation  to  this  theme  are  as  follows: 
research  should  be  carried  out  to  ensure  that  policy  priorities  and  practices  are  based  on  solid 
evidence rather than anecdotal information and activities should be constantly monitored through 
research  carried  out  on  youth  indicators.  The  Commission  is  uniquely  placed  to  undertake 
comparative  research  on  the  state  of  cross-border  solidarity  activities  in  the  EU-27.  Priority 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
should  be  placed  on  research  that  is  undertaken  in  direct  contact  with  practice  and  with  the 
involvement  of  practitioners,  and  in  which  the  results  are  available  within  a  reasonable  time 
frame  (e.g.  action  research,  accompanying  research).  Research  should  be  carried  out  on  the 
impact  of  cross-border  solidarity  activities,  especially  longitudinal  and  tracer  studies  that  can 
identify outcomes over a longer-term perspective (e.g. impact research, summative evaluations). 
Finally,  research  outcomes  should  be  made  accessible  to  all  those  concerned,  including  across 
national borders. 

3.  

ANNEX: Stakeholder consultation synopsis report 

Introduction 

3.1 
This synopsis report aims to  provide a summary  of the results  of the  consultation activities on 
‘youth volunteering’ during the period September 2019 until July 2021. It is meant to inform: 

  policymakers on the outcome of all consultation activities 
  stakeholders on how their input has been taken into account. 

Consultation strategy 

3.2  
The objective of the consultation was to gather citizens’ and stakeholders’ opinions on obstacles 
to  cross-border  volunteering  activities.  Moreover,  the  European  Commission  wanted  to  collect 
citizens’ views to help identify possible gaps, with a view to developing solutions that could be 
recommended  to  Member  States  and  the  European  Commission  in  order  to  tackle  these 
obstacles. 

The mapping of stakeholders included young people, volunteering organisations and NGOs with 
a youth branch, researchers of members of academia, active in the field of volunteering, policy-
makers  in  the  field,  national  agencies  in  charge  of  implementing  the  EU  youth  programmes 
(Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps) in the EU Member States. 

The  consultation  included  two  main  sources.  The  first  consultation  activity  was  carried  out  as 
part  of  a  study  on  obstacles  to  solidarity  activities  and  consisted  in  a  survey  carried  out  in 
October 2019, and a workshop on 11 December 2019. This survey targeted youth organisations 
and  organisations  dealing  with  volunteering  activities  throughout  Europe.  The  second 
consultation  activity  was  a  public  consultation  on  EU  survey,  carried  out  from  28  April  to  21 
July 2021. The main outcomes of each consultation process are outlined below. 

3.3. 

Survey  as  part  of  the  study  on  removing  obstacles  to  cross-border  solidarity 
activities 

The purpose of the targeted survey of youth and volunteering organisations in the EU in October 
2019  was  to  obtain  feedback  regarding  cross-border  solidarity  activities,  particularly  regarding 
any barriers to participation in solidarity activities. 

A  total  of  660  valid  responses  were  submitted  to  personalised  invitations,  together  with  36 
additional valid responses that came from an open call published on the European Youth Portal. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Out of these 696 total responses, 641 were fully completed questionnaires and 55 were partially 
completed. The survey questions focussed on obstacles to cross-border volunteering and policy 
recommendations. 

Survey outcome: 

Obstacles to cross-border volunteering 

Major obstacles: 

  Capacity  of  organisations:  “There  is  a  lack  of  stable  funding  sources  for  the 
organisations working in the volunteering field in my country”: 79% of the respondents 
agreed or strongly agreed whereas 22% disagreed or strongly disagreed.   

  Lack of information: “Information on cross-border volunteering opportunities (abroad) 
is adequately disseminated in my country”: 66% of the respondents disagreed or strongly 
disagreed whereas 34% agreed or strongly agreed. “  

  Insufficient  awareness  raising  on  benefits:  “Enough  information  is  provided  to  the 
local communities and the society about the value and the impact of volunteering”: 66% 
of  the  respondents  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  whereas  34%  agreed  or  strongly 
agreed.   

