PURPOSE: to present\nthe draft 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the\nCommission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for\nEuropean cooperation in education and training (ET2020).
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the Council drew up the Strategic\nFramework for European Cooperation in education and training\n(“ET 2020”).
\nSince then, the economic and political context has\nchanged, creating new uncertainties and constraints. The European\nUnion had to take further action to stem the worst financial and\neconomic crisis in its history and, in response, has agreed on a\nstrategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: Europe 2020.\nEducation and training play a crucial role in this\nstrategy.
\nThe 2012 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) stresses that: the\nfocus of Europe 2020 needs to be simultaneously on: reform measures\nhaving a short-term growth effect; and on setting the right growth\nmodel for the medium-term. Education and training systems have\nto be modernised to reinforce their efficiency and quality and\nto equip people with the skills and competences they need to\nsucceed on the labour market.
\nA\nkey instrument to modernise education and training, ET 2020 can\nmake a major contribution to achieving Europe 2020’s\nobjectives. But to do this, ET 2020 must be adjusted by updating\nits working priorities, tools and governance structure. Based on an\nassessment of progress made in key policy areas in the last three\nyears, this draft Joint Report proposes new working priorities\nfor the period 2012 – 2014 geared to mobilise education\nand training to support Europe 2020.
\nThe draft Joint Report also sets out a number of\noptions to adjust the governance of ET 2020 to ensure that it\ncontributes to Europe 2020.
\nCONTENT: research suggests that improving educational\nachievements can yield immense long-term returns and generate\ngrowth and jobs in the European Union. Reaching the European\nbenchmark of less than 15% low achievers in basic skills by 2020,\nfor example, could generate enormous long-term aggregate economic\ngains for the European Union.
\nThis contrasts with the fact that — even before\nthe crisis — spending in some Member States was rather low,\nclose to or below 4% of GDP, while the European Union average stood\nat almost 5% of GDP — below the level of 5.3% in the United\nStates.
\nNe investments and reforms are needed:
\nAnnex: it should be\nnoted that the Annex of the Communication proposes new priority\nareas for European cooperation in education and training in\n2012-14:
\n(1) Making lifelong learning and mobility a\nreality: the main measures include: (i)improving European\nreference tools; (ii) to promote learning mobility at all levels;\n(iii) the development of comprehensive national lifelong learning\nstrategies.
\n(2) Improving the quality and efficiency of education\nand training : (i) to improve\nbasic skills (literacy, Mathematics, Science and Technology),\nlanguages; (ii) to modernise higher education and increasing\ntertiary attainment levels ; (iii) to attract and promote the\nrelevance of VET; (iii) to provide efficient funding and\nevaluation.
\n(3) Promoting equity, social cohesion and active\ncitizenship: (i) to prevent early\nschool leaving; (ii) to promote early childhood education and care\n(ECEC) ; (iii) to reinforce mutual learning on effective ways\nto raise educational achievement in an increasingly diverse\nsociety.
\n(4) Enhancing creativity and innovation, including\nentrepreneurship, at all levels of education and\ntraining: (i) to promote partnerships\nwith business, research, civil society; (ii) to support\nnetworks for schools, universities and other education and training\nproviders to promote new methods of organising learning (including\nOpen Educational Resources); (iii) to work together to promote the\nacquisition of the key competences identified in the 2006\nRecommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, including\ndigital competences and how ICT and entrepreneurship can enhance\ninnovation in education and training.
\nThe Committee on Culture and Education adopted the\nown-initiative report by Mary HONEYBALL (S&D, UK) on Education,\nTraining and Europe 2020 in response to the Commission\nCommunication entitled ‘Education and Training in smart,\nsustainable and inclusive Europe’. The committee notes that\ndespite some improvement in education and training, for the\nmajority of the EU population lifelong learning (LLL) is still not\na reality, and certain indicators are, in fact, worrying.\nHowever, economic growth must be based, as a matter of priority, on\neducation, knowledge, innovation and appropriate social policies to\nmake the EU emerge out of the current crises, and it is\nimportant to implement the policies in this sphere withinthe\nEU 2020 strategy framework properly to get through this\ncrucial period.
\nInvestment in education: Members point out that some Member States have pursued\nbudget cuts in education and training in light of the current\neconomic situation. They believe, however, that those investments\nwith the greatest strategic value should be safeguarded and\neven increased. They emphasise that the Union’s multiannual\nfinancial framework anticipates that education and related\nsectors will obtain the biggest percentage increase under the\nEU’s long-term budget, which must be approved. Member States\nare asked to adopt their national LLL strategies, with suitable\namounts of financial resources as the best possible tool available\nfor reaching the objectives outlined in the ET 2020 strategy. The\ncommittee also highlights the fact that the economic costs of the\nconsequences of educational underperformance, including school\ndropout and social inequalities within education and training\nsystems and their impact on the development of the Member States,\nare significantly higher than the costs of the financial\ncrisis, and Member States are already paying the price year\nafter year.
\nThe committee requests that Member States target a\ntotal investment of at least 2% of GDP in higher education, as\nrecommended by the Commission in the Annual Growth and Employment\nSurvey, being the minimum required for knowledge-based economies.\nIt recalls that, in order to be competitive in the future with the\nnew global powers, Members States are required to achieve the basic\nEurope 2020 objectives which, in the field of education, can\nbe expressed as reaching 3% in investments for research, increasing\nto 40 % the number of young people with a university\neducation, and reducing early school leaving to below 10%. The\nreport proposes that Member States deduct investments in education\nand training from the national deficit calculation of the fiscal\ncompact.
\nYoung people: Members\nfeel that a special focus should be given to young people,\nbearing in mind that the EU unemployment rate has increased to over\n20%, with peaks in excess of 50% in some Member States or some\nregions. They highlight, in particular, the detrimental effects\nof austerity programmes on youth unemployment in certain EU\nStates, especially those in southern Europe, leading to a\nsignificant brain drain to other countries, including countries\noutside the EU; recalls also that one out of seven of\ntoday’s pupils (14.4%) leaves the education system with no\nmore than a lower secondary education and does not participate in\nany further education or training.
\nIn this regard, the Commission and Member States are\nasked to:
\nThe role of universities: Members go on to call on universities to widen\naccess to learning, and to modernise their curricula to address\nthe new challenges, in order to upgrade the skills of the European\npopulation. They encourage dialogue between private stakeholders,\nparticularly SMEs and local and regional authorities, civil society\nstakeholders and higher-education institutes/universities in order\nto promote the acquisition by students of knowledge\nand skills to facilitate their entry into the labour\nmarket.
\nOther priorities: the\nreport moves on to stress (i) the decisive importance of\nfacilitating access for persons with disabilities to LLL, through\ndisability mainstreaming in all programmes intended for the general\npublic; (ii) the need to give workers proper credit for in-service\ntraining; (iii) the need to address the disparity between men and\nwomen graduating with degrees in STEM subjects (science,\ntechnology, engineering and mathematics), as exemplified by the\nfact that only 20 % of engineering graduates are female; (iv)\nthe need to increase investments in sports, and to promote sports\nactivities in schools; (v) opportunities for LLL for older\npeople.
\nMobility: with regard to\nmobility, Members note that, although a European area of education\nand training is emerging, the objective of removing obstacles to\nmobility has not been achieved yet, and the mobility of\nlearners in VET remains low. They believe that it is vital to\npromote mobility through ambitious community programmes for\neducation and culture, in particular through exchanges of\nteachers, students and pupils, and especially in the language\nfield. Members highlight the need for everyone to acquire\nexcellent language skills from a very early age, as this\nwill enable people to be more mobile, giving them greater\naccess to the labour market and significantly increased\nopportunities for study, while serving to promote intercultural\nexchanges and greater European cohesion.
\nEarly childhood education: the committee stresses the importance of early\nchildhood education, and regrets that the Commission does not\ngive adequate coverage to the issue of early school development,\nparticularly its linguistic dimension, despite the fact that it\ncomprises a basic objective of the Europe 2020 strategy. It\nstrongly believes that investing in early childhood education and\ncare (ECEC) brings greater returns than investing in any other\nstage of education.
\nSmall grants: lastly,\nthe committee encourages Member States to consider the\npossibility of introducing a wider system of small grants, with\na minimum of red tape, for pre-university students facing financial\ndifficulties, so as to encourage them to stay in\neducation.
\nThe Committee on Culture and Education adopted the\nown-initiative report by Mary HONEYBALL (S&D, UK) on Education,\nTraining and Europe 2020 in response to the Commission\nCommunication entitled ‘Education and Training in smart,\nsustainable and inclusive Europe’. The committee notes that\ndespite some improvement in education and training, for the\nmajority of the EU population lifelong learning (LLL) is still not\na reality, and certain indicators are, in fact, worrying.\nHowever, economic growth must be based, as a matter of priority, on\neducation, knowledge, innovation and appropriate social policies to\nmake the EU emerge out of the current crises, and it is\nimportant to implement the policies in this sphere withinthe\nEU 2020 strategy framework properly to get through this\ncrucial period.
\nInvestment in education: Members point out that some Member States have pursued\nbudget cuts in education and training in light of the current\neconomic situation. They believe, however, that those investments\nwith the greatest strategic value should be safeguarded and\neven increased. They emphasise that the Union’s multiannual\nfinancial framework anticipates that education and related\nsectors will obtain the biggest percentage increase under the\nEU’s long-term budget, which must be approved. Member States\nare asked to adopt their national LLL strategies, with suitable\namounts of financial resources as the best possible tool available\nfor reaching the objectives outlined in the ET 2020 strategy. The\ncommittee also highlights the fact that the economic costs of the\nconsequences of educational underperformance, including school\ndropout and social inequalities within education and training\nsystems and their impact on the development of the Member States,\nare significantly higher than the costs of the financial\ncrisis, and Member States are already paying the price year\nafter year.
\nThe committee requests that Member States target a\ntotal investment of at least 2% of GDP in higher education, as\nrecommended by the Commission in the Annual Growth and Employment\nSurvey, being the minimum required for knowledge-based economies.\nIt recalls that, in order to be competitive in the future with the\nnew global powers, Members States are required to achieve the basic\nEurope 2020 objectives which, in the field of education, can\nbe expressed as reaching 3% in investments for research, increasing\nto 40 % the number of young people with a university\neducation, and reducing early school leaving to below 10%. The\nreport proposes that Member States deduct investments in education\nand training from the national deficit calculation of the fiscal\ncompact.
\nYoung people: Members\nfeel that a special focus should be given to young people,\nbearing in mind that the EU unemployment rate has increased to over\n20%, with peaks in excess of 50% in some Member States or some\nregions. They highlight, in particular, the detrimental effects\nof austerity programmes on youth unemployment in certain EU\nStates, especially those in southern Europe, leading to a\nsignificant brain drain to other countries, including countries\noutside the EU; recalls also that one out of seven of\ntoday’s pupils (14.4%) leaves the education system with no\nmore than a lower secondary education and does not participate in\nany further education or training.
\nIn this regard, the Commission and Member States are\nasked to:
\nThe role of universities: Members go on to call on universities to widen\naccess to learning, and to modernise their curricula to address\nthe new challenges, in order to upgrade the skills of the European\npopulation. They encourage dialogue between private stakeholders,\nparticularly SMEs and local and regional authorities, civil society\nstakeholders and higher-education institutes/universities in order\nto promote the acquisition by students of knowledge\nand skills to facilitate their entry into the labour\nmarket.
\nOther priorities: the\nreport moves on to stress (i) the decisive importance of\nfacilitating access for persons with disabilities to LLL, through\ndisability mainstreaming in all programmes intended for the general\npublic; (ii) the need to give workers proper credit for in-service\ntraining; (iii) the need to address the disparity between men and\nwomen graduating with degrees in STEM subjects (science,\ntechnology, engineering and mathematics), as exemplified by the\nfact that only 20 % of engineering graduates are female; (iv)\nthe need to increase investments in sports, and to promote sports\nactivities in schools; (v) opportunities for LLL for older\npeople.
\nMobility: with regard to\nmobility, Members note that, although a European area of education\nand training is emerging, the objective of removing obstacles to\nmobility has not been achieved yet, and the mobility of\nlearners in VET remains low. They believe that it is vital to\npromote mobility through ambitious community programmes for\neducation and culture, in particular through exchanges of\nteachers, students and pupils, and especially in the language\nfield. Members highlight the need for everyone to acquire\nexcellent language skills from a very early age, as this\nwill enable people to be more mobile, giving them greater\naccess to the labour market and significantly increased\nopportunities for study, while serving to promote intercultural\nexchanges and greater European cohesion.
\nEarly childhood education: the committee stresses the importance of early\nchildhood education, and regrets that the Commission does not\ngive adequate coverage to the issue of early school development,\nparticularly its linguistic dimension, despite the fact that it\ncomprises a basic objective of the Europe 2020 strategy. It\nstrongly believes that investing in early childhood education and\ncare (ECEC) brings greater returns than investing in any other\nstage of education.
\nSmall grants: lastly,\nthe committee encourages Member States to consider the\npossibility of introducing a wider system of small grants, with\na minimum of red tape, for pre-university students facing financial\ndifficulties, so as to encourage them to stay in\neducation.
\nPURPOSE: to present\nthe draft 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the\nCommission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for\nEuropean cooperation in education and training (ET2020).
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the Council drew up the Strategic\nFramework for European Cooperation in education and training\n(“ET 2020”).
\nSince then, the economic and political context has\nchanged, creating new uncertainties and constraints. The European\nUnion had to take further action to stem the worst financial and\neconomic crisis in its history and, in response, has agreed on a\nstrategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: Europe 2020.\nEducation and training play a crucial role in this\nstrategy.
\nThe 2012 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) stresses that: the\nfocus of Europe 2020 needs to be simultaneously on: reform measures\nhaving a short-term growth effect; and on setting the right growth\nmodel for the medium-term. Education and training systems have\nto be modernised to reinforce their efficiency and quality and\nto equip people with the skills and competences they need to\nsucceed on the labour market.
\nA\nkey instrument to modernise education and training, ET 2020 can\nmake a major contribution to achieving Europe 2020’s\nobjectives. But to do this, ET 2020 must be adjusted by updating\nits working priorities, tools and governance structure. Based on an\nassessment of progress made in key policy areas in the last three\nyears, this draft Joint Report proposes new working priorities\nfor the period 2012 – 2014 geared to mobilise education\nand training to support Europe 2020.
\nThe draft Joint Report also sets out a number of\noptions to adjust the governance of ET 2020 to ensure that it\ncontributes to Europe 2020.
\nCONTENT: research suggests that improving educational\nachievements can yield immense long-term returns and generate\ngrowth and jobs in the European Union. Reaching the European\nbenchmark of less than 15% low achievers in basic skills by 2020,\nfor example, could generate enormous long-term aggregate economic\ngains for the European Union.
\nThis contrasts with the fact that — even before\nthe crisis — spending in some Member States was rather low,\nclose to or below 4% of GDP, while the European Union average stood\nat almost 5% of GDP — below the level of 5.3% in the United\nStates.
\nNe investments and reforms are needed:
\nAnnex: it should be\nnoted that the Annex of the Communication proposes new priority\nareas for European cooperation in education and training in\n2012-14:
\n(1) Making lifelong learning and mobility a\nreality: the main measures include: (i)improving European\nreference tools; (ii) to promote learning mobility at all levels;\n(iii) the development of comprehensive national lifelong learning\nstrategies.
\n(2) Improving the quality and efficiency of education\nand training : (i) to improve\nbasic skills (literacy, Mathematics, Science and Technology),\nlanguages; (ii) to modernise higher education and increasing\ntertiary attainment levels ; (iii) to attract and promote the\nrelevance of VET; (iii) to provide efficient funding and\nevaluation.
\n(3) Promoting equity, social cohesion and active\ncitizenship: (i) to prevent early\nschool leaving; (ii) to promote early childhood education and care\n(ECEC) ; (iii) to reinforce mutual learning on effective ways\nto raise educational achievement in an increasingly diverse\nsociety.
\n(4) Enhancing creativity and innovation, including\nentrepreneurship, at all levels of education and\ntraining: (i) to promote partnerships\nwith business, research, civil society; (ii) to support\nnetworks for schools, universities and other education and training\nproviders to promote new methods of organising learning (including\nOpen Educational Resources); (iii) to work together to promote the\nacquisition of the key competences identified in the 2006\nRecommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, including\ndigital competences and how ICT and entrepreneurship can enhance\ninnovation in education and training.
\nPURPOSE: to present\nthe draft 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the\nCommission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for\nEuropean cooperation in education and training (ET2020).
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the Council drew up the Strategic\nFramework for European Cooperation in education and training\n(“ET 2020”).
\nSince then, the economic and political context has\nchanged, creating new uncertainties and constraints. The European\nUnion had to take further action to stem the worst financial and\neconomic crisis in its history and, in response, has agreed on a\nstrategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: Europe 2020.\nEducation and training play a crucial role in this\nstrategy.
\nThe 2012 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) stresses that: the\nfocus of Europe 2020 needs to be simultaneously on: reform measures\nhaving a short-term growth effect; and on setting the right growth\nmodel for the medium-term. Education and training systems have\nto be modernised to reinforce their efficiency and quality and\nto equip people with the skills and competences they need to\nsucceed on the labour market.
\nA\nkey instrument to modernise education and training, ET 2020 can\nmake a major contribution to achieving Europe 2020’s\nobjectives. But to do this, ET 2020 must be adjusted by updating\nits working priorities, tools and governance structure. Based on an\nassessment of progress made in key policy areas in the last three\nyears, this draft Joint Report proposes new working priorities\nfor the period 2012 – 2014 geared to mobilise education\nand training to support Europe 2020.
\nThe draft Joint Report also sets out a number of\noptions to adjust the governance of ET 2020 to ensure that it\ncontributes to Europe 2020.
\nCONTENT: research suggests that improving educational\nachievements can yield immense long-term returns and generate\ngrowth and jobs in the European Union. Reaching the European\nbenchmark of less than 15% low achievers in basic skills by 2020,\nfor example, could generate enormous long-term aggregate economic\ngains for the European Union.
\nThis contrasts with the fact that — even before\nthe crisis — spending in some Member States was rather low,\nclose to or below 4% of GDP, while the European Union average stood\nat almost 5% of GDP — below the level of 5.3% in the United\nStates.
\nNe investments and reforms are needed:
\nAnnex: it should be\nnoted that the Annex of the Communication proposes new priority\nareas for European cooperation in education and training in\n2012-14:
\n(1) Making lifelong learning and mobility a\nreality: the main measures include: (i)improving European\nreference tools; (ii) to promote learning mobility at all levels;\n(iii) the development of comprehensive national lifelong learning\nstrategies.
\n(2) Improving the quality and efficiency of education\nand training : (i) to improve\nbasic skills (literacy, Mathematics, Science and Technology),\nlanguages; (ii) to modernise higher education and increasing\ntertiary attainment levels ; (iii) to attract and promote the\nrelevance of VET; (iii) to provide efficient funding and\nevaluation.
\n(3) Promoting equity, social cohesion and active\ncitizenship: (i) to prevent early\nschool leaving; (ii) to promote early childhood education and care\n(ECEC) ; (iii) to reinforce mutual learning on effective ways\nto raise educational achievement in an increasingly diverse\nsociety.
\n(4) Enhancing creativity and innovation, including\nentrepreneurship, at all levels of education and\ntraining: (i) to promote partnerships\nwith business, research, civil society; (ii) to support\nnetworks for schools, universities and other education and training\nproviders to promote new methods of organising learning (including\nOpen Educational Resources); (iii) to work together to promote the\nacquisition of the key competences identified in the 2006\nRecommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, including\ndigital competences and how ICT and entrepreneurship can enhance\ninnovation in education and training.
\nPURPOSE: to present\nthe draft 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the\nCommission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for\nEuropean cooperation in education and training (ET2020).
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the Council drew up the Strategic\nFramework for European Cooperation in education and training\n(“ET 2020”).
\nSince then, the economic and political context has\nchanged, creating new uncertainties and constraints. The European\nUnion had to take further action to stem the worst financial and\neconomic crisis in its history and, in response, has agreed on a\nstrategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: Europe 2020.\nEducation and training play a crucial role in this\nstrategy.
\nThe 2012 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) stresses that: the\nfocus of Europe 2020 needs to be simultaneously on: reform measures\nhaving a short-term growth effect; and on setting the right growth\nmodel for the medium-term. Education and training systems have\nto be modernised to reinforce their efficiency and quality and\nto equip people with the skills and competences they need to\nsucceed on the labour market.
\nA\nkey instrument to modernise education and training, ET 2020 can\nmake a major contribution to achieving Europe 2020’s\nobjectives. But to do this, ET 2020 must be adjusted by updating\nits working priorities, tools and governance structure. Based on an\nassessment of progress made in key policy areas in the last three\nyears, this draft Joint Report proposes new working priorities\nfor the period 2012 – 2014 geared to mobilise education\nand training to support Europe 2020.
\nThe draft Joint Report also sets out a number of\noptions to adjust the governance of ET 2020 to ensure that it\ncontributes to Europe 2020.
\nCONTENT: research suggests that improving educational\nachievements can yield immense long-term returns and generate\ngrowth and jobs in the European Union. Reaching the European\nbenchmark of less than 15% low achievers in basic skills by 2020,\nfor example, could generate enormous long-term aggregate economic\ngains for the European Union.
\nThis contrasts with the fact that — even before\nthe crisis — spending in some Member States was rather low,\nclose to or below 4% of GDP, while the European Union average stood\nat almost 5% of GDP — below the level of 5.3% in the United\nStates.
\nNe investments and reforms are needed:
\nAnnex: it should be\nnoted that the Annex of the Communication proposes new priority\nareas for European cooperation in education and training in\n2012-14:
\n(1) Making lifelong learning and mobility a\nreality: the main measures include: (i)improving European\nreference tools; (ii) to promote learning mobility at all levels;\n(iii) the development of comprehensive national lifelong learning\nstrategies.
\n(2) Improving the quality and efficiency of education\nand training : (i) to improve\nbasic skills (literacy, Mathematics, Science and Technology),\nlanguages; (ii) to modernise higher education and increasing\ntertiary attainment levels ; (iii) to attract and promote the\nrelevance of VET; (iii) to provide efficient funding and\nevaluation.
\n(3) Promoting equity, social cohesion and active\ncitizenship: (i) to prevent early\nschool leaving; (ii) to promote early childhood education and care\n(ECEC) ; (iii) to reinforce mutual learning on effective ways\nto raise educational achievement in an increasingly diverse\nsociety.
\n(4) Enhancing creativity and innovation, including\nentrepreneurship, at all levels of education and\ntraining: (i) to promote partnerships\nwith business, research, civil society; (ii) to support\nnetworks for schools, universities and other education and training\nproviders to promote new methods of organising learning (including\nOpen Educational Resources); (iii) to work together to promote the\nacquisition of the key competences identified in the 2006\nRecommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, including\ndigital competences and how ICT and entrepreneurship can enhance\ninnovation in education and training.
\nPURPOSE: to present\nthe draft 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the\nCommission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for\nEuropean cooperation in education and training (ET2020).
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the Council drew up the Strategic\nFramework for European Cooperation in education and training\n(“ET 2020”).
\nSince then, the economic and political context has\nchanged, creating new uncertainties and constraints. The European\nUnion had to take further action to stem the worst financial and\neconomic crisis in its history and, in response, has agreed on a\nstrategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: Europe 2020.\nEducation and training play a crucial role in this\nstrategy.
\nThe 2012 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) stresses that: the\nfocus of Europe 2020 needs to be simultaneously on: reform measures\nhaving a short-term growth effect; and on setting the right growth\nmodel for the medium-term. Education and training systems have\nto be modernised to reinforce their efficiency and quality and\nto equip people with the skills and competences they need to\nsucceed on the labour market.
\nA\nkey instrument to modernise education and training, ET 2020 can\nmake a major contribution to achieving Europe 2020’s\nobjectives. But to do this, ET 2020 must be adjusted by updating\nits working priorities, tools and governance structure. Based on an\nassessment of progress made in key policy areas in the last three\nyears, this draft Joint Report proposes new working priorities\nfor the period 2012 – 2014 geared to mobilise education\nand training to support Europe 2020.
\nThe draft Joint Report also sets out a number of\noptions to adjust the governance of ET 2020 to ensure that it\ncontributes to Europe 2020.
\nCONTENT: research suggests that improving educational\nachievements can yield immense long-term returns and generate\ngrowth and jobs in the European Union. Reaching the European\nbenchmark of less than 15% low achievers in basic skills by 2020,\nfor example, could generate enormous long-term aggregate economic\ngains for the European Union.
\nThis contrasts with the fact that — even before\nthe crisis — spending in some Member States was rather low,\nclose to or below 4% of GDP, while the European Union average stood\nat almost 5% of GDP — below the level of 5.3% in the United\nStates.
\nNe investments and reforms are needed:
\nAnnex: it should be\nnoted that the Annex of the Communication proposes new priority\nareas for European cooperation in education and training in\n2012-14:
\n(1) Making lifelong learning and mobility a\nreality: the main measures include: (i)improving European\nreference tools; (ii) to promote learning mobility at all levels;\n(iii) the development of comprehensive national lifelong learning\nstrategies.
\n(2) Improving the quality and efficiency of education\nand training : (i) to improve\nbasic skills (literacy, Mathematics, Science and Technology),\nlanguages; (ii) to modernise higher education and increasing\ntertiary attainment levels ; (iii) to attract and promote the\nrelevance of VET; (iii) to provide efficient funding and\nevaluation.
\n(3) Promoting equity, social cohesion and active\ncitizenship: (i) to prevent early\nschool leaving; (ii) to promote early childhood education and care\n(ECEC) ; (iii) to reinforce mutual learning on effective ways\nto raise educational achievement in an increasingly diverse\nsociety.
\n(4) Enhancing creativity and innovation, including\nentrepreneurship, at all levels of education and\ntraining: (i) to promote partnerships\nwith business, research, civil society; (ii) to support\nnetworks for schools, universities and other education and training\nproviders to promote new methods of organising learning (including\nOpen Educational Resources); (iii) to work together to promote the\nacquisition of the key competences identified in the 2006\nRecommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, including\ndigital competences and how ICT and entrepreneurship can enhance\ninnovation in education and training.
\nPURPOSE: to present\nthe draft 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the\nCommission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for\nEuropean cooperation in education and training (ET2020).
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the Council drew up the Strategic\nFramework for European Cooperation in education and training\n(“ET 2020”).
\nSince then, the economic and political context has\nchanged, creating new uncertainties and constraints. The European\nUnion had to take further action to stem the worst financial and\neconomic crisis in its history and, in response, has agreed on a\nstrategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: Europe 2020.\nEducation and training play a crucial role in this\nstrategy.
\nThe 2012 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) stresses that: the\nfocus of Europe 2020 needs to be simultaneously on: reform measures\nhaving a short-term growth effect; and on setting the right growth\nmodel for the medium-term. Education and training systems have\nto be modernised to reinforce their efficiency and quality and\nto equip people with the skills and competences they need to\nsucceed on the labour market.
\nA\nkey instrument to modernise education and training, ET 2020 can\nmake a major contribution to achieving Europe 2020’s\nobjectives. But to do this, ET 2020 must be adjusted by updating\nits working priorities, tools and governance structure. Based on an\nassessment of progress made in key policy areas in the last three\nyears, this draft Joint Report proposes new working priorities\nfor the period 2012 – 2014 geared to mobilise education\nand training to support Europe 2020.
\nThe draft Joint Report also sets out a number of\noptions to adjust the governance of ET 2020 to ensure that it\ncontributes to Europe 2020.
\nCONTENT: research suggests that improving educational\nachievements can yield immense long-term returns and generate\ngrowth and jobs in the European Union. Reaching the European\nbenchmark of less than 15% low achievers in basic skills by 2020,\nfor example, could generate enormous long-term aggregate economic\ngains for the European Union.
\nThis contrasts with the fact that — even before\nthe crisis — spending in some Member States was rather low,\nclose to or below 4% of GDP, while the European Union average stood\nat almost 5% of GDP — below the level of 5.3% in the United\nStates.
\nNe investments and reforms are needed:
\nAnnex: it should be\nnoted that the Annex of the Communication proposes new priority\nareas for European cooperation in education and training in\n2012-14:
\n(1) Making lifelong learning and mobility a\nreality: the main measures include: (i)improving European\nreference tools; (ii) to promote learning mobility at all levels;\n(iii) the development of comprehensive national lifelong learning\nstrategies.
\n(2) Improving the quality and efficiency of education\nand training : (i) to improve\nbasic skills (literacy, Mathematics, Science and Technology),\nlanguages; (ii) to modernise higher education and increasing\ntertiary attainment levels ; (iii) to attract and promote the\nrelevance of VET; (iii) to provide efficient funding and\nevaluation.
\n(3) Promoting equity, social cohesion and active\ncitizenship: (i) to prevent early\nschool leaving; (ii) to promote early childhood education and care\n(ECEC) ; (iii) to reinforce mutual learning on effective ways\nto raise educational achievement in an increasingly diverse\nsociety.
\n(4) Enhancing creativity and innovation, including\nentrepreneurship, at all levels of education and\ntraining: (i) to promote partnerships\nwith business, research, civil society; (ii) to support\nnetworks for schools, universities and other education and training\nproviders to promote new methods of organising learning (including\nOpen Educational Resources); (iii) to work together to promote the\nacquisition of the key competences identified in the 2006\nRecommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, including\ndigital competences and how ICT and entrepreneurship can enhance\ninnovation in education and training.
\nPURPOSE: to\nestablish a new Union action for the European Capitals of Culture\nfor the years 2020 to 2033.
\nPROPOSED ACT:\nDecision of the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture were created in 1985 as an\nintergovernmental initiative. They were transformed officially\ninto a European Union action in 1999 in order to make the\ninitiative more effective. New criteria and selection procedures\nwere established, a chronological list of Member States was drawn\nup indicating the order in which they were entitled to host the\ntitle, and a European panel of independent experts was created to\nassess the applications (Decision N° 1419/1999/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council).
\nThe rules were\nrenewed in 2006 in order to develop the effectiveness of the\ninitiative further by stimulating competition between the cities\nand fostering the quality of the bids. These new rules also\nintroduced various measures to accompany the cities in their\npreparation, including a monitoring process (Decision N° 1622/2006/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nDecision N°\n1622/2006/EC will end in 2019. The competition for the title is\ncurrently launched six years in advance in order to give the cities\nsufficient time for their preparation before the beginning of the\nyear of the title. Therefore, the new legal base for the\ncontinuation of the European Capitals of Culture should be adopted\nin 2013 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT:\non the basis of the results of the evaluations and of the public\nconsultation, three options were examined for the future of the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture after 2019:
\nThe various\ncultural, economic, social and environmental impacts were examined\nfor each option. The options were then assessed and ranked\naccording to their effectiveness in terms of achieving the\nobjectives of the European Capitals of Culture, their efficiency,\ntheir costs and administrative burden, their coherence with broader\nUnion political objectives and their synergies and\ncomplementarities with other Union objectives, and their\nfeasibility.
\nThe option with\nthe most positive overall assessment is option 3a, namely a new\nlegal base with a chronological list of Member States. This option\nscored higher than all other options and was ranked as the\npreferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 167 (5), first indent of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the aim of\nthis proposed Decision is to establish a Union action for the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033.
\nThe general\nobjectives of the action shall be the following:
\nMoreover:
\nAmendments and\nproposed improvements: at the same time, a number of\nimprovements are proposed in order to address the problems\nencountered with the current Decision and to help all cities to\nmake the most of the title. The main changes introduced by the new\nlegal base are the following:
\n(1) The criteria\nhave been made more explicit in order to give more guidance to\nthe candidate cities and more measurable in order to help the panel\nof experts in the selection and monitoring of cities.
\nSpecial attention\nwas paid to optimise the potential leverage effect of the\ninitiative on stimulating long-term local culture led development\nstrategies, to ensure the capacity of candidate cities to\nactually host the title, to boost the European dimension and\nvisibility of the cultural programmes, to ensure the high quality\nof the cultural and artistic content, to foster a large\nparticipation of the local populations and to try to ensure the\nstability of the budgets and the independence of the artistic\nteams.
\nThe criteria for\nthe assessment of the applications are divided into six categories:\n\"long-term strategy\", \"capacity to deliver\", \"cultural and artistic\ncontent\", \"European dimension\", \"outreach\" and \"management\":
\n(2) The\nconditionality of the Melina Mercouri Prize has been\nreinforced. Furthermore, the Prize will no longer be paid three\nmonths before the beginning of the year of the title, but during\nthe middle of the year itself in order to be certain that cities\nkeep to their commitments regarding in particular funding,\nprogramming and Union visibility.
\n(3) European\nPanel. It is stated explicitly that the European panel is not\nobliged to give a positive recommendation if none of the bids\nfulfils the criteria.
\n(4) The\naccompanying measures which support the cities during the\npreparation period after winning the title have been strengthened\nin order to provide further support and guidance to the cities. An\nadditional monitoring meeting has been introduced, visits to the\ncities by panel members will be more systematic and the exchange\nof experience and best practices between past, present and future\nCapitals, as well as candidate cities will be reinforced.
\n(5) New\nevaluation obligations were introduced for the cities\nthemselves in order to have a more comprehensive view of the\nimpacts of the title and to provide comparable data.
\n(6) Finally, it\nis proposed to open the action again to the participation of\ncandidate and potential candidate countries after 2019, as was\nthe case until 2010. The experience among others of Sibiu 2007 and\nIstanbul 2010 has shown that this can be beneficial both for these\ncountries and the Union.
\nIt should be noted\nthat cities in candidate and potential candidate countries shall\nalso have the possibility to apply for the European Capital of\nCulture title in the framework of an open competition organised\nevery third year in parallel with the competitions in the two\nMember States, in accordance with the calendar in the\nannex.