  Volunteering  perceived  as  a  ‘lost  year’:  “young  people  perceive 

long-term  
volunteering in another country as a lost year in their  employment record”: 63% of the 
organisations surveyed agreed/strongly disagreed, 37% agreed/strongly agreed.   

Less important obstacles: 

  Support  to  volunteers:  “My  organisation  has  enough  capacity  to  adequately  support 
volunteers upon their return from volunteering activities”: 82% of the respondents agreed 
or  strongly  agreed  whereas  19%  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed.  “My  organisation  has 
enough  capacity  to  adequately  train  and  prepare  volunteers”:  92%  of  the  respondents 
agreed or strongly agreed whereas 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 

  Quality: “There are enough organisations in my country capable of implementing good 
quality cross-border volunteering activities”: 72% of the respondents  agreed or strongly 
agreed  whereas 28% disagreed or strongly disagreed.  

  Family  pressure:  53%  of  the  respondents  found  the  statement  “How  relevant  are  the 
following obstacles to volunteering in your country or abroad?: There is family pressure 
for young people not to go volunteering in other countries because of their caring duties 
and  responsibilities”  not  very  relevant  or  not  at  all  relevant  whereas  46%  of  the 
respondents found it very relevant or fairly relevant. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Job substitution: Volunteers used as underpaid substitutes for paid staff. “Volunteers are 
often  used  as  underpaid  substitutes  for  regular  staff  or  unpaid  traineeships  in  my 
country”:  58%  of  the  respondents  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  and  42%  agreed  or 
strongly agreed. 

  Lack  of  foreign  languages  skills:  “To  what  extent  do  you  agree  or  disagree  with  the 
following statements about the capacities of your organisation and other organisations in 
your country to implement volunteering activities: The foreign language skills of young 
people  going  to  volunteer  in  other  countries  /  volunteers  coming  to  my  country  are 
sufficient”: 64% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed whereas 35% disagreed or 
strongly disagreed.   

  Recognition of competences and skills acquired: “Employers in my country recognise 
the  competences  developed  during  the  volunteering  experience  of  young  people  as 
relevant  to  the  labour  market”:  59%  of  the  respondents  to  the  survey  of  organisations 
agreed/strongly agreed, 41% agreed/strongly disagreed. 

o  “Volunteers  receive  some  kind  of  formal  recognition  for  their  participation  in 
volunteering  activities”:  88%  of  the  organisations  surveyed  agreed/strongly 
agreed, 12% agreed/strongly disagreed. 

  Legal framework: “There is no clear legal framework defining volunteering field in my 
country”:  43%  responded  very/fairly  relevant,  57%  not  very  relevant  or  not  at  all 
relevant. 

  Health  insurance  and  welfare  payments:  “Young  people  lose  their  national  health 
insurance if they leave to volunteer long-term abroad”: 71% responded: not very/not at 
all  relevant,  29%  very  or  fairly  relevant.  “Young  people  receiving  state  welfare 
payments (unemployment benefits, disability pay, etc.) might lose them if they become 
volunteers”:   56%  responded  not  very  relevant  or  not  at  all  relevant,  44%  responded  
very/fairly relevant. 

  Visas and residence permits: “Volunteering does not give legal grounds for obtaining a 
visa  in  my  country”:  73%  responded  not  very  relevant  or  not  at  all  relevant,  27% 
responded  very/fairly relevant. “Volunteering does not give legal grounds for obtaining a 
residence permit in my country”: 65% responded not very relevant or not at all relevant, 
34% responded  very/fairly relevant. 

Policy recommendations 

 

 EU  common  volunteering  definition:  “The  European  Union  should  aim  to  have  a 
common definition of volunteering  across the Member States”:  95% of the respondents 
agreed or strongly agreed whereas 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  EU legal alignment: “EU Member States should collaborate more closely to align legal 
rules and regulations governing the volunteering field”: 95% of the respondents agreed or 
strongly agreed whereas 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.  

3.4. 

Focus  Group  as  part  of  the  study  on  removing  obstacles  to  cross-border 
solidarity activities 

took  place  on 
A  dedicated  workshop  with  16  public  and  private-sector  experts 
11 December 2019  in  Brussels.  The  experts  identified  the  recognition  of  the  value  of 
volunteering,  the  legal  frameworks  for  volunteering,  entitlements  and  benefits  (portability), 
access to and promotion of the European Solidarity Corps and organisational capacity as the five 
most pressing obstacles to cross-border volunteering. These identified five obstacles served as a 
basis for the EU survey for the Open Public Consultation. 

3.5. 

Feedback on “Have your Say” website 

Three individual feedbacks on the initiative were submitted on the “Have your Say” website in 
February  and March 2021. They  concerned the possible exploitation  of volunteers through job 
substitution, cross-border volunteers facing problems in obtaining access to the European Health 
Insurance  Card  (coverage  for  a  short  time,  2-3  months  only,  or  need  to  be  employed)  and  not 
receiving the same access to EHIC as Erasmus+ university students. Another respondent spoke 
out in favour of facilitating volunteering of the young who are very poor, as well as projects with 
these young people and project in the field of the environment and the energy transition. Most of 
these points have been addressed by the proposed recommendation. 

3.6. 

Open public consultation 

The open public consultation (OPC) was published on the Commission’s ”Have your say” portal 
and  ran  from  28  April  to  21  July  2021.  The  goal  was  to  collect  opinions  of  young  people, 
volunteering organisations and NGOs, youth organisations or NGOs with a youth branch, NGOs 
active  in  the  humanitarian  aid  field,  businesses  and  enterprises,  researchers  or  members  of 
academia  active  in  the  fields  of  mobility,  volunteering  and  solidarity,  and  policy-makers  at 
different territorial levels. 

The OPC registered a total of 80 replies. Over 60% of the respondents were NGOs, and almost 
half of the respondents were organisations representatives active in the field of volunteering. A 
factual report on the outcome of the open public consultation has been published6. 

6 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12774-Youth-volunteering-working-on-
projects-in-other-EU-countries-update-/public-consultation_en 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Statement “I am giving my contributions as…” 

Type of organisation representative  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country of origin of respondents 

In addition (and outside of the “Have your say” website), the Commission received four position 
papers during or shortly after the consultation period: three from NGOs, and one from a Member 
State. 

The  position  paper  from  a  Member  State  called  for  synergies  between  the  various  civic  and 
volunteering programmes of Member States, as well as between national and European mobility 
and  volunteering  schemes.  Furthermore,  access  to  volunteering  should  be  simplified  and 
financial and administrative structures of the respective organisations strengthened. The position 
paper pointed to the importance of information networks such as Eurodesk for awareness-raising 
on volunteering projects, social security cover for young volunteers, research into the impact of 
the mobility on social inclusion of the  young and in society. The validation and recognition of 
acquired  competences  should  be  strengthened.  Generally  speaking,  this  Member  State  pleaded 
for paying more attention to the situation of the disabled and to the young Europeans  in the EU’s 
outermost  regions,  as  otherwise  they  would  not  have  access  to  the  programmes.  Digital 
volunteering could be promoted, but rather in support of physical mobility and not as a substitute 
of  it.  The  environmental  impact  should  be  taken  into  consideration  when  designing  projects 
involving mobility.  The reference to the Youth Pass could be strengthened and a mobile-friendly 
version  developed,  as  well  as  competence  self-evaluation  tools  for  the  young  volunteers.  The 
importance of the mobility of young youth workers was highlighted as well. Finally, the extra-
EU dimension of youth volunteering, linked to the integration of the humanitarian aid strand in 
the ESC, should be considered as well. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
A  non-governmental  organisation  taking  part  in  the  ESC  submitted  its  views  and  proposals  on 
how  to  improve  the  administrative  procedures  of  the  ESC.  Another  non-governmental 
organisation  active  in  the  field  of  learning  mobility  of  pupils  and  volunteers  listed  as  main 
challenges  the  lack  of  sufficient  awareness  of  the  ESC  and  other  cross-border  volunteering 
schemes  on  the  side  of  the  authorities,  problems  with  the  provision  and  portability  of 
entitlements and benefits  to  volunteers, and difficulties in  obtaining visa and residence permits 
for  volunteers.  The  organisation  recommended  to  enable  young  people  from  third  countries  to 
volunteer  in  EU  Member  States  and  to  tackle  the  problem  of  visas  and  residence  permits  for 
these  people.  Links  between  ESC  accredited  organisations  and  services  related  to  social 
inclusion would support the engagement of socially disadvantaged groups. Blended learning for 
cross-border volunteers would enable volunteers to contribute to volunteering in a remote way. 
Involvement  in  the  activities  of  organisers  of  solidarity  activities  should  also  be  considered 
volunteering, even if not directly with people in need. 