\nDesignation:\nthe Commission shall, by means of implementing acts,\nofficially designate the European Capitals of Culture, having due\nregard to the recommendations of the European Panel. The\nCommission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and\nthe Committee of the Regions of its designation.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATION: the Commission's proposal has no direct budgetary\nimplication. The period covered by the proposal will coincide with\nseveral multi annual financial frameworks. For the 2014-2020\nfinancial framework, the financial aspects in relation to the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture, including the Melina Mercouri Prize,\nthe costs of the European panel of experts, the visibility of the\naction at European level and the human resources needed within the\nCommission to support the action, will be dealt with in the\nframework of the Creative Europe\nProgramme.
\nFor the years after\n2020, the legal and financial aspects of the European Capitals of\nCulture will be directly linked to the provisions included in the\nfuture multi annual financial frameworks, and on this basis, they\nshould also be dealt with in the framework of the respective Union\nprogrammes supporting culture.
\nThe current legal\nbase for the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) (Decision 1622/2006/EC)\nincludes a chronological list of Member States indicating the\norder in which they are entitled to host the event until\n2019.
\nThe preparation time\ninvolved for preparing each ECoC (currently 6 years) and the time\nneeded for the ordinary legislative procedure means that the\nCommission's proposal for a continuation of the ECoC should be\nadopted in 2012 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nThe present\nCommission Services Working Document summarises the main results of\nDG EAC's reflection on the future of the ECoC.
\nThe document offers\nin particular the results of an external evaluation of the\ninitiative, a public consultation on the effectiveness and impact\nof the initiative. It also outlines the main problems arising from\nthe implementation of the ECoC.
\nThe main challenge\nfor the ECoC action after 2019 will be twofold.
\nTo this end, the\nfollowing five problems encountered by cities under Decision\n1622/2006/EC will need to be tackled after 2019 :
\n1. the lack of\nstability in the governance structures and in the budgets: the\nmost common difficulty encountered by cities in their preparation\nphase hasbeen the effect of national and local politics on the\nbudgets, which need to be as stable as possible between the bidding\nand final stages, as well as the impact of politics on other\naspects of the organisation of the event. Political support is\nfundamental as most of the funds are public, and without it a city\ncannot have a credible bid, but at the same time the implementing\nteam needs its artistic independence to be respected in order to\nprotect the credibility of the event;
\n2. the limited\nEuropean dimension;
\n3. weak legacy\nplanning: several of the past Capitals acknowledged that in\nretrospect they had not done enough to forward plan for the period\nafter the event. Others stated that they have struggled or are\nstill struggling to fully exploit the potential legacies of the\nevent;
\n4. the lack of\nevaluation and comparable data: it is essential that the\nCapitals themselves put in place measurement mechanisms. Given the\nlack of these measures, disparities create a very fragmented view\non the impacts of the ECoC and it makes a real comparison between\ncities very difficult, which is harmful for the transfer of\nexperience;
\n5. the limited\nnumber of credible candidates in certain MS: the current rules\nfor the ECoC would make it politically very difficult for the panel\nto refuse to award the title to one city in each of the two MS\nconcerned every year. Luckily, so far there was always at least one\ncredible candidate in each competition, even those which did\nattract very few participants. However this may become a problem in\nthe future and selecting weak candidates for the title would\nwithout any doubt risk damaging the prestige and brand value of the\nECoC in the long term.
\nThe Commission\ndocument outlines proposals for each of the problem areas addressed\nwith the aim of proposing a more targeted action plan. An impact\nassessment is proposed for after 2019 which will include the\ndifferent options proposed as well as the one which the Commission\nintends to maintain in its proposal.
\nPURPOSE: to\nestablish a new Union action for the European Capitals of Culture\nfor the years 2020 to 2033.
\nPROPOSED ACT:\nDecision of the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture were created in 1985 as an\nintergovernmental initiative. They were transformed officially\ninto a European Union action in 1999 in order to make the\ninitiative more effective. New criteria and selection procedures\nwere established, a chronological list of Member States was drawn\nup indicating the order in which they were entitled to host the\ntitle, and a European panel of independent experts was created to\nassess the applications (Decision N° 1419/1999/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council).
\nThe rules were\nrenewed in 2006 in order to develop the effectiveness of the\ninitiative further by stimulating competition between the cities\nand fostering the quality of the bids. These new rules also\nintroduced various measures to accompany the cities in their\npreparation, including a monitoring process (Decision N° 1622/2006/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nDecision N°\n1622/2006/EC will end in 2019. The competition for the title is\ncurrently launched six years in advance in order to give the cities\nsufficient time for their preparation before the beginning of the\nyear of the title. Therefore, the new legal base for the\ncontinuation of the European Capitals of Culture should be adopted\nin 2013 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT:\non the basis of the results of the evaluations and of the public\nconsultation, three options were examined for the future of the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture after 2019:
\nThe various\ncultural, economic, social and environmental impacts were examined\nfor each option. The options were then assessed and ranked\naccording to their effectiveness in terms of achieving the\nobjectives of the European Capitals of Culture, their efficiency,\ntheir costs and administrative burden, their coherence with broader\nUnion political objectives and their synergies and\ncomplementarities with other Union objectives, and their\nfeasibility.
\nThe option with\nthe most positive overall assessment is option 3a, namely a new\nlegal base with a chronological list of Member States. This option\nscored higher than all other options and was ranked as the\npreferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 167 (5), first indent of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the aim of\nthis proposed Decision is to establish a Union action for the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033.
\nThe general\nobjectives of the action shall be the following:
\nMoreover:
\nAmendments and\nproposed improvements: at the same time, a number of\nimprovements are proposed in order to address the problems\nencountered with the current Decision and to help all cities to\nmake the most of the title. The main changes introduced by the new\nlegal base are the following:
\n(1) The criteria\nhave been made more explicit in order to give more guidance to\nthe candidate cities and more measurable in order to help the panel\nof experts in the selection and monitoring of cities.
\nSpecial attention\nwas paid to optimise the potential leverage effect of the\ninitiative on stimulating long-term local culture led development\nstrategies, to ensure the capacity of candidate cities to\nactually host the title, to boost the European dimension and\nvisibility of the cultural programmes, to ensure the high quality\nof the cultural and artistic content, to foster a large\nparticipation of the local populations and to try to ensure the\nstability of the budgets and the independence of the artistic\nteams.
\nThe criteria for\nthe assessment of the applications are divided into six categories:\n\"long-term strategy\", \"capacity to deliver\", \"cultural and artistic\ncontent\", \"European dimension\", \"outreach\" and \"management\":
\n(2) The\nconditionality of the Melina Mercouri Prize has been\nreinforced. Furthermore, the Prize will no longer be paid three\nmonths before the beginning of the year of the title, but during\nthe middle of the year itself in order to be certain that cities\nkeep to their commitments regarding in particular funding,\nprogramming and Union visibility.
\n(3) European\nPanel. It is stated explicitly that the European panel is not\nobliged to give a positive recommendation if none of the bids\nfulfils the criteria.
\n(4) The\naccompanying measures which support the cities during the\npreparation period after winning the title have been strengthened\nin order to provide further support and guidance to the cities. An\nadditional monitoring meeting has been introduced, visits to the\ncities by panel members will be more systematic and the exchange\nof experience and best practices between past, present and future\nCapitals, as well as candidate cities will be reinforced.
\n(5) New\nevaluation obligations were introduced for the cities\nthemselves in order to have a more comprehensive view of the\nimpacts of the title and to provide comparable data.
\n(6) Finally, it\nis proposed to open the action again to the participation of\ncandidate and potential candidate countries after 2019, as was\nthe case until 2010. The experience among others of Sibiu 2007 and\nIstanbul 2010 has shown that this can be beneficial both for these\ncountries and the Union.
\nIt should be noted\nthat cities in candidate and potential candidate countries shall\nalso have the possibility to apply for the European Capital of\nCulture title in the framework of an open competition organised\nevery third year in parallel with the competitions in the two\nMember States, in accordance with the calendar in the\nannex.
\nDesignation:\nthe Commission shall, by means of implementing acts,\nofficially designate the European Capitals of Culture, having due\nregard to the recommendations of the European Panel. The\nCommission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and\nthe Committee of the Regions of its designation.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATION: the Commission's proposal has no direct budgetary\nimplication. The period covered by the proposal will coincide with\nseveral multi annual financial frameworks. For the 2014-2020\nfinancial framework, the financial aspects in relation to the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture, including the Melina Mercouri Prize,\nthe costs of the European panel of experts, the visibility of the\naction at European level and the human resources needed within the\nCommission to support the action, will be dealt with in the\nframework of the Creative Europe\nProgramme.
\nFor the years after\n2020, the legal and financial aspects of the European Capitals of\nCulture will be directly linked to the provisions included in the\nfuture multi annual financial frameworks, and on this basis, they\nshould also be dealt with in the framework of the respective Union\nprogrammes supporting culture.
\nThe current legal\nbase for the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) (Decision 1622/2006/EC)\nincludes a chronological list of Member States indicating the\norder in which they are entitled to host the event until\n2019.
\nThe preparation time\ninvolved for preparing each ECoC (currently 6 years) and the time\nneeded for the ordinary legislative procedure means that the\nCommission's proposal for a continuation of the ECoC should be\nadopted in 2012 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nThe present\nCommission Services Working Document summarises the main results of\nDG EAC's reflection on the future of the ECoC.
\nThe document offers\nin particular the results of an external evaluation of the\ninitiative, a public consultation on the effectiveness and impact\nof the initiative. It also outlines the main problems arising from\nthe implementation of the ECoC.
\nThe main challenge\nfor the ECoC action after 2019 will be twofold.
\nTo this end, the\nfollowing five problems encountered by cities under Decision\n1622/2006/EC will need to be tackled after 2019 :
\n1. the lack of\nstability in the governance structures and in the budgets: the\nmost common difficulty encountered by cities in their preparation\nphase hasbeen the effect of national and local politics on the\nbudgets, which need to be as stable as possible between the bidding\nand final stages, as well as the impact of politics on other\naspects of the organisation of the event. Political support is\nfundamental as most of the funds are public, and without it a city\ncannot have a credible bid, but at the same time the implementing\nteam needs its artistic independence to be respected in order to\nprotect the credibility of the event;
\n2. the limited\nEuropean dimension;
\n3. weak legacy\nplanning: several of the past Capitals acknowledged that in\nretrospect they had not done enough to forward plan for the period\nafter the event. Others stated that they have struggled or are\nstill struggling to fully exploit the potential legacies of the\nevent;
\n4. the lack of\nevaluation and comparable data: it is essential that the\nCapitals themselves put in place measurement mechanisms. Given the\nlack of these measures, disparities create a very fragmented view\non the impacts of the ECoC and it makes a real comparison between\ncities very difficult, which is harmful for the transfer of\nexperience;
\n5. the limited\nnumber of credible candidates in certain MS: the current rules\nfor the ECoC would make it politically very difficult for the panel\nto refuse to award the title to one city in each of the two MS\nconcerned every year. Luckily, so far there was always at least one\ncredible candidate in each competition, even those which did\nattract very few participants. However this may become a problem in\nthe future and selecting weak candidates for the title would\nwithout any doubt risk damaging the prestige and brand value of the\nECoC in the long term.
\nThe Commission\ndocument outlines proposals for each of the problem areas addressed\nwith the aim of proposing a more targeted action plan. An impact\nassessment is proposed for after 2019 which will include the\ndifferent options proposed as well as the one which the Commission\nintends to maintain in its proposal.
\nPURPOSE: to\nestablish a new Union action for the European Capitals of Culture\nfor the years 2020 to 2033.
\nPROPOSED ACT:\nDecision of the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture were created in 1985 as an\nintergovernmental initiative. They were transformed officially\ninto a European Union action in 1999 in order to make the\ninitiative more effective. New criteria and selection procedures\nwere established, a chronological list of Member States was drawn\nup indicating the order in which they were entitled to host the\ntitle, and a European panel of independent experts was created to\nassess the applications (Decision N° 1419/1999/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council).
\nThe rules were\nrenewed in 2006 in order to develop the effectiveness of the\ninitiative further by stimulating competition between the cities\nand fostering the quality of the bids. These new rules also\nintroduced various measures to accompany the cities in their\npreparation, including a monitoring process (Decision N° 1622/2006/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nDecision N°\n1622/2006/EC will end in 2019. The competition for the title is\ncurrently launched six years in advance in order to give the cities\nsufficient time for their preparation before the beginning of the\nyear of the title. Therefore, the new legal base for the\ncontinuation of the European Capitals of Culture should be adopted\nin 2013 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT:\non the basis of the results of the evaluations and of the public\nconsultation, three options were examined for the future of the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture after 2019:
\nThe various\ncultural, economic, social and environmental impacts were examined\nfor each option. The options were then assessed and ranked\naccording to their effectiveness in terms of achieving the\nobjectives of the European Capitals of Culture, their efficiency,\ntheir costs and administrative burden, their coherence with broader\nUnion political objectives and their synergies and\ncomplementarities with other Union objectives, and their\nfeasibility.
\nThe option with\nthe most positive overall assessment is option 3a, namely a new\nlegal base with a chronological list of Member States. This option\nscored higher than all other options and was ranked as the\npreferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 167 (5), first indent of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the aim of\nthis proposed Decision is to establish a Union action for the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033.
\nThe general\nobjectives of the action shall be the following:
\nMoreover:
\nAmendments and\nproposed improvements: at the same time, a number of\nimprovements are proposed in order to address the problems\nencountered with the current Decision and to help all cities to\nmake the most of the title. The main changes introduced by the new\nlegal base are the following:
\n(1) The criteria\nhave been made more explicit in order to give more guidance to\nthe candidate cities and more measurable in order to help the panel\nof experts in the selection and monitoring of cities.
\nSpecial attention\nwas paid to optimise the potential leverage effect of the\ninitiative on stimulating long-term local culture led development\nstrategies, to ensure the capacity of candidate cities to\nactually host the title, to boost the European dimension and\nvisibility of the cultural programmes, to ensure the high quality\nof the cultural and artistic content, to foster a large\nparticipation of the local populations and to try to ensure the\nstability of the budgets and the independence of the artistic\nteams.
\nThe criteria for\nthe assessment of the applications are divided into six categories:\n\"long-term strategy\", \"capacity to deliver\", \"cultural and artistic\ncontent\", \"European dimension\", \"outreach\" and \"management\":
\n(2) The\nconditionality of the Melina Mercouri Prize has been\nreinforced. Furthermore, the Prize will no longer be paid three\nmonths before the beginning of the year of the title, but during\nthe middle of the year itself in order to be certain that cities\nkeep to their commitments regarding in particular funding,\nprogramming and Union visibility.
\n(3) European\nPanel. It is stated explicitly that the European panel is not\nobliged to give a positive recommendation if none of the bids\nfulfils the criteria.
\n(4) The\naccompanying measures which support the cities during the\npreparation period after winning the title have been strengthened\nin order to provide further support and guidance to the cities. An\nadditional monitoring meeting has been introduced, visits to the\ncities by panel members will be more systematic and the exchange\nof experience and best practices between past, present and future\nCapitals, as well as candidate cities will be reinforced.
\n(5) New\nevaluation obligations were introduced for the cities\nthemselves in order to have a more comprehensive view of the\nimpacts of the title and to provide comparable data.
\n(6) Finally, it\nis proposed to open the action again to the participation of\ncandidate and potential candidate countries after 2019, as was\nthe case until 2010. The experience among others of Sibiu 2007 and\nIstanbul 2010 has shown that this can be beneficial both for these\ncountries and the Union.
\nIt should be noted\nthat cities in candidate and potential candidate countries shall\nalso have the possibility to apply for the European Capital of\nCulture title in the framework of an open competition organised\nevery third year in parallel with the competitions in the two\nMember States, in accordance with the calendar in the\nannex.
\nDesignation:\nthe Commission shall, by means of implementing acts,\nofficially designate the European Capitals of Culture, having due\nregard to the recommendations of the European Panel. The\nCommission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and\nthe Committee of the Regions of its designation.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATION: the Commission's proposal has no direct budgetary\nimplication. The period covered by the proposal will coincide with\nseveral multi annual financial frameworks. For the 2014-2020\nfinancial framework, the financial aspects in relation to the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture, including the Melina Mercouri Prize,\nthe costs of the European panel of experts, the visibility of the\naction at European level and the human resources needed within the\nCommission to support the action, will be dealt with in the\nframework of the Creative Europe\nProgramme.
\nFor the years after\n2020, the legal and financial aspects of the European Capitals of\nCulture will be directly linked to the provisions included in the\nfuture multi annual financial frameworks, and on this basis, they\nshould also be dealt with in the framework of the respective Union\nprogrammes supporting culture.
\nThe current legal\nbase for the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) (Decision 1622/2006/EC)\nincludes a chronological list of Member States indicating the\norder in which they are entitled to host the event until\n2019.
\nThe preparation time\ninvolved for preparing each ECoC (currently 6 years) and the time\nneeded for the ordinary legislative procedure means that the\nCommission's proposal for a continuation of the ECoC should be\nadopted in 2012 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nThe present\nCommission Services Working Document summarises the main results of\nDG EAC's reflection on the future of the ECoC.
\nThe document offers\nin particular the results of an external evaluation of the\ninitiative, a public consultation on the effectiveness and impact\nof the initiative. It also outlines the main problems arising from\nthe implementation of the ECoC.
\nThe main challenge\nfor the ECoC action after 2019 will be twofold.
\nTo this end, the\nfollowing five problems encountered by cities under Decision\n1622/2006/EC will need to be tackled after 2019 :
\n1. the lack of\nstability in the governance structures and in the budgets: the\nmost common difficulty encountered by cities in their preparation\nphase hasbeen the effect of national and local politics on the\nbudgets, which need to be as stable as possible between the bidding\nand final stages, as well as the impact of politics on other\naspects of the organisation of the event. Political support is\nfundamental as most of the funds are public, and without it a city\ncannot have a credible bid, but at the same time the implementing\nteam needs its artistic independence to be respected in order to\nprotect the credibility of the event;
\n2. the limited\nEuropean dimension;
\n3. weak legacy\nplanning: several of the past Capitals acknowledged that in\nretrospect they had not done enough to forward plan for the period\nafter the event. Others stated that they have struggled or are\nstill struggling to fully exploit the potential legacies of the\nevent;
\n4. the lack of\nevaluation and comparable data: it is essential that the\nCapitals themselves put in place measurement mechanisms. Given the\nlack of these measures, disparities create a very fragmented view\non the impacts of the ECoC and it makes a real comparison between\ncities very difficult, which is harmful for the transfer of\nexperience;
\n5. the limited\nnumber of credible candidates in certain MS: the current rules\nfor the ECoC would make it politically very difficult for the panel\nto refuse to award the title to one city in each of the two MS\nconcerned every year. Luckily, so far there was always at least one\ncredible candidate in each competition, even those which did\nattract very few participants. However this may become a problem in\nthe future and selecting weak candidates for the title would\nwithout any doubt risk damaging the prestige and brand value of the\nECoC in the long term.
\nThe Commission\ndocument outlines proposals for each of the problem areas addressed\nwith the aim of proposing a more targeted action plan. An impact\nassessment is proposed for after 2019 which will include the\ndifferent options proposed as well as the one which the Commission\nintends to maintain in its proposal.
\nThe current legal\nbase for the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) (Decision 1622/2006/EC)\nincludes a chronological list of Member States indicating the\norder in which they are entitled to host the event until\n2019.
\nThe preparation time\ninvolved for preparing each ECoC (currently 6 years) and the time\nneeded for the ordinary legislative procedure means that the\nCommission's proposal for a continuation of the ECoC should be\nadopted in 2012 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nThe present\nCommission Services Working Document summarises the main results of\nDG EAC's reflection on the future of the ECoC.
\nThe document offers\nin particular the results of an external evaluation of the\ninitiative, a public consultation on the effectiveness and impact\nof the initiative. It also outlines the main problems arising from\nthe implementation of the ECoC.
\nThe main challenge\nfor the ECoC action after 2019 will be twofold.
\nTo this end, the\nfollowing five problems encountered by cities under Decision\n1622/2006/EC will need to be tackled after 2019 :
\n1. the lack of\nstability in the governance structures and in the budgets: the\nmost common difficulty encountered by cities in their preparation\nphase hasbeen the effect of national and local politics on the\nbudgets, which need to be as stable as possible between the bidding\nand final stages, as well as the impact of politics on other\naspects of the organisation of the event. Political support is\nfundamental as most of the funds are public, and without it a city\ncannot have a credible bid, but at the same time the implementing\nteam needs its artistic independence to be respected in order to\nprotect the credibility of the event;
\n2. the limited\nEuropean dimension;
\n3. weak legacy\nplanning: several of the past Capitals acknowledged that in\nretrospect they had not done enough to forward plan for the period\nafter the event. Others stated that they have struggled or are\nstill struggling to fully exploit the potential legacies of the\nevent;
\n4. the lack of\nevaluation and comparable data: it is essential that the\nCapitals themselves put in place measurement mechanisms. Given the\nlack of these measures, disparities create a very fragmented view\non the impacts of the ECoC and it makes a real comparison between\ncities very difficult, which is harmful for the transfer of\nexperience;
\n5. the limited\nnumber of credible candidates in certain MS: the current rules\nfor the ECoC would make it politically very difficult for the panel\nto refuse to award the title to one city in each of the two MS\nconcerned every year. Luckily, so far there was always at least one\ncredible candidate in each competition, even those which did\nattract very few participants. However this may become a problem in\nthe future and selecting weak candidates for the title would\nwithout any doubt risk damaging the prestige and brand value of the\nECoC in the long term.
\nThe Commission\ndocument outlines proposals for each of the problem areas addressed\nwith the aim of proposing a more targeted action plan. An impact\nassessment is proposed for after 2019 which will include the\ndifferent options proposed as well as the one which the Commission\nintends to maintain in its proposal.
\nThe current legal\nbase for the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) (Decision 1622/2006/EC)\nincludes a chronological list of Member States indicating the\norder in which they are entitled to host the event until\n2019.
\nThe preparation time\ninvolved for preparing each ECoC (currently 6 years) and the time\nneeded for the ordinary legislative procedure means that the\nCommission's proposal for a continuation of the ECoC should be\nadopted in 2012 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nThe present\nCommission Services Working Document summarises the main results of\nDG EAC's reflection on the future of the ECoC.
\nThe document offers\nin particular the results of an external evaluation of the\ninitiative, a public consultation on the effectiveness and impact\nof the initiative. It also outlines the main problems arising from\nthe implementation of the ECoC.
\nThe main challenge\nfor the ECoC action after 2019 will be twofold.
\nTo this end, the\nfollowing five problems encountered by cities under Decision\n1622/2006/EC will need to be tackled after 2019 :
\n1. the lack of\nstability in the governance structures and in the budgets: the\nmost common difficulty encountered by cities in their preparation\nphase hasbeen the effect of national and local politics on the\nbudgets, which need to be as stable as possible between the bidding\nand final stages, as well as the impact of politics on other\naspects of the organisation of the event. Political support is\nfundamental as most of the funds are public, and without it a city\ncannot have a credible bid, but at the same time the implementing\nteam needs its artistic independence to be respected in order to\nprotect the credibility of the event;
\n2. the limited\nEuropean dimension;
\n3. weak legacy\nplanning: several of the past Capitals acknowledged that in\nretrospect they had not done enough to forward plan for the period\nafter the event. Others stated that they have struggled or are\nstill struggling to fully exploit the potential legacies of the\nevent;
\n4. the lack of\nevaluation and comparable data: it is essential that the\nCapitals themselves put in place measurement mechanisms. Given the\nlack of these measures, disparities create a very fragmented view\non the impacts of the ECoC and it makes a real comparison between\ncities very difficult, which is harmful for the transfer of\nexperience;
\n5. the limited\nnumber of credible candidates in certain MS: the current rules\nfor the ECoC would make it politically very difficult for the panel\nto refuse to award the title to one city in each of the two MS\nconcerned every year. Luckily, so far there was always at least one\ncredible candidate in each competition, even those which did\nattract very few participants. However this may become a problem in\nthe future and selecting weak candidates for the title would\nwithout any doubt risk damaging the prestige and brand value of the\nECoC in the long term.
\nThe Commission\ndocument outlines proposals for each of the problem areas addressed\nwith the aim of proposing a more targeted action plan. An impact\nassessment is proposed for after 2019 which will include the\ndifferent options proposed as well as the one which the Commission\nintends to maintain in its proposal.
\nPURPOSE: to\nestablish a new Union action for the European Capitals of Culture\nfor the years 2020 to 2033.
\nPROPOSED ACT:\nDecision of the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture were created in 1985 as an\nintergovernmental initiative. They were transformed officially\ninto a European Union action in 1999 in order to make the\ninitiative more effective. New criteria and selection procedures\nwere established, a chronological list of Member States was drawn\nup indicating the order in which they were entitled to host the\ntitle, and a European panel of independent experts was created to\nassess the applications (Decision N° 1419/1999/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council).
\nThe rules were\nrenewed in 2006 in order to develop the effectiveness of the\ninitiative further by stimulating competition between the cities\nand fostering the quality of the bids. These new rules also\nintroduced various measures to accompany the cities in their\npreparation, including a monitoring process (Decision N° 1622/2006/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nDecision N°\n1622/2006/EC will end in 2019. The competition for the title is\ncurrently launched six years in advance in order to give the cities\nsufficient time for their preparation before the beginning of the\nyear of the title. Therefore, the new legal base for the\ncontinuation of the European Capitals of Culture should be adopted\nin 2013 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT:\non the basis of the results of the evaluations and of the public\nconsultation, three options were examined for the future of the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture after 2019:
\nThe various\ncultural, economic, social and environmental impacts were examined\nfor each option. The options were then assessed and ranked\naccording to their effectiveness in terms of achieving the\nobjectives of the European Capitals of Culture, their efficiency,\ntheir costs and administrative burden, their coherence with broader\nUnion political objectives and their synergies and\ncomplementarities with other Union objectives, and their\nfeasibility.
\nThe option with\nthe most positive overall assessment is option 3a, namely a new\nlegal base with a chronological list of Member States. This option\nscored higher than all other options and was ranked as the\npreferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 167 (5), first indent of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the aim of\nthis proposed Decision is to establish a Union action for the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033.
\nThe general\nobjectives of the action shall be the following:
\nMoreover:
\nAmendments and\nproposed improvements: at the same time, a number of\nimprovements are proposed in order to address the problems\nencountered with the current Decision and to help all cities to\nmake the most of the title. The main changes introduced by the new\nlegal base are the following:
\n(1) The criteria\nhave been made more explicit in order to give more guidance to\nthe candidate cities and more measurable in order to help the panel\nof experts in the selection and monitoring of cities.
\nSpecial attention\nwas paid to optimise the potential leverage effect of the\ninitiative on stimulating long-term local culture led development\nstrategies, to ensure the capacity of candidate cities to\nactually host the title, to boost the European dimension and\nvisibility of the cultural programmes, to ensure the high quality\nof the cultural and artistic content, to foster a large\nparticipation of the local populations and to try to ensure the\nstability of the budgets and the independence of the artistic\nteams.
\nThe criteria for\nthe assessment of the applications are divided into six categories:\n\"long-term strategy\", \"capacity to deliver\", \"cultural and artistic\ncontent\", \"European dimension\", \"outreach\" and \"management\":
\n(2) The\nconditionality of the Melina Mercouri Prize has been\nreinforced. Furthermore, the Prize will no longer be paid three\nmonths before the beginning of the year of the title, but during\nthe middle of the year itself in order to be certain that cities\nkeep to their commitments regarding in particular funding,\nprogramming and Union visibility.
\n(3) European\nPanel. It is stated explicitly that the European panel is not\nobliged to give a positive recommendation if none of the bids\nfulfils the criteria.
\n(4) The\naccompanying measures which support the cities during the\npreparation period after winning the title have been strengthened\nin order to provide further support and guidance to the cities. An\nadditional monitoring meeting has been introduced, visits to the\ncities by panel members will be more systematic and the exchange\nof experience and best practices between past, present and future\nCapitals, as well as candidate cities will be reinforced.
\n(5) New\nevaluation obligations were introduced for the cities\nthemselves in order to have a more comprehensive view of the\nimpacts of the title and to provide comparable data.
\n(6) Finally, it\nis proposed to open the action again to the participation of\ncandidate and potential candidate countries after 2019, as was\nthe case until 2010. The experience among others of Sibiu 2007 and\nIstanbul 2010 has shown that this can be beneficial both for these\ncountries and the Union.
\nIt should be noted\nthat cities in candidate and potential candidate countries shall\nalso have the possibility to apply for the European Capital of\nCulture title in the framework of an open competition organised\nevery third year in parallel with the competitions in the two\nMember States, in accordance with the calendar in the\nannex.
\nDesignation:\nthe Commission shall, by means of implementing acts,\nofficially designate the European Capitals of Culture, having due\nregard to the recommendations of the European Panel. The\nCommission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and\nthe Committee of the Regions of its designation.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATION: the Commission's proposal has no direct budgetary\nimplication. The period covered by the proposal will coincide with\nseveral multi annual financial frameworks. For the 2014-2020\nfinancial framework, the financial aspects in relation to the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture, including the Melina Mercouri Prize,\nthe costs of the European panel of experts, the visibility of the\naction at European level and the human resources needed within the\nCommission to support the action, will be dealt with in the\nframework of the Creative Europe\nProgramme.
\nFor the years after\n2020, the legal and financial aspects of the European Capitals of\nCulture will be directly linked to the provisions included in the\nfuture multi annual financial frameworks, and on this basis, they\nshould also be dealt with in the framework of the respective Union\nprogrammes supporting culture.
\nPURPOSE: to\nestablish a new Union action for the European Capitals of Culture\nfor the years 2020 to 2033.
\nPROPOSED ACT:\nDecision of the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture were created in 1985 as an\nintergovernmental initiative. They were transformed officially\ninto a European Union action in 1999 in order to make the\ninitiative more effective. New criteria and selection procedures\nwere established, a chronological list of Member States was drawn\nup indicating the order in which they were entitled to host the\ntitle, and a European panel of independent experts was created to\nassess the applications (Decision N° 1419/1999/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council).
\nThe rules were\nrenewed in 2006 in order to develop the effectiveness of the\ninitiative further by stimulating competition between the cities\nand fostering the quality of the bids. These new rules also\nintroduced various measures to accompany the cities in their\npreparation, including a monitoring process (Decision N° 1622/2006/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nDecision N°\n1622/2006/EC will end in 2019. The competition for the title is\ncurrently launched six years in advance in order to give the cities\nsufficient time for their preparation before the beginning of the\nyear of the title. Therefore, the new legal base for the\ncontinuation of the European Capitals of Culture should be adopted\nin 2013 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT:\non the basis of the results of the evaluations and of the public\nconsultation, three options were examined for the future of the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture after 2019:
\nThe various\ncultural, economic, social and environmental impacts were examined\nfor each option. The options were then assessed and ranked\naccording to their effectiveness in terms of achieving the\nobjectives of the European Capitals of Culture, their efficiency,\ntheir costs and administrative burden, their coherence with broader\nUnion political objectives and their synergies and\ncomplementarities with other Union objectives, and their\nfeasibility.
\nThe option with\nthe most positive overall assessment is option 3a, namely a new\nlegal base with a chronological list of Member States. This option\nscored higher than all other options and was ranked as the\npreferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 167 (5), first indent of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the aim of\nthis proposed Decision is to establish a Union action for the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033.
\nThe general\nobjectives of the action shall be the following:
\nMoreover:
\nAmendments and\nproposed improvements: at the same time, a number of\nimprovements are proposed in order to address the problems\nencountered with the current Decision and to help all cities to\nmake the most of the title. The main changes introduced by the new\nlegal base are the following:
\n(1) The criteria\nhave been made more explicit in order to give more guidance to\nthe candidate cities and more measurable in order to help the panel\nof experts in the selection and monitoring of cities.
\nSpecial attention\nwas paid to optimise the potential leverage effect of the\ninitiative on stimulating long-term local culture led development\nstrategies, to ensure the capacity of candidate cities to\nactually host the title, to boost the European dimension and\nvisibility of the cultural programmes, to ensure the high quality\nof the cultural and artistic content, to foster a large\nparticipation of the local populations and to try to ensure the\nstability of the budgets and the independence of the artistic\nteams.
\nThe criteria for\nthe assessment of the applications are divided into six categories:\n\"long-term strategy\", \"capacity to deliver\", \"cultural and artistic\ncontent\", \"European dimension\", \"outreach\" and \"management\":
\n(2) The\nconditionality of the Melina Mercouri Prize has been\nreinforced. Furthermore, the Prize will no longer be paid three\nmonths before the beginning of the year of the title, but during\nthe middle of the year itself in order to be certain that cities\nkeep to their commitments regarding in particular funding,\nprogramming and Union visibility.
\n(3) European\nPanel. It is stated explicitly that the European panel is not\nobliged to give a positive recommendation if none of the bids\nfulfils the criteria.
\n(4) The\naccompanying measures which support the cities during the\npreparation period after winning the title have been strengthened\nin order to provide further support and guidance to the cities. An\nadditional monitoring meeting has been introduced, visits to the\ncities by panel members will be more systematic and the exchange\nof experience and best practices between past, present and future\nCapitals, as well as candidate cities will be reinforced.
\n(5) New\nevaluation obligations were introduced for the cities\nthemselves in order to have a more comprehensive view of the\nimpacts of the title and to provide comparable data.
\n(6) Finally, it\nis proposed to open the action again to the participation of\ncandidate and potential candidate countries after 2019, as was\nthe case until 2010. The experience among others of Sibiu 2007 and\nIstanbul 2010 has shown that this can be beneficial both for these\ncountries and the Union.
\nIt should be noted\nthat cities in candidate and potential candidate countries shall\nalso have the possibility to apply for the European Capital of\nCulture title in the framework of an open competition organised\nevery third year in parallel with the competitions in the two\nMember States, in accordance with the calendar in the\nannex.
\nDesignation:\nthe Commission shall, by means of implementing acts,\nofficially designate the European Capitals of Culture, having due\nregard to the recommendations of the European Panel. The\nCommission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and\nthe Committee of the Regions of its designation.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATION: the Commission's proposal has no direct budgetary\nimplication. The period covered by the proposal will coincide with\nseveral multi annual financial frameworks. For the 2014-2020\nfinancial framework, the financial aspects in relation to the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture, including the Melina Mercouri Prize,\nthe costs of the European panel of experts, the visibility of the\naction at European level and the human resources needed within the\nCommission to support the action, will be dealt with in the\nframework of the Creative Europe\nProgramme.
\nFor the years after\n2020, the legal and financial aspects of the European Capitals of\nCulture will be directly linked to the provisions included in the\nfuture multi annual financial frameworks, and on this basis, they\nshould also be dealt with in the framework of the respective Union\nprogrammes supporting culture.
\nPURPOSE: to\nestablish a new Union action for the European Capitals of Culture\nfor the years 2020 to 2033.
\nPROPOSED ACT:\nDecision of the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture were created in 1985 as an\nintergovernmental initiative. They were transformed officially\ninto a European Union action in 1999 in order to make the\ninitiative more effective. New criteria and selection procedures\nwere established, a chronological list of Member States was drawn\nup indicating the order in which they were entitled to host the\ntitle, and a European panel of independent experts was created to\nassess the applications (Decision N° 1419/1999/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council).
\nThe rules were\nrenewed in 2006 in order to develop the effectiveness of the\ninitiative further by stimulating competition between the cities\nand fostering the quality of the bids. These new rules also\nintroduced various measures to accompany the cities in their\npreparation, including a monitoring process (Decision N° 1622/2006/EC\nof the European Parliament and of the Council.
\nDecision N°\n1622/2006/EC will end in 2019. The competition for the title is\ncurrently launched six years in advance in order to give the cities\nsufficient time for their preparation before the beginning of the\nyear of the title. Therefore, the new legal base for the\ncontinuation of the European Capitals of Culture should be adopted\nin 2013 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT:\non the basis of the results of the evaluations and of the public\nconsultation, three options were examined for the future of the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture after 2019:
\nThe various\ncultural, economic, social and environmental impacts were examined\nfor each option. The options were then assessed and ranked\naccording to their effectiveness in terms of achieving the\nobjectives of the European Capitals of Culture, their efficiency,\ntheir costs and administrative burden, their coherence with broader\nUnion political objectives and their synergies and\ncomplementarities with other Union objectives, and their\nfeasibility.
\nThe option with\nthe most positive overall assessment is option 3a, namely a new\nlegal base with a chronological list of Member States. This option\nscored higher than all other options and was ranked as the\npreferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 167 (5), first indent of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the aim of\nthis proposed Decision is to establish a Union action for the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033.
\nThe general\nobjectives of the action shall be the following:
\nMoreover:
\nAmendments and\nproposed improvements: at the same time, a number of\nimprovements are proposed in order to address the problems\nencountered with the current Decision and to help all cities to\nmake the most of the title. The main changes introduced by the new\nlegal base are the following:
\n(1) The criteria\nhave been made more explicit in order to give more guidance to\nthe candidate cities and more measurable in order to help the panel\nof experts in the selection and monitoring of cities.
\nSpecial attention\nwas paid to optimise the potential leverage effect of the\ninitiative on stimulating long-term local culture led development\nstrategies, to ensure the capacity of candidate cities to\nactually host the title, to boost the European dimension and\nvisibility of the cultural programmes, to ensure the high quality\nof the cultural and artistic content, to foster a large\nparticipation of the local populations and to try to ensure the\nstability of the budgets and the independence of the artistic\nteams.
\nThe criteria for\nthe assessment of the applications are divided into six categories:\n\"long-term strategy\", \"capacity to deliver\", \"cultural and artistic\ncontent\", \"European dimension\", \"outreach\" and \"management\":
\n(2) The\nconditionality of the Melina Mercouri Prize has been\nreinforced. Furthermore, the Prize will no longer be paid three\nmonths before the beginning of the year of the title, but during\nthe middle of the year itself in order to be certain that cities\nkeep to their commitments regarding in particular funding,\nprogramming and Union visibility.
\n(3) European\nPanel. It is stated explicitly that the European panel is not\nobliged to give a positive recommendation if none of the bids\nfulfils the criteria.
\n(4) The\naccompanying measures which support the cities during the\npreparation period after winning the title have been strengthened\nin order to provide further support and guidance to the cities. An\nadditional monitoring meeting has been introduced, visits to the\ncities by panel members will be more systematic and the exchange\nof experience and best practices between past, present and future\nCapitals, as well as candidate cities will be reinforced.
\n(5) New\nevaluation obligations were introduced for the cities\nthemselves in order to have a more comprehensive view of the\nimpacts of the title and to provide comparable data.
\n(6) Finally, it\nis proposed to open the action again to the participation of\ncandidate and potential candidate countries after 2019, as was\nthe case until 2010. The experience among others of Sibiu 2007 and\nIstanbul 2010 has shown that this can be beneficial both for these\ncountries and the Union.
\nIt should be noted\nthat cities in candidate and potential candidate countries shall\nalso have the possibility to apply for the European Capital of\nCulture title in the framework of an open competition organised\nevery third year in parallel with the competitions in the two\nMember States, in accordance with the calendar in the\nannex.
\nDesignation:\nthe Commission shall, by means of implementing acts,\nofficially designate the European Capitals of Culture, having due\nregard to the recommendations of the European Panel. The\nCommission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and\nthe Committee of the Regions of its designation.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATION: the Commission's proposal has no direct budgetary\nimplication. The period covered by the proposal will coincide with\nseveral multi annual financial frameworks. For the 2014-2020\nfinancial framework, the financial aspects in relation to the\nEuropean Capitals of Culture, including the Melina Mercouri Prize,\nthe costs of the European panel of experts, the visibility of the\naction at European level and the human resources needed within the\nCommission to support the action, will be dealt with in the\nframework of the Creative Europe\nProgramme.
\nFor the years after\n2020, the legal and financial aspects of the European Capitals of\nCulture will be directly linked to the provisions included in the\nfuture multi annual financial frameworks, and on this basis, they\nshould also be dealt with in the framework of the respective Union\nprogrammes supporting culture.
\nThe current legal\nbase for the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) (Decision 1622/2006/EC)\nincludes a chronological list of Member States indicating the\norder in which they are entitled to host the event until\n2019.
\nThe preparation time\ninvolved for preparing each ECoC (currently 6 years) and the time\nneeded for the ordinary legislative procedure means that the\nCommission's proposal for a continuation of the ECoC should be\nadopted in 2012 in order to ensure a smooth transition in 2020.
\nThe present\nCommission Services Working Document summarises the main results of\nDG EAC's reflection on the future of the ECoC.
\nThe document offers\nin particular the results of an external evaluation of the\ninitiative, a public consultation on the effectiveness and impact\nof the initiative. It also outlines the main problems arising from\nthe implementation of the ECoC.
\nThe main challenge\nfor the ECoC action after 2019 will be twofold.
\nTo this end, the\nfollowing five problems encountered by cities under Decision\n1622/2006/EC will need to be tackled after 2019 :
\n1. the lack of\nstability in the governance structures and in the budgets: the\nmost common difficulty encountered by cities in their preparation\nphase hasbeen the effect of national and local politics on the\nbudgets, which need to be as stable as possible between the bidding\nand final stages, as well as the impact of politics on other\naspects of the organisation of the event. Political support is\nfundamental as most of the funds are public, and without it a city\ncannot have a credible bid, but at the same time the implementing\nteam needs its artistic independence to be respected in order to\nprotect the credibility of the event;
\n2. the limited\nEuropean dimension;
\n3. weak legacy\nplanning: several of the past Capitals acknowledged that in\nretrospect they had not done enough to forward plan for the period\nafter the event. Others stated that they have struggled or are\nstill struggling to fully exploit the potential legacies of the\nevent;
\n4. the lack of\nevaluation and comparable data: it is essential that the\nCapitals themselves put in place measurement mechanisms. Given the\nlack of these measures, disparities create a very fragmented view\non the impacts of the ECoC and it makes a real comparison between\ncities very difficult, which is harmful for the transfer of\nexperience;
\n5. the limited\nnumber of credible candidates in certain MS: the current rules\nfor the ECoC would make it politically very difficult for the panel\nto refuse to award the title to one city in each of the two MS\nconcerned every year. Luckily, so far there was always at least one\ncredible candidate in each competition, even those which did\nattract very few participants. However this may become a problem in\nthe future and selecting weak candidates for the title would\nwithout any doubt risk damaging the prestige and brand value of the\nECoC in the long term.
\nThe Commission\ndocument outlines proposals for each of the problem areas addressed\nwith the aim of proposing a more targeted action plan. An impact\nassessment is proposed for after 2019 which will include the\ndifferent options proposed as well as the one which the Commission\nintends to maintain in its proposal.
\nPURPOSE: to propose a general framework to\nensure the modernisation of higher education systems in\nEurope.
\nBACKGROUND: the Europe 2020 strategy, its Flagship\nInitiatives and the new Integrated Guidelines put knowledge at the\nheart of the Union’s efforts for achieving smart, sustainable\nand inclusive growth; the Commission’s proposal for the\nMultiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 supports this strategy\nwith a significant increase in the budget devoted to investment in\neducation, research and innovation. This is because education, and\nin particular higher education and its links with research and\ninnovation, plays a crucial role in individual and societal\nadvancement, and in providing the highly skilled human capital and\nthe articulate citizens that Europe needs to create jobs, economic\ngrowth and prosperity. Higher education institutions are thus crucial partners in delivering the European\nUnion's strategy to drive forward and maintain growth.
\nDespite a challenging employment climate in the wake\nof the economic crisis, higher education represents a sound choice.\nYet, the potential of European higher education institutions to\nfulfil their role in society and contribute to Europe's prosperity\nremains underexploited. While 35% of all jobs in the EU will\nrequire high-level qualifications by 2020, only 26% of the\nworkforce currently has a higher education qualification. The\nEU still lags behind in the share of researchers in the total\nlabour force: 6 per 100, compared to 9 in the US and 11 in\nJapan.
\nThe main responsibility for delivering reforms in\nhigher education rests with Member States and education\ninstitutions themselves. However, the Bologna Process, the EU\nAgenda for the modernisation of universities and the creation of\nthe European Research Area show that the challenges and policy\nresponses transcend national borders.
\nCONTENT: in order to maximise the contribution of\nEurope's higher education systems to smart, sustainable and\ninclusive growth, reforms are needed in key areas:
\nThe Communication identifies key policy issues\nfor Member States and higher education institutions seeking to\nmaximise their contribution to Europe’s growth and jobs. It\nalso presents specific actions that the EU will take,\nbringing its added value to support the modernisation efforts of\npublic authorities and institutions.
\nMeasures proposed at EU level: the EU should make better use of the policy tools\navailable in the field of higher education, in particular the\nEuropean cooperation framework in education and training 'ET2020'.\nThe Commission can support transparency and excellence through\nevidence-based policy analysis. It can support mobility\nof learners, teachers and researchers. It can support\nstrategic cooperation between European institutions, and, in\na context of increasing global competition for talent, provide a\ncommon framework to support the interaction of European higher\neducation with the rest of the world.
\nAs concerns funding, the Multiannual Financial\nFramework 2014-2020 will offer an\nopportunity to ensure that EU instruments and policies –\nparticularly education, research, employment, entrepreneurship,\nmigration and Cohesion – work together effectively to support\nthe modernisation of higher education. The Commission, in focussing\nEU spending closely on the priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy\nand on the key drivers of growth and jobs, has proposed a\nsubstantial increase in the budgets for education programmes and\nfor research.
\nThe kep policy issues may be summarised as\nfollows:
\n(1) Improving data: the\nEuropean Commission will:
\n(2) Promoting mobility:\nthe European Commission will:
\n(3) Supporting the internationalisation of European\nhigher education: the Commission\nwill:
\n(4) Strengthening the long-term impact and\ncomplementarity of EU funding: EU\ninvestment in higher education is proposed to be channelled through\nthree main funding mechanisms of the 2014-2020 MFF:
\n1. Education Europe: the single programme for\neducation training and youth: to\ncontribute to the Europe 2020 goals, the Commission will propose a\nsingle programme for education, training and youth, with simplified\nentry points and management. The programme will focus spending on\npriorities such as quality and innovation in teaching, enhanced\nlinks with the world of work, and better recognition of skills\ngained through mobility. It will contribute to the Bologna 20%\nmobility target.
\n2. Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research\nand Innovation: the new Horizon\n2020 programme will cover all relevant EU research and innovation\nfunding currently provided through the Seventh Research Framework\nProgramme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and other\nEU innovation initiatives, such as the EIT.
\n3. Cohesion Policy instruments: in the 2007-2013 funding period, around €72.5\nbillion EU cohesion funding will be spent on education and\ntraining, and €60 billion on research and innovation. A\nstrategic use of the EU's Cohesion Policy can significantly\nenhance the social, economic and territorial contribution of higher\neducation. The European Regional Development Fund can invest\nin building or renovating higher education institutions, providing\nequipment and promoting digitalisation, and support incubators,\nspin-offs and other forms of university-business partnerships.\nThe European Social Fund (ESF) can finance modernisation\nprocesses, increase participation and attainment particularly for\nstudents from under-represented backgrounds, enhance educational\ncontent and the match between programmes and labour market\n demand.
\nThe MFF proposal for 2014-2020 allocates a minimum of\n€84 billion to the ESF, of which over €40 billion\ncould be expected, based upon past experience, to be made available\nfor education and training.
\nThe Committee on Culture and Education adopted the\nown-initiative report by László TŐKÉS\n(EPP, RO) on modernising Europe’s higher education\nsystems.
\nThe report recalls that the Europe 2020 Strategy\nstates that, by 2020, 40 % of 30-34-year-olds in Europe should\ncomplete higher education or equivalent studies. However, that in\n2010 only 26 % of the workforce in the EU had attained this\nqualification level.
\nMembers stressed that in the EU in 2010,\nunemployment of tertiary education graduates stood at 5.4 %\ncompared with more than 15 % among those with only lower secondary\neducation showing that it is taking longer and longer for the\nmajority of those graduates to find secure employment. It is also\nnoted that 75 of the top 200 universities worldwide are to be found\nin the EU Member States but only 200 of Europe’s 4 000 higher\neducation institutions rank among the top 500 in the world. This\nsituation should be improved. In this regard, the creation of a\nEuropean Higher Education Area (EHEA) is a significant development\nthat could contribute to European integration while respecting the\ndiversity of education in the various EU Member States and the\ngoals of higher education in relation to society.
\nThe changing role of higher education\ninstitutions: Members call on higher\neducation institutions to integrate lifelong learning into their\ncurricula, with the help of economic assistance and different study\nprogrammes, and to adapt to a student base that includes adults,\nelderly people, non-traditional learners, full-time students who\nhave to work while studying and people with disabilities. They\ntherefore call on higher education institutions to implement\nprogrammes aimed at removing existing obstacles and\nbarriers.
\nHigher education institutions should take into account\nthe needs of professionals who need, as lifelong learners, to\nupdate and broaden their skills at regular intervals, including\nthrough the organisation and fine-tuning of update courses. \nThey are called upon to uphold the spirit of autonomy in teaching\nand research.
\nThe report calls on Member States, regional and local\ngovernments and higher education institutions to strengthen –\ninter alia through the development of adequate financial support\nschemes – their efforts to widen equitable access to\nstudies for all, from early childhood to higher education,\nirrespective of sex, ethnicity, language, religion, disability or\nsocial background, and to fight all forms of discrimination,\nrecognising multiculturalism and multilingualism, including sign\nlanguages, as fundamental values of the EU that need to be\nfostered. Student participation in sports should also be\nencouraged.
\nMoreover, the education institutions\nshould:
\nInformation about higher education\ninstitutions: Members propose the\nintroduction of clear and uniform criteria for the creation of\npan-European rankings of higher education institutions, thereby\nallowing prospective students to make an informed choice of\nuniversity and providing comprehensive information about the\nrespective universities. They support the Commission’s\ninitiative to launch, in cooperation with all the institutions,\nstudents and other stakeholders involved, a multi-dimensional tool\nfor the differentiated classification and ranking of higher\neducation institutions based on characteristics such as a long\ntradition of providing higher education in Europe, the quality of\nteaching, student support (i.e. scholarships, counselling,\nhousing), physical and info-communication accessibility, regional\nengagement and knowledge transfer. On the other hand, they oppose\nthe establishment of a classification of higher education\ninstitutions on the basis of non-homogeneous performance indicators\nwhich do not take into account the diversity of educational\npathways, programmes and linguistic diversity in European\nuniversities.
\nFunding higher education systems: the report stresses that higher education is a\npublic good that fosters culture, diversity, democratic values\nand personal development and prepares students to become active\ncitizens who will support European cohesion. It insists once again\nthat Member States should reach the target of investing 2 % of\nGDP in education. Members consider that mainly public and also\nprivate funding is of primary importance for the modernisation of\nhigher education systems and emphasise that investment in higher\neducation in Europe is crucial to overcoming the current economic\ncrisis.
\nThe Member States and higher education institutions\nare called upon to expand scholarship and funding programmes for\nthose institutions and to develop innovative methods of funding\nmechanisms which can contribute to more efficient functioning of\nhigher education institutions, complement public funding without\nincreasing the pressure on households and make higher education\naccessible to all. Members express regret at the significant\ncutbacks to education budgets in several Member States, as well\nas the constant increase in education fees, which is leading to a\nsignificant increase in the number of vulnerable\nstudents.
\nAs EU level, Members call for the EU budget for\n2014-2020 under the European Regional Development Fund and the\nEuropean Social Fund to include spending on higher education\nrelated to investments in university infrastructure and academic\nstaff.
\nThe transition from higher education to the labour\nmarket: Members call on higher\neducation institutions to adapt to new challenges by creating new\nfields of study that reflect the needs of the labour market, taking\ninto account the development of science and technology by\nmaintaining an appropriate balance between theoretical knowledge\nand practical skills. They urge the Commission to present its\nproposal for a quality framework for\ntraineeships.
\nThe report calls on higher education institutions and\ninstitutions responsible for the education sector at regional,\nnational and European level to monitor trends in labour market\nrequirements in order to reflect more accurately future needs in\nterms of learning opportunities. There is a need to track\ngraduates’ employment outcomes to measure how well higher\neducation responds to labour market demands. Members welcome the\nCommission’s commitment to improving the availability of such\ndata, with the principal aim of providing students with the\nnecessary information to guide their study choices, while at the\nsame time giving higher education and research institutions the\nnecessary information to identify and, subsequently, develop\nprogrammes of study covering both general knowledge and specific\nprofessional skills through lifelong learning.
\nOther measures are called for, such as:
\nGender balance in higher education: faced with existing gender disparities in European\neducation systems, Members call for measures to combat persistent\nstereotypes in training. Recalling that women are more often\noverqualified and underpaid for their jobs and often end up\nunemployed or in casual jobs, the report calls for measures to\ncombat this situation.
\nIt also suggests:
\nEngaged higher education institutions: Members encourage higher education institutions to\nengage more intensively with their regions and establish\ndynamic collaborative actions with regional governments, local\ncouncils, public bodies, non-governmental organisations and small\nand medium-sized enterprises to enhance regional development;\npoints out that this should also strengthen interaction between\nhigher education institutions and employers.
\nThey call specifically on the Member States and their\ncentral and regional authorities, the Commission and the business\nworld to:
\nMembers call for a commitment to more flexible and\ninnovative learning approaches and to delivery methods which\nare always centred on students' needs.
\nThe report notes the need for cross-border higher\neducation institutions and enterprises to cooperate in practical\nprogrammes and in shaping students’ future careers by\nidentifying the specific development pathways, expectations and\nchallenges that will await them in the labour market. It also\nemphasises the usefulness of developing mechanisms and management\nstrategies that facilitate the transfer of innovative ideas and\nresearch results into society and business.
\nMembers reaffirm the value of democratic\ngovernance as a fundamental way to ensure academic freedom\nand promote active participation by all actors in the life of a\nhigher education institution. It also emphasises that the principle\nof democracy and self-governance among higher education\ninstitutions and their staff and students should be respected and\nmaintained in all collaborative projects. It emphasises the\nimportance of cooperation between higher education institutions and\nNGOs and the European voluntary sector, in order to promote active\ncitizenship and involve students in active participation through\nworking for the NGO sector.
\nMember States are called upon to support and\nencourage:
\nMutual recognition of qualifications: the report calls on the Member States and these\ninstitutions to develop clear, integrated pathways that allow\nlearners to progress from other types of education into higher\neducation and to change between different tracks and types of\ninstitutions. It emphasises, however, the need to maintain the\ndiversity of educational pathways and programmes, teaching\nmethods and university systems in the EU. Members take the view\nthat it is consequently necessary to develop a national\nqualification framework, while at the same time promoting the\nmutual recognition of degrees and qualifications across all Member\nStates.
\nAll EU countries are urged to implement the\nnational qualification frameworks linked to the EHEA\nQualifications Framework and to develop, and provide financial\nsupport for, mutual recognition. In this context, Members stress\nthe need to strengthen student mobility through Erasmus and for the\nthe home university to recognise qualifications acquired while\nstudying at other universities.
\nMembers support the Commission’s proposal to\nimprove recognition of study undertaken abroad.
\nEnhancing mobility in the European Higher Education\nArea (EHEA) and beyond: Members\nstress that greater coordination among Member States in the field\nof higher education – including through strong financial and\npolitical support for agreements on common core curricula and\nwell-defined learning outcomes – is a prerequisite for\nachieving the goals of employability and growth in Europe. They\npoint out the need for collaboration between the EHEA and the\nEuropean Research Area (ERA) as a means to support university\nresearch programmes in both science and the humanities.
\nThe report calls for the mobility at staff and\nstudent level be strengthened, in particular with the countries\nwhich are covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) or\nwhich directly border the EU. It calls on the Commission to propose\nthe creation of Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardi da Vinci\nprogrammes, aimed at promoting transnational mobility among\nstudents from both sides of the Mediterranean. Members call for the\nopening of mobility, exchange, research and work experience\nprogrammes to students from countries affiliated to the Eastern\nPartnership. They emphasise the need for the higher education\nsystem in each Member State to provide higher-quality teaching so\nthat increased mobility opportunities for students do not go hand\nin hand with a worsening of the ‘brain drain’,\nwhich is now a genuine social problem in some Member\nStates.
\nLastly, Members call for:
\nThe Committee on Culture and Education adopted the\nown-initiative report by László TŐKÉS\n(EPP, RO) on modernising Europe’s higher education\nsystems.
\nThe report recalls that the Europe 2020 Strategy\nstates that, by 2020, 40 % of 30-34-year-olds in Europe should\ncomplete higher education or equivalent studies. However, that in\n2010 only 26 % of the workforce in the EU had attained this\nqualification level.
\nMembers stressed that in the EU in 2010,\nunemployment of tertiary education graduates stood at 5.4 %\ncompared with more than 15 % among those with only lower secondary\neducation showing that it is taking longer and longer for the\nmajority of those graduates to find secure employment. It is also\nnoted that 75 of the top 200 universities worldwide are to be found\nin the EU Member States but only 200 of Europe’s 4 000 higher\neducation institutions rank among the top 500 in the world. This\nsituation should be improved. In this regard, the creation of a\nEuropean Higher Education Area (EHEA) is a significant development\nthat could contribute to European integration while respecting the\ndiversity of education in the various EU Member States and the\ngoals of higher education in relation to society.
\nThe changing role of higher education\ninstitutions: Members call on higher\neducation institutions to integrate lifelong learning into their\ncurricula, with the help of economic assistance and different study\nprogrammes, and to adapt to a student base that includes adults,\nelderly people, non-traditional learners, full-time students who\nhave to work while studying and people with disabilities. They\ntherefore call on higher education institutions to implement\nprogrammes aimed at removing existing obstacles and\nbarriers.
\nHigher education institutions should take into account\nthe needs of professionals who need, as lifelong learners, to\nupdate and broaden their skills at regular intervals, including\nthrough the organisation and fine-tuning of update courses. \nThey are called upon to uphold the spirit of autonomy in teaching\nand research.
\nThe report calls on Member States, regional and local\ngovernments and higher education institutions to strengthen –\ninter alia through the development of adequate financial support\nschemes – their efforts to widen equitable access to\nstudies for all, from early childhood to higher education,\nirrespective of sex, ethnicity, language, religion, disability or\nsocial background, and to fight all forms of discrimination,\nrecognising multiculturalism and multilingualism, including sign\nlanguages, as fundamental values of the EU that need to be\nfostered. Student participation in sports should also be\nencouraged.
\nMoreover, the education institutions\nshould:
\nInformation about higher education\ninstitutions: Members propose the\nintroduction of clear and uniform criteria for the creation of\npan-European rankings of higher education institutions, thereby\nallowing prospective students to make an informed choice of\nuniversity and providing comprehensive information about the\nrespective universities. They support the Commission’s\ninitiative to launch, in cooperation with all the institutions,\nstudents and other stakeholders involved, a multi-dimensional tool\nfor the differentiated classification and ranking of higher\neducation institutions based on characteristics such as a long\ntradition of providing higher education in Europe, the quality of\nteaching, student support (i.e. scholarships, counselling,\nhousing), physical and info-communication accessibility, regional\nengagement and knowledge transfer. On the other hand, they oppose\nthe establishment of a classification of higher education\ninstitutions on the basis of non-homogeneous performance indicators\nwhich do not take into account the diversity of educational\npathways, programmes and linguistic diversity in European\nuniversities.
\nFunding higher education systems: the report stresses that higher education is a\npublic good that fosters culture, diversity, democratic values\nand personal development and prepares students to become active\ncitizens who will support European cohesion. It insists once again\nthat Member States should reach the target of investing 2 % of\nGDP in education. Members consider that mainly public and also\nprivate funding is of primary importance for the modernisation of\nhigher education systems and emphasise that investment in higher\neducation in Europe is crucial to overcoming the current economic\ncrisis.
\nThe Member States and higher education institutions\nare called upon to expand scholarship and funding programmes for\nthose institutions and to develop innovative methods of funding\nmechanisms which can contribute to more efficient functioning of\nhigher education institutions, complement public funding without\nincreasing the pressure on households and make higher education\naccessible to all. Members express regret at the significant\ncutbacks to education budgets in several Member States, as well\nas the constant increase in education fees, which is leading to a\nsignificant increase in the number of vulnerable\nstudents.
\nAs EU level, Members call for the EU budget for\n2014-2020 under the European Regional Development Fund and the\nEuropean Social Fund to include spending on higher education\nrelated to investments in university infrastructure and academic\nstaff.
\nThe transition from higher education to the labour\nmarket: Members call on higher\neducation institutions to adapt to new challenges by creating new\nfields of study that reflect the needs of the labour market, taking\ninto account the development of science and technology by\nmaintaining an appropriate balance between theoretical knowledge\nand practical skills. They urge the Commission to present its\nproposal for a quality framework for\ntraineeships.
\nThe report calls on higher education institutions and\ninstitutions responsible for the education sector at regional,\nnational and European level to monitor trends in labour market\nrequirements in order to reflect more accurately future needs in\nterms of learning opportunities. There is a need to track\ngraduates’ employment outcomes to measure how well higher\neducation responds to labour market demands. Members welcome the\nCommission’s commitment to improving the availability of such\ndata, with the principal aim of providing students with the\nnecessary information to guide their study choices, while at the\nsame time giving higher education and research institutions the\nnecessary information to identify and, subsequently, develop\nprogrammes of study covering both general knowledge and specific\nprofessional skills through lifelong learning.
\nOther measures are called for, such as:
\nGender balance in higher education: faced with existing gender disparities in European\neducation systems, Members call for measures to combat persistent\nstereotypes in training. Recalling that women are more often\noverqualified and underpaid for their jobs and often end up\nunemployed or in casual jobs, the report calls for measures to\ncombat this situation.
\nIt also suggests:
\nEngaged higher education institutions: Members encourage higher education institutions to\nengage more intensively with their regions and establish\ndynamic collaborative actions with regional governments, local\ncouncils, public bodies, non-governmental organisations and small\nand medium-sized enterprises to enhance regional development;\npoints out that this should also strengthen interaction between\nhigher education institutions and employers.
\nThey call specifically on the Member States and their\ncentral and regional authorities, the Commission and the business\nworld to:
\nMembers call for a commitment to more flexible and\ninnovative learning approaches and to delivery methods which\nare always centred on students' needs.
\nThe report notes the need for cross-border higher\neducation institutions and enterprises to cooperate in practical\nprogrammes and in shaping students’ future careers by\nidentifying the specific development pathways, expectations and\nchallenges that will await them in the labour market. It also\nemphasises the usefulness of developing mechanisms and management\nstrategies that facilitate the transfer of innovative ideas and\nresearch results into society and business.
\nMembers reaffirm the value of democratic\ngovernance as a fundamental way to ensure academic freedom\nand promote active participation by all actors in the life of a\nhigher education institution. It also emphasises that the principle\nof democracy and self-governance among higher education\ninstitutions and their staff and students should be respected and\nmaintained in all collaborative projects. It emphasises the\nimportance of cooperation between higher education institutions and\nNGOs and the European voluntary sector, in order to promote active\ncitizenship and involve students in active participation through\nworking for the NGO sector.
\nMember States are called upon to support and\nencourage:
\nMutual recognition of qualifications: the report calls on the Member States and these\ninstitutions to develop clear, integrated pathways that allow\nlearners to progress from other types of education into higher\neducation and to change between different tracks and types of\ninstitutions. It emphasises, however, the need to maintain the\ndiversity of educational pathways and programmes, teaching\nmethods and university systems in the EU. Members take the view\nthat it is consequently necessary to develop a national\nqualification framework, while at the same time promoting the\nmutual recognition of degrees and qualifications across all Member\nStates.
\nAll EU countries are urged to implement the\nnational qualification frameworks linked to the EHEA\nQualifications Framework and to develop, and provide financial\nsupport for, mutual recognition. In this context, Members stress\nthe need to strengthen student mobility through Erasmus and for the\nthe home university to recognise qualifications acquired while\nstudying at other universities.
\nMembers support the Commission’s proposal to\nimprove recognition of study undertaken abroad.
\nEnhancing mobility in the European Higher Education\nArea (EHEA) and beyond: Members\nstress that greater coordination among Member States in the field\nof higher education – including through strong financial and\npolitical support for agreements on common core curricula and\nwell-defined learning outcomes – is a prerequisite for\nachieving the goals of employability and growth in Europe. They\npoint out the need for collaboration between the EHEA and the\nEuropean Research Area (ERA) as a means to support university\nresearch programmes in both science and the humanities.
\nThe report calls for the mobility at staff and\nstudent level be strengthened, in particular with the countries\nwhich are covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) or\nwhich directly border the EU. It calls on the Commission to propose\nthe creation of Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardi da Vinci\nprogrammes, aimed at promoting transnational mobility among\nstudents from both sides of the Mediterranean. Members call for the\nopening of mobility, exchange, research and work experience\nprogrammes to students from countries affiliated to the Eastern\nPartnership. They emphasise the need for the higher education\nsystem in each Member State to provide higher-quality teaching so\nthat increased mobility opportunities for students do not go hand\nin hand with a worsening of the ‘brain drain’,\nwhich is now a genuine social problem in some Member\nStates.
\nLastly, Members call for:
\nPURPOSE: to propose a general framework to\nensure the modernisation of higher education systems in\nEurope.
\nBACKGROUND: the Europe 2020 strategy, its Flagship\nInitiatives and the new Integrated Guidelines put knowledge at the\nheart of the Union’s efforts for achieving smart, sustainable\nand inclusive growth; the Commission’s proposal for the\nMultiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 supports this strategy\nwith a significant increase in the budget devoted to investment in\neducation, research and innovation. This is because education, and\nin particular higher education and its links with research and\ninnovation, plays a crucial role in individual and societal\nadvancement, and in providing the highly skilled human capital and\nthe articulate citizens that Europe needs to create jobs, economic\ngrowth and prosperity. Higher education institutions are thus crucial partners in delivering the European\nUnion's strategy to drive forward and maintain growth.
\nDespite a challenging employment climate in the wake\nof the economic crisis, higher education represents a sound choice.\nYet, the potential of European higher education institutions to\nfulfil their role in society and contribute to Europe's prosperity\nremains underexploited. While 35% of all jobs in the EU will\nrequire high-level qualifications by 2020, only 26% of the\nworkforce currently has a higher education qualification. The\nEU still lags behind in the share of researchers in the total\nlabour force: 6 per 100, compared to 9 in the US and 11 in\nJapan.
\nThe main responsibility for delivering reforms in\nhigher education rests with Member States and education\ninstitutions themselves. However, the Bologna Process, the EU\nAgenda for the modernisation of universities and the creation of\nthe European Research Area show that the challenges and policy\nresponses transcend national borders.
\nCONTENT: in order to maximise the contribution of\nEurope's higher education systems to smart, sustainable and\ninclusive growth, reforms are needed in key areas:
\nThe Communication identifies key policy issues\nfor Member States and higher education institutions seeking to\nmaximise their contribution to Europe’s growth and jobs. It\nalso presents specific actions that the EU will take,\nbringing its added value to support the modernisation efforts of\npublic authorities and institutions.
\nMeasures proposed at EU level: the EU should make better use of the policy tools\navailable in the field of higher education, in particular the\nEuropean cooperation framework in education and training 'ET2020'.\nThe Commission can support transparency and excellence through\nevidence-based policy analysis. It can support mobility\nof learners, teachers and researchers. It can support\nstrategic cooperation between European institutions, and, in\na context of increasing global competition for talent, provide a\ncommon framework to support the interaction of European higher\neducation with the rest of the world.
\nAs concerns funding, the Multiannual Financial\nFramework 2014-2020 will offer an\nopportunity to ensure that EU instruments and policies –\nparticularly education, research, employment, entrepreneurship,\nmigration and Cohesion – work together effectively to support\nthe modernisation of higher education. The Commission, in focussing\nEU spending closely on the priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy\nand on the key drivers of growth and jobs, has proposed a\nsubstantial increase in the budgets for education programmes and\nfor research.
\nThe kep policy issues may be summarised as\nfollows:
\n(1) Improving data: the\nEuropean Commission will:
\n(2) Promoting mobility:\nthe European Commission will:
\n(3) Supporting the internationalisation of European\nhigher education: the Commission\nwill:
\n(4) Strengthening the long-term impact and\ncomplementarity of EU funding: EU\ninvestment in higher education is proposed to be channelled through\nthree main funding mechanisms of the 2014-2020 MFF:
\n1. Education Europe: the single programme for\neducation training and youth: to\ncontribute to the Europe 2020 goals, the Commission will propose a\nsingle programme for education, training and youth, with simplified\nentry points and management. The programme will focus spending on\npriorities such as quality and innovation in teaching, enhanced\nlinks with the world of work, and better recognition of skills\ngained through mobility. It will contribute to the Bologna 20%\nmobility target.
\n2. Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research\nand Innovation: the new Horizon\n2020 programme will cover all relevant EU research and innovation\nfunding currently provided through the Seventh Research Framework\nProgramme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and other\nEU innovation initiatives, such as the EIT.
\n3. Cohesion Policy instruments: in the 2007-2013 funding period, around €72.5\nbillion EU cohesion funding will be spent on education and\ntraining, and €60 billion on research and innovation. A\nstrategic use of the EU's Cohesion Policy can significantly\nenhance the social, economic and territorial contribution of higher\neducation. The European Regional Development Fund can invest\nin building or renovating higher education institutions, providing\nequipment and promoting digitalisation, and support incubators,\nspin-offs and other forms of university-business partnerships.\nThe European Social Fund (ESF) can finance modernisation\nprocesses, increase participation and attainment particularly for\nstudents from under-represented backgrounds, enhance educational\ncontent and the match between programmes and labour market\n demand.
\nThe MFF proposal for 2014-2020 allocates a minimum of\n€84 billion to the ESF, of which over €40 billion\ncould be expected, based upon past experience, to be made available\nfor education and training.
\nPURPOSE: to propose a general framework to\nensure the modernisation of higher education systems in\nEurope.
\nBACKGROUND: the Europe 2020 strategy, its Flagship\nInitiatives and the new Integrated Guidelines put knowledge at the\nheart of the Union’s efforts for achieving smart, sustainable\nand inclusive growth; the Commission’s proposal for the\nMultiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 supports this strategy\nwith a significant increase in the budget devoted to investment in\neducation, research and innovation. This is because education, and\nin particular higher education and its links with research and\ninnovation, plays a crucial role in individual and societal\nadvancement, and in providing the highly skilled human capital and\nthe articulate citizens that Europe needs to create jobs, economic\ngrowth and prosperity. Higher education institutions are thus crucial partners in delivering the European\nUnion's strategy to drive forward and maintain growth.
\nDespite a challenging employment climate in the wake\nof the economic crisis, higher education represents a sound choice.\nYet, the potential of European higher education institutions to\nfulfil their role in society and contribute to Europe's prosperity\nremains underexploited. While 35% of all jobs in the EU will\nrequire high-level qualifications by 2020, only 26% of the\nworkforce currently has a higher education qualification. The\nEU still lags behind in the share of researchers in the total\nlabour force: 6 per 100, compared to 9 in the US and 11 in\nJapan.
\nThe main responsibility for delivering reforms in\nhigher education rests with Member States and education\ninstitutions themselves. However, the Bologna Process, the EU\nAgenda for the modernisation of universities and the creation of\nthe European Research Area show that the challenges and policy\nresponses transcend national borders.
\nCONTENT: in order to maximise the contribution of\nEurope's higher education systems to smart, sustainable and\ninclusive growth, reforms are needed in key areas:
\nThe Communication identifies key policy issues\nfor Member States and higher education institutions seeking to\nmaximise their contribution to Europe’s growth and jobs. It\nalso presents specific actions that the EU will take,\nbringing its added value to support the modernisation efforts of\npublic authorities and institutions.
\nMeasures proposed at EU level: the EU should make better use of the policy tools\navailable in the field of higher education, in particular the\nEuropean cooperation framework in education and training 'ET2020'.\nThe Commission can support transparency and excellence through\nevidence-based policy analysis. It can support mobility\nof learners, teachers and researchers. It can support\nstrategic cooperation between European institutions, and, in\na context of increasing global competition for talent, provide a\ncommon framework to support the interaction of European higher\neducation with the rest of the world.
\nAs concerns funding, the Multiannual Financial\nFramework 2014-2020 will offer an\nopportunity to ensure that EU instruments and policies –\nparticularly education, research, employment, entrepreneurship,\nmigration and Cohesion – work together effectively to support\nthe modernisation of higher education. The Commission, in focussing\nEU spending closely on the priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy\nand on the key drivers of growth and jobs, has proposed a\nsubstantial increase in the budgets for education programmes and\nfor research.
\nThe kep policy issues may be summarised as\nfollows:
\n(1) Improving data: the\nEuropean Commission will:
\n(2) Promoting mobility:\nthe European Commission will:
\n(3) Supporting the internationalisation of European\nhigher education: the Commission\nwill:
\n(4) Strengthening the long-term impact and\ncomplementarity of EU funding: EU\ninvestment in higher education is proposed to be channelled through\nthree main funding mechanisms of the 2014-2020 MFF:
\n1. Education Europe: the single programme for\neducation training and youth: to\ncontribute to the Europe 2020 goals, the Commission will propose a\nsingle programme for education, training and youth, with simplified\nentry points and management. The programme will focus spending on\npriorities such as quality and innovation in teaching, enhanced\nlinks with the world of work, and better recognition of skills\ngained through mobility. It will contribute to the Bologna 20%\nmobility target.
\n2. Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research\nand Innovation: the new Horizon\n2020 programme will cover all relevant EU research and innovation\nfunding currently provided through the Seventh Research Framework\nProgramme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and other\nEU innovation initiatives, such as the EIT.
\n3. Cohesion Policy instruments: in the 2007-2013 funding period, around €72.5\nbillion EU cohesion funding will be spent on education and\ntraining, and €60 billion on research and innovation. A\nstrategic use of the EU's Cohesion Policy can significantly\nenhance the social, economic and territorial contribution of higher\neducation. The European Regional Development Fund can invest\nin building or renovating higher education institutions, providing\nequipment and promoting digitalisation, and support incubators,\nspin-offs and other forms of university-business partnerships.\nThe European Social Fund (ESF) can finance modernisation\nprocesses, increase participation and attainment particularly for\nstudents from under-represented backgrounds, enhance educational\ncontent and the match between programmes and labour market\n demand.
\nThe MFF proposal for 2014-2020 allocates a minimum of\n€84 billion to the ESF, of which over €40 billion\ncould be expected, based upon past experience, to be made available\nfor education and training.
\nPURPOSE: to propose a general framework to\nensure the modernisation of higher education systems in\nEurope.
\nBACKGROUND: the Europe 2020 strategy, its Flagship\nInitiatives and the new Integrated Guidelines put knowledge at the\nheart of the Union’s efforts for achieving smart, sustainable\nand inclusive growth; the Commission’s proposal for the\nMultiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 supports this strategy\nwith a significant increase in the budget devoted to investment in\neducation, research and innovation. This is because education, and\nin particular higher education and its links with research and\ninnovation, plays a crucial role in individual and societal\nadvancement, and in providing the highly skilled human capital and\nthe articulate citizens that Europe needs to create jobs, economic\ngrowth and prosperity. Higher education institutions are thus crucial partners in delivering the European\nUnion's strategy to drive forward and maintain growth.
\nDespite a challenging employment climate in the wake\nof the economic crisis, higher education represents a sound choice.\nYet, the potential of European higher education institutions to\nfulfil their role in society and contribute to Europe's prosperity\nremains underexploited. While 35% of all jobs in the EU will\nrequire high-level qualifications by 2020, only 26% of the\nworkforce currently has a higher education qualification. The\nEU still lags behind in the share of researchers in the total\nlabour force: 6 per 100, compared to 9 in the US and 11 in\nJapan.
\nThe main responsibility for delivering reforms in\nhigher education rests with Member States and education\ninstitutions themselves. However, the Bologna Process, the EU\nAgenda for the modernisation of universities and the creation of\nthe European Research Area show that the challenges and policy\nresponses transcend national borders.
\nCONTENT: in order to maximise the contribution of\nEurope's higher education systems to smart, sustainable and\ninclusive growth, reforms are needed in key areas:
\nThe Communication identifies key policy issues\nfor Member States and higher education institutions seeking to\nmaximise their contribution to Europe’s growth and jobs. It\nalso presents specific actions that the EU will take,\nbringing its added value to support the modernisation efforts of\npublic authorities and institutions.
\nMeasures proposed at EU level: the EU should make better use of the policy tools\navailable in the field of higher education, in particular the\nEuropean cooperation framework in education and training 'ET2020'.\nThe Commission can support transparency and excellence through\nevidence-based policy analysis. It can support mobility\nof learners, teachers and researchers. It can support\nstrategic cooperation between European institutions, and, in\na context of increasing global competition for talent, provide a\ncommon framework to support the interaction of European higher\neducation with the rest of the world.
\nAs concerns funding, the Multiannual Financial\nFramework 2014-2020 will offer an\nopportunity to ensure that EU instruments and policies –\nparticularly education, research, employment, entrepreneurship,\nmigration and Cohesion – work together effectively to support\nthe modernisation of higher education. The Commission, in focussing\nEU spending closely on the priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy\nand on the key drivers of growth and jobs, has proposed a\nsubstantial increase in the budgets for education programmes and\nfor research.
\nThe kep policy issues may be summarised as\nfollows:
\n(1) Improving data: the\nEuropean Commission will:
\n(2) Promoting mobility:\nthe European Commission will:
\n(3) Supporting the internationalisation of European\nhigher education: the Commission\nwill:
\n(4) Strengthening the long-term impact and\ncomplementarity of EU funding: EU\ninvestment in higher education is proposed to be channelled through\nthree main funding mechanisms of the 2014-2020 MFF:
\n1. Education Europe: the single programme for\neducation training and youth: to\ncontribute to the Europe 2020 goals, the Commission will propose a\nsingle programme for education, training and youth, with simplified\nentry points and management. The programme will focus spending on\npriorities such as quality and innovation in teaching, enhanced\nlinks with the world of work, and better recognition of skills\ngained through mobility. It will contribute to the Bologna 20%\nmobility target.
\n2. Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research\nand Innovation: the new Horizon\n2020 programme will cover all relevant EU research and innovation\nfunding currently provided through the Seventh Research Framework\nProgramme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and other\nEU innovation initiatives, such as the EIT.
\n3. Cohesion Policy instruments: in the 2007-2013 funding period, around €72.5\nbillion EU cohesion funding will be spent on education and\ntraining, and €60 billion on research and innovation. A\nstrategic use of the EU's Cohesion Policy can significantly\nenhance the social, economic and territorial contribution of higher\neducation. The European Regional Development Fund can invest\nin building or renovating higher education institutions, providing\nequipment and promoting digitalisation, and support incubators,\nspin-offs and other forms of university-business partnerships.\nThe European Social Fund (ESF) can finance modernisation\nprocesses, increase participation and attainment particularly for\nstudents from under-represented backgrounds, enhance educational\ncontent and the match between programmes and labour market\n demand.
\nThe MFF proposal for 2014-2020 allocates a minimum of\n€84 billion to the ESF, of which over €40 billion\ncould be expected, based upon past experience, to be made available\nfor education and training.
\nPURPOSE: Communication on EU Policies and\nVolunteering: Recognising and Promoting Cross- border Voluntary\nActivities in the EU
\nBACKGROUND: Volunteering contributes to the Europe\n2020 growth strategy, in particular to the EU’s employment\nrate target of 75% by 2020, by helping people learn new skills and\nadapt to changes in the labour market. A study found that the\nvoluntary sector could contribute up to 5% of Gross Domestic\nProduct.
\nThe year 2011 has been designated as the European\nYear of Voluntary Activities promoting Active Citizenship. The\nEuropean Year gives the Commission the opportunity to take stock of\nvolunteering in the EU and its contribution to society. It also\nallows the Commission to evaluate what the EU and Member States can\ndo to facilitate and promote volunteering, notably in cross-border\nsituations.
\nCONTENT: this Communication discusses the benefits of\nvolunteering. It notes that volunteering is an important creator of\nhuman and social capital, a pathway to integration and employment\nand a key factor for improving social cohesion. It is a highly\nvisible expression of European citizenship, as volunteers\ncontribute to shaping society and helping people in need. Its\npotential can be further developed within the Europe 2020 Strategy\nfor growth. Volunteers are an important resource in our economy and\nsociety, but must not be considered as an alternative to a regular\nworkforce. By promoting cross-border volunteering in cooperation\nwith Member States and through EU funding programmes, the EU\ncontributes to the mobility and inter-cultural learning of its\ncitizens and reinforces their European identity.
\nThe Communication also sets out the challenges. On the\nbasis of a study of eight industrialised countries by the Johns\nHopkins University and the experience of the European Year 2011 so\nfar, the potential obstacles to volunteering, in particular across\nborders, were identified as follows:
\n\n· \nlack of a clear legal framework in :almost one\nin five Member States;
\n\n· \nlack of national strategies for promoting\nvoluntary activities regarding training, holiday benefits, social\nsecurity, entitlement to unemployment benefits for cross-border\nvolunteering activities, accommodation and reimbursements of\nout-of-pocket expenses;
\n\n· \nfinancial constraints, with organisations based\non voluntary activity often facing a lack of sustainable\nfunding;
\n\n· \nmismatch between supply and demand: the\nincreasing trend towards professionalising the voluntary sector\ncauses a certain mismatch between the needs of volunteering\norganisations and the aspirations of new volunteers. Volunteers are\navailable for short-term projects while organisations need people\nto make long-term commitments;
\n\n· \nskills that are gained through volunteering\nactivities are not always sufficiently recognised or given\ncredit;
\n\n· \nMember States apply different tax treatments to\nvolunteers' income/allowances and to the reimbursement of the\nexpenses. Consequently, volunteers may encounter tax obstacles when\noperating across borders;
\n\n· \ninsufficient data: better comparable data on\nvolunteering in the Member States can help identify best practices\nand improve policy making.
\nWhilst Member States made some progress on these\nissues in 2006 when they committed to cooperating on overcoming\nobstacles that impede mobility, there is still work to do.\nParticular attention needs to be paid to the promotion of an\nenvironment for volunteering activities providing equal\nopportunities with regard to access and participation of all\nindividuals.
\nThe Communication discusses EU funding opportunities\nfor volunteering, and the social dimension, including volunteering\nas an expression of European citizenship as well as the benefits in\nterms of education and sporting activities and humanitarian\naid.
\nPolicy recommendations to Member\nStates: in accordance with the\nprinciple of subsidiarity, the Commission does not intend to\npromote one single model of volunteering or to harmonise\nvolunteering cultures at local and regional level. However, the\nCommission recommends that Member States make better use of the\npotential of volunteering in the following ways:
\n\n· \nin countries lacking a volunteering framework\nand where there is a weak tradition or culture of volunteering,\nsetting legal frameworks could give incentives to support the\ndevelopment of volunteering;
\n\n· \nresearch and data collection on volunteering\nshould be encouraged at the national level. In this context, the\nuse of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Manual on the\nMeasurement of Volunteer Work and the United Nations Handbook on\nNon-Profit organisations is recommended;
\n\n· \nrecognition of the competences and skills gained\nthrough volunteering as non-formal learning experiences is\nessential as a motivating factor for the volunteers and one that\ncreates bridges between volunteering and education;
\n\n· \nMember States should remove remaining obstacles\nwhich directly or indirectly impede volunteering in general and in\nparticular cross-border volunteering;
\n\n· \nMember States are invited to open national\nvolunteering schemes for across-borders volunteering to contribute\nto the development of volunteering in the European Union.\n
\nConcrete actions to recognise and promote volunteering\nat EU level: the EU is committed to ensuring a long-term follow-up\nto the 2011 European Year of Volunteering and to continuing the\ndialogue with the relevant stakeholders in the different policy\nareas related to volunteering. The Communication makes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \nthe Commission will propose the creation of a\nEuropean Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps in 2012;
\n\n· \nEU funding programmes in different policy areas\nwill further target volunteers and promote cross-border\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe Commission will make it easier for EU\ncitizens and stakeholders to get an overview of different funding\nprogrammes that can be used by volunteers and for voluntary\nactivities;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is willing to further explore\npossibilities to strengthen the link between volunteering and\nhealth/welfare, in particular with regard to the ageing\nsociety;
\n\n· \non the basis of Member States' reports on the\nimplementation of the Recommendation on the Mobility of Young\nVolunteers in 2012, the Commission will make proposals for further\ndevelopment;
\n\n· \nthe Commission may introduce proposals that\nspecifically cater for volunteering in the EU's employment\nstrategy, in its fight against poverty and social exclusion and in\nthe context of the Commission's \"New\nSkills for New Jobs\" initiative;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is preparing a proposal for a\nCouncil Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal\nlearning including the recognition of competences acquired through\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe future 'European\nSkills Passport' (Europass) will give individuals the\npossibility of keeping a record of the skills and competences they\nacquire through volunteering;
\nLastly, the Commission will give the forthcoming European\nYear of Citizens (2013) an appropriate volunteering dimension,\npromoting notably cross- border volunteering.
\nThe Committee on Culture and Education adopted the\nown-initiative report drafted by Marco SCURRIA (EPP, IT) in\nresponse to the Commission communication entitled “Recognising\nand promoting cross-border voluntary activities in the\nEU”.
\nThe report recalls that ‘volunteering’ means\nactivities which are undertaken voluntarily on the basis of a\nperson’s own free choice and motivation, and without concern\nfor financial gain. Given that volunteering is an informal learning\nexperience suitable for persons of all ages, Members invite the\nMember States, who do not have a clear or adequate legal\nframework for volunteers, to put one in place.
\nMember States are also called upon to:
\nVolunteers and the European Neighbourhood\nPolicy: Members note the benefits\narising from cooperation between volunteers from the European\nUnion’s Member States and third countries and point out that\nsuch cooperation is particularly important in the context of the\nEuropean Neighbourhood Policy. They call on the Council and the\nCommission to continue to make progress in the negotiations towards\neasier visa regimes for non-EU citizens wishing to enter the EU for\nthe purpose of volunteering, provided they fulfil the criteria to\nperform volunteering activities and to implement the provisions of\nCouncil Directive 2004/114/EC\n on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for\nthe purposes of studies. The purpose would be to simplify the\nprocedures for the granting of visas, or to abolish them, for those\nwishing to undertake voluntary activities as part of the EU\nneighbourhood policy. Members encourage the Member States to\nrecognise the benefits of participating in cross-border volunteer\nactivities to provide citizens with new skills, contributing to\ntheir employability and mobility and strengthening the development\nof social inclusion, and to support cooperation between organisers\nof voluntary activities in EU countries in order to promote the\nmobility of volunteers of all ages across Europe.
\nCalls on the Commission to improve the facilities of\nvolunteering organisations and volunteer centres for providing\ninformation and training and for coordinating activities between\nvolunteers and volunteering organisations;
\nEnhance the quality of voluntary\naction: the report highlights the\nneed to ensure that high-quality volunteering is developed, both\nnationally and at cross-border level, through a structured\nframework of comprehensive information and appropriate training for\nvolunteers which includes current best practice, the development of\nhosting capacities for providers and organisations at local and\nnational level, a recognition of the rights of volunteers to\nreconcile their voluntary work with their personal lives, and by\ncreating the necessary infrastructure at all levels.
\nEnhance the quality of voluntary\naction: MEPs ask the Commission to\nstrengthen the capacity of organizations and volunteer centers to\nprovide information and training. The Commission should publish a\nreport identifying barriers to cross-border volunteering, such as\nage limits in the insurance and, where appropriate, legislative\nproposals.
\nTo enhance the quality of volunteer work, the report\nstresses the following:
\nVolunteering and senior citizens: Members note that older people who engage in\nvolunteering find it easier to make the transition from work to\nretirement. It stresses the importance of providing information,\nadequate funding and support for senior citizens wishing to\nvolunteer in another EU country. It notes that volunteering\ncontributes to integration, social inclusion and social innovation,\nand can also contribute to poverty reduction, thus helping to\nachieve economic and social cohesion. Members point out that\nvolunteering also promotes solidarity between generations by\nencouraging cooperation between young people and senior citizens,\nand that it contributes to active ageing. Members call on\nthe Commission and the Member States to give a high profile to\nvolunteering in sport, particularly at the grassroots level, to\nacknowledge the important role played by volunteer-led sporting\norganisations in strengthening culture, etc.
\nRecognition of volunteering: Members support the Commission’s proposal to\nestablish a ‘European Skills Passport’, so that\nthe skills acquired through volunteering may be officially\nrecognised, both for professional and learning purposes. For\nMembers, this Passport should not be a series of new separate\ncertificates but, rather, a comprehensive document listing all\npractical experience, training and soft and vocational skills\nacquired through life-long learning, including those gained through\nvolunteering, if desired by the volunteer. The report suggests\ntherefore including the skills acquired through volunteering in the\nECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) for\nstudents.
\nThe Commission is called upon to:
\nMember States are urged to:
\nThe report proposes that a training and\nqualifications framework for volunteer coaches be\nestablished and incorporated into the European Qualifications\nFramework in order to improve the mobility of volunteer coaches and\nenhance the transferability of skills and competences developed\nthrough volunteering.
\nEuropean Voluntary Humanitarian Aid\nCorps: the report supports the\nCommission’s proposal to create a ‘European Voluntary\nHumanitarian Aid Corps’, which will increase the participation\nof volunteers in solidarity actions in the context of the EU’s\nhumanitarian aid policy. It calls on the Commission also to take\nexisting structures into consideration and actively to incorporate\nthese from the outset when establishing this voluntary corps and\nemphasises that the duplication of organisations in the area of\ncivil protection is not desirable and should be avoided.
\nRemoving technical barriers: Members urge the national, regional and local\nauthorities and the EU to ensure adequate and stable funding and to\nsimplify administrative procedures, including tax incentives, for\nthe organisations involved in volunteering work, including all the\nrelevant associations and networks, particularly for small\nassociations with limited resources, with a view to enhancing their\nroles, activities and achievements for the benefit of\nsociety. They call, therefore, for the concept of grants\nto associations to be clarified so that association funding is not\nconfused with state aid, which could hinder competition in the\nfinancial sector. The Commission is called upon to propose a\nmechanism to allow Member States wishing to strengthen civil\nsociety to exempt from VAT all or most of the activities and\ntransactions carried out by voluntary non-profit-making\norganisations. At least the smaller non-profit-making organisations\nshould be covered by such a mechanism.
\nMember States are called upon to:
\nEuropean financing for voluntary work: Members call on the Commission to ensure that\nfunding is guaranteed for volunteering projects and for the\nstructures organised by voluntary activities in the EU.
\nThey also call on the Commission to:
\nThey ask the Commission to allocate adequate\nresources to the creation of a European Volunteer Centre\nDevelopment Fund aimed at developing infrastructure to support\nvolunteering.
\nEuropean Statute:\nMembers call on the Commission to propose a European Statute for\nAssociations to give them the legal framework within which to\noperate, reduce the administrative costs associated with\ncross-border volunteering activities and establish voluntary\nstructures at a European level which encourage mobility of\nvolunteers in the EU. They propose that a cross-border network of\nvoluntary organisations in the various Member States should be set\nup by coordinating the existing voluntary organisations and call\nfor the promotion of volunteer work in EU policies.
\nVoluntary work and the European Year: Members recommend that the Commission and the Member\nStates maintain a continuity between 2011 and future years by\nstrongly integrating the volunteering dimension, which is an\nexpression of active citizenship that promotes social integration,\nincluding that of older citizens, within both the European Year for\nActive Ageing (2012) and the proposed European Year of Citizens\n(2013). They call on the Commission to maintain the useful contact\npoints set up both with ‘EYV 2011 Alliance’ and the\nsuccessor Volunteer Platform. They call on the Commission to act,\nwhere it deems appropriate, on the Policy Agenda on Volunteering in\nEurope (PAVE), which was drawn up by the volunteering organisations\ninvolved in the EYV 2011 Alliance.
\nPURPOSE: Communication on EU Policies and\nVolunteering: Recognising and Promoting Cross- border Voluntary\nActivities in the EU
\nBACKGROUND: Volunteering contributes to the Europe\n2020 growth strategy, in particular to the EU’s employment\nrate target of 75% by 2020, by helping people learn new skills and\nadapt to changes in the labour market. A study found that the\nvoluntary sector could contribute up to 5% of Gross Domestic\nProduct.
\nThe year 2011 has been designated as the European\nYear of Voluntary Activities promoting Active Citizenship. The\nEuropean Year gives the Commission the opportunity to take stock of\nvolunteering in the EU and its contribution to society. It also\nallows the Commission to evaluate what the EU and Member States can\ndo to facilitate and promote volunteering, notably in cross-border\nsituations.
\nCONTENT: this Communication discusses the benefits of\nvolunteering. It notes that volunteering is an important creator of\nhuman and social capital, a pathway to integration and employment\nand a key factor for improving social cohesion. It is a highly\nvisible expression of European citizenship, as volunteers\ncontribute to shaping society and helping people in need. Its\npotential can be further developed within the Europe 2020 Strategy\nfor growth. Volunteers are an important resource in our economy and\nsociety, but must not be considered as an alternative to a regular\nworkforce. By promoting cross-border volunteering in cooperation\nwith Member States and through EU funding programmes, the EU\ncontributes to the mobility and inter-cultural learning of its\ncitizens and reinforces their European identity.
\nThe Communication also sets out the challenges. On the\nbasis of a study of eight industrialised countries by the Johns\nHopkins University and the experience of the European Year 2011 so\nfar, the potential obstacles to volunteering, in particular across\nborders, were identified as follows:
\n\n· \nlack of a clear legal framework in :almost one\nin five Member States;
\n\n· \nlack of national strategies for promoting\nvoluntary activities regarding training, holiday benefits, social\nsecurity, entitlement to unemployment benefits for cross-border\nvolunteering activities, accommodation and reimbursements of\nout-of-pocket expenses;
\n\n· \nfinancial constraints, with organisations based\non voluntary activity often facing a lack of sustainable\nfunding;
\n\n· \nmismatch between supply and demand: the\nincreasing trend towards professionalising the voluntary sector\ncauses a certain mismatch between the needs of volunteering\norganisations and the aspirations of new volunteers. Volunteers are\navailable for short-term projects while organisations need people\nto make long-term commitments;
\n\n· \nskills that are gained through volunteering\nactivities are not always sufficiently recognised or given\ncredit;
\n\n· \nMember States apply different tax treatments to\nvolunteers' income/allowances and to the reimbursement of the\nexpenses. Consequently, volunteers may encounter tax obstacles when\noperating across borders;
\n\n· \ninsufficient data: better comparable data on\nvolunteering in the Member States can help identify best practices\nand improve policy making.
\nWhilst Member States made some progress on these\nissues in 2006 when they committed to cooperating on overcoming\nobstacles that impede mobility, there is still work to do.\nParticular attention needs to be paid to the promotion of an\nenvironment for volunteering activities providing equal\nopportunities with regard to access and participation of all\nindividuals.
\nThe Communication discusses EU funding opportunities\nfor volunteering, and the social dimension, including volunteering\nas an expression of European citizenship as well as the benefits in\nterms of education and sporting activities and humanitarian\naid.
\nPolicy recommendations to Member\nStates: in accordance with the\nprinciple of subsidiarity, the Commission does not intend to\npromote one single model of volunteering or to harmonise\nvolunteering cultures at local and regional level. However, the\nCommission recommends that Member States make better use of the\npotential of volunteering in the following ways:
\n\n· \nin countries lacking a volunteering framework\nand where there is a weak tradition or culture of volunteering,\nsetting legal frameworks could give incentives to support the\ndevelopment of volunteering;
\n\n· \nresearch and data collection on volunteering\nshould be encouraged at the national level. In this context, the\nuse of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Manual on the\nMeasurement of Volunteer Work and the United Nations Handbook on\nNon-Profit organisations is recommended;
\n\n· \nrecognition of the competences and skills gained\nthrough volunteering as non-formal learning experiences is\nessential as a motivating factor for the volunteers and one that\ncreates bridges between volunteering and education;
\n\n· \nMember States should remove remaining obstacles\nwhich directly or indirectly impede volunteering in general and in\nparticular cross-border volunteering;
\n\n· \nMember States are invited to open national\nvolunteering schemes for across-borders volunteering to contribute\nto the development of volunteering in the European Union.\n
\nConcrete actions to recognise and promote volunteering\nat EU level: the EU is committed to ensuring a long-term follow-up\nto the 2011 European Year of Volunteering and to continuing the\ndialogue with the relevant stakeholders in the different policy\nareas related to volunteering. The Communication makes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \nthe Commission will propose the creation of a\nEuropean Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps in 2012;
\n\n· \nEU funding programmes in different policy areas\nwill further target volunteers and promote cross-border\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe Commission will make it easier for EU\ncitizens and stakeholders to get an overview of different funding\nprogrammes that can be used by volunteers and for voluntary\nactivities;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is willing to further explore\npossibilities to strengthen the link between volunteering and\nhealth/welfare, in particular with regard to the ageing\nsociety;
\n\n· \non the basis of Member States' reports on the\nimplementation of the Recommendation on the Mobility of Young\nVolunteers in 2012, the Commission will make proposals for further\ndevelopment;
\n\n· \nthe Commission may introduce proposals that\nspecifically cater for volunteering in the EU's employment\nstrategy, in its fight against poverty and social exclusion and in\nthe context of the Commission's \"New\nSkills for New Jobs\" initiative;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is preparing a proposal for a\nCouncil Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal\nlearning including the recognition of competences acquired through\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe future 'European\nSkills Passport' (Europass) will give individuals the\npossibility of keeping a record of the skills and competences they\nacquire through volunteering;
\nLastly, the Commission will give the forthcoming European\nYear of Citizens (2013) an appropriate volunteering dimension,\npromoting notably cross- border volunteering.
\nPURPOSE: Communication on EU Policies and\nVolunteering: Recognising and Promoting Cross- border Voluntary\nActivities in the EU
\nBACKGROUND: Volunteering contributes to the Europe\n2020 growth strategy, in particular to the EU’s employment\nrate target of 75% by 2020, by helping people learn new skills and\nadapt to changes in the labour market. A study found that the\nvoluntary sector could contribute up to 5% of Gross Domestic\nProduct.
\nThe year 2011 has been designated as the European\nYear of Voluntary Activities promoting Active Citizenship. The\nEuropean Year gives the Commission the opportunity to take stock of\nvolunteering in the EU and its contribution to society. It also\nallows the Commission to evaluate what the EU and Member States can\ndo to facilitate and promote volunteering, notably in cross-border\nsituations.
\nCONTENT: this Communication discusses the benefits of\nvolunteering. It notes that volunteering is an important creator of\nhuman and social capital, a pathway to integration and employment\nand a key factor for improving social cohesion. It is a highly\nvisible expression of European citizenship, as volunteers\ncontribute to shaping society and helping people in need. Its\npotential can be further developed within the Europe 2020 Strategy\nfor growth. Volunteers are an important resource in our economy and\nsociety, but must not be considered as an alternative to a regular\nworkforce. By promoting cross-border volunteering in cooperation\nwith Member States and through EU funding programmes, the EU\ncontributes to the mobility and inter-cultural learning of its\ncitizens and reinforces their European identity.
\nThe Communication also sets out the challenges. On the\nbasis of a study of eight industrialised countries by the Johns\nHopkins University and the experience of the European Year 2011 so\nfar, the potential obstacles to volunteering, in particular across\nborders, were identified as follows:
\n\n· \nlack of a clear legal framework in :almost one\nin five Member States;
\n\n· \nlack of national strategies for promoting\nvoluntary activities regarding training, holiday benefits, social\nsecurity, entitlement to unemployment benefits for cross-border\nvolunteering activities, accommodation and reimbursements of\nout-of-pocket expenses;
\n\n· \nfinancial constraints, with organisations based\non voluntary activity often facing a lack of sustainable\nfunding;
\n\n· \nmismatch between supply and demand: the\nincreasing trend towards professionalising the voluntary sector\ncauses a certain mismatch between the needs of volunteering\norganisations and the aspirations of new volunteers. Volunteers are\navailable for short-term projects while organisations need people\nto make long-term commitments;
\n\n· \nskills that are gained through volunteering\nactivities are not always sufficiently recognised or given\ncredit;
\n\n· \nMember States apply different tax treatments to\nvolunteers' income/allowances and to the reimbursement of the\nexpenses. Consequently, volunteers may encounter tax obstacles when\noperating across borders;
\n\n· \ninsufficient data: better comparable data on\nvolunteering in the Member States can help identify best practices\nand improve policy making.
\nWhilst Member States made some progress on these\nissues