A third non-governmental organisation active in the welfare field submitted recommendations on 
the  strengthening  of  the  inclusion  aspect  for  Erasmus+  and  ESC  programmes.  These  included 
involving  people  with  fewer  opportunities  and  special  needs  as  experts  in  the  planning, 
implementation  and  evaluation  of 
target  groups 
experiencing  disadvantages  and  discrimination  with  structured  information;  using  accessible 
programme  documents;  applying  flexible  rules  in  the  support  of  additional  expenses  for 
participants with fewer opportunities; raising awareness  among evaluators and decision-makers 
about  the  special  needs  of  disadvantaged  target  groups;  funding  of  supporting  structures  for 
interested  volunteers;  the  equal  application  of  the  rules  across  all  programme  countries  and  all 
national  agencies  should  be  ensured  and  ensuring  target  group-specific  support  for  language 
learning. 

the  programmes;  directly  addressing 

The  broad 
recommendation. 

topics  of 

these 

individual  submissions  are  all  covered 

in 

the  proposed 

3.6.1. 

Analysis of replies on the basis of the different stakeholder categories and per 
consultation topic 

Two main stakeholder categories participated in the open public consultation: 

  51  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs):  active  in  the  field  of  volunteering,  (cross-
border) solidarity or as a youth organisation / scholarship-giving NGO of careleavers who 
want  to  experience  international  exchange  /  European  network  to  foster  international 
cooperation in the field of youth information/culture/disability  

  18 EU citizens with previous volunteering experience, or currently volunteering 

On the competences that volunteering should provide, NGOs and EU citizens agreed on the 
three  most  important  ones:  respect  for  diversity  and  tolerance  of  other  points  of  view, 
interpersonal skills and team work, and the ability to cooperate and leadership. NGOs gave more 
importance  to  problem-solving  and  decision-making,  critical  thinking  and  skills  related  to 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
societal  challenges  than  the  EU  former  or  current  volunteers.  The  EU  former  or  current 
volunteers gave more weight to linguistic proficiency and skills related to employment than the 
NGOs. 

In  the  obstacles  to  volunteering  part,  the  NGOs  and  the  EU  former  and  current  volunteers 
agreed on the following three most important issues under the heading of “awareness”: 1) lack 
of  information/awareness  regarding  the  opportunities  provided  through  volunteering  abroad,  2) 
lack  of  information  /  recognition  of  the  value  of  volunteering,  and  3)  lack  of  cooperation  and 
awareness  between  youth  and  other  sectors/institutions.  EU  former  or  current  volunteers  gave 
more weight to the problem of skills and competences developed during volunteering not being 
recognized by employers as relevant to the labour market, whereas NGOs gave more weight than 
the  citizens  to  the  problem  of  lack  of  preparation  of  such  activities  at  earlier  stages  of 
education/social interaction activities. 

As  regards  obstacles  related  to  COVID  19  and  other  impairments  to  mobility  related  to 
calamities,  the  NGOs  and  the  EU  former  or  current  volunteers  agreed  on  the  most  important 
obstacle,  namely  travel  restrictions  or  even  interdictions,  which  lead  to  closed  borders  in  an 
emergency  situation  or  repatriation  difficulties.  NGOs  gave  more  weight  than  the  former  or 
current  EU  volunteers  to  the  lack  of  support  measures  for  organisations  active  in  the  fields  of 
volunteering  and  solidarity  and  the  lack  of  detailed  action/contingency/repatriation  plans 
regarding the health and safety of young people volunteering on a project abroad. EU former or 
current volunteers were more worried than NGOs about the lack of recognition of the benefits of 
online volunteering. 

As regards structural/societal obstacles, the biggest problems for former or current volunteers 
were  financial  obstacles  and  the  volunteering  experience  of  young  people  and  its  impact 
generally not being valued by society, due to the absence of a volunteering tradition.  The latter 
was  also  the  issue  most  highlighted  by  NGOs,  followed  by  the  financial  obstacles.  The  third 
most  important  problem,  shared  by  both  stakeholder  groups,  was  caring  duties  and 
responsibilities preventing young people to go for volunteering in other countries. A third of the 
former  or  current  volunteer  respondents  mentioned  the  fear  of  becoming  unemployed  after  a 
volunteering mobility. 

With a view to administrative and legal obstacles, the top concern for the NGO side was the 
requirement for visas and residence permits for volunteers from third countries. The top concern 
for former or current  EU volunteers was the absence or fragmentation of legal  frameworks for 
volunteering (top 3 concern for NGOs), the fact that no volunteering law specifically for youth 
exists, and the loss of state welfare payments for youth (top 2 concern for NGOs). 

As  regards  the  topic  of  obstacles  related  to  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  (ESC),  NGOs 
pointed  mostly  to  the  administrative  burden  when  applying  to  the  ESC,  followed  by  the  low 
number  of  measures  for  capacity  building  and  support  and  the  low  number  of  organizations 
having  the capacity to take part in  the ESC. The former or  current  EU volunteers thought  that 
none  of  the  answers  were  relevant,  but  also  pointed  to  lack  of  promotion  and  outreach  of  the 
ESC,  lack  of  a  strong  ESC  brand  and  the  low  number  of  measures  for  capacity-building  and 
support. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of obstacles related to cooperation between the EU and Member States, the NGOs 
listed the lack of complementarity between European and national volunteering schemes, as well 
as of sufficient information on administrative procedures. The former or current EU volunteers 
did  not  have  strong  views  on  any  reply.  The  replies  mentioned  most  were  lack  of 
complementarity  between  European  and  national  volunteering  schemes,  lack  of  common 
understanding  of  what  volunteering  is,  and  lack  of  sufficient  information  on  administrative 
procedures – or thought that none of the replies was relevant. 

The NGOs left most of the comments in the open text box on “other obstacles”, focussing on 
the  issue  of  funding,  low  interest  to  volunteer  from  young  EU  residents,  the  IT  infrastructure, 
inclusiveness of disadvantaged youth, the quality of the projects, which are often not interesting 
for  qualified  young  people,  lack  of/non-transferability  of  services  for  the  disabled  when  living 
abroad, lack of accessibility of information on websites and tools for users with disabilities, and 
long processing times. Only three former or current EU volunteers left comments, focussing on 
the wish to make volunteering projects accessible to minors, mobility obstacles for people from 
outermost regions and problems with visa and health insurance,  and the administrative burden of 
the ESC and losing the well-built EVS brand. 

NGOs and former and current EU volunteers put different priorities when it came to actions for 
EU and Member States to focus on in the future. For the NGOs, the most important actions 
were:  

1)  support  the  creation  of  local  contact  and  information  points  to  raise  children  and 
young  people’s  awareness  on  a)  benefits  of  volunteering,  b)  the  role  volunteering 
plays in solidarity, and c) to promote its impact and the benefits for communities 
2)  make  available  opportunities  to  properly  assess,  validate  and  certify  the  skills  that 
people  gain  through  volunteering  or  other  solidarity  activities  across  the  Member 
States, so that they can be recognized, for instance by employers and in the education 
system 

3)  improve the attractiveness of the European Solidarity Corps programme including by 
improving  the  awareness  and  outreach  to  children  and  young  people  and  by  raising 
awareness  on  the  importance  of  volunteering  activities,  which  relate  directly  to 
solidarity 

4)  increase  the  inclusiveness  of  young  people  with  fewer  opportunities  in  cross-border 
solidarity  activities;  act  to  simplify  administrative  procedures  to  access  cross-
solidarity activities 

5)  Improve  targeted  acquisition,  recognition  and  validation  of  transversal  skills  to 
employment and other societal challenges (e.g. climate crisis and the green transition) 
to tackle skills gap and skills mismatch. 

For the former or current EU volunteers, the most important actions were: 

1)  make  available  opportunities  to  properly  assess,  validate  and  certify  the  skills  that 
people  gain  through  volunteering  and  other  solidarity  activities  across  the  Member 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
states, so that they can be recognized, for instance by employers and in the education 
system 

2)  improve (or create) quality standards for volunteering 
3)  improve targeted acquisition, recognition and validation of transversal skills relating 
to  employment  and  other  societal  challenges  (e.g.  climate  crisis  and  the  green 
transition)  to  tackle  skills  gap  and  skills  mismatch;  increase  the  inclusiveness  of 
young people with fewer opportunities in cross-border solidarity activities 

4)  create  more  synergies  and  facilitate  complementarity  between  the  European  and 
Member  States’  solidarity,  volunteering,  civic  service  and  mobility  schemes  for 
young  people;  act  to  simplify  administrative  procedures  to  access  cross-border 
solidarity activities 

5)  promote more linguistic support – foreign language training. 

The  NGOs  also  left  many  comments  in  the  open  text  field  on  ‘any  field  that  future  actions 
should  focus  on  to  promote  the  mobility  of  young  people  who  want  to  undertake  cross-
border  solidarity  activities’.  These  ranged  from  ideas  such  as  a  “Nobel  Prize”  for  the  best 
volunteer and creating a volunteering programme also for children,  extraordinary cost coverage 
and  more  stable  funding,  training  of  regional  multipliers,  promoting    green  policies  in 
volunteering,  recognition  of  soft  skills  and  awareness-raising  of  cross-border  volunteering 
programmes,  to  solving  the  visa  problem  for  third  country  nationals  and  an  EU  initiative  to 
create affordable housing for mobility. 

One  former  or  current  EU  volunteer  left  the  comment  that  minors  should  be  given  access  to 
volunteering projects, and schools should be actively involved to inform about the possibilities. 
Three  non-EU  citizens  suggested  to  make  opportunities  for  people  from  third  country  partner 
countries,  to  have  better  tools  in  place  to  learn  a  language,  to  forbid  organisations  to  host 
volunteers without providing accommodation, and to make sure that the organisations are really 
read to host volunteers. 

In conclusion, one main concern of the former or current EU volunteers is the wish to have their 
learning outcomes properly assessed, validated and certified, so that they can be recognized 
by employers or in the educational system. Linked to this, a significant number of the responding 
former  or  current  volunteers  also  mentioned  the  fear  of  becoming  unemployed  after  a 
volunteering  mobility.  They  would  also  like  to  see  quality  standards  for  volunteering  and 
increase  the  inclusiveness  of  young  people  with  fewer  opportunities.  The  proposed  policy 
lines  of  the  recommendation  foresee  to  raise  awareness  of  the  existing  frameworks  for 
identification, documentation and validation of learning outcomes of volunteering activities, as 
well as supporting organisers of volunteering activities in a more systematic and generalized use 
of existing national or EU frameworks for this purpose. Furthermore, they foresee measures to 
ensure  that  organisers  of  volunteering  activities  deliver  on  high  quality  and  socially  inclusive 
volunteering opportunities. 

NGOs  also  supported  opportunities  to  assess,  validate  and  certify  the  skills  gained  and  to 
increase  the  inclusiveness  of  disadvantaged  young  people.  They  felt  that  it  was  of  prime 
importance  to  raise  awareness  on  the  benefits  of  volunteering,  which  the  proposal  for  a 
recommendation  also  tackles.  In  the  obstacles  part,  the  NGOs  focussed  (more  than  the  EU 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
volunteers)  on  the  problem  of  lack  of  preparation  of  volunteering  activities,  the  lack  of 
support measures for organisations and the lack of detailed action/contingency/repatriation 
plans regarding the health and safety of young volunteers. NGOs were also concerned about 
the  access  to  the  volunteering  projects,  and  the  legal  conditions:  visa  and  residence  permit 
requirements for third country volunteers, fragmented legal frameworks for volunteering and the 
potential loss of state welfare payments for youth. Whilst the EU volunteers held no strong views 
on the interplay of European and national volunteering schemes, this was a problem for the 
NGOs. The proposed recommendation addresses all of these points. 

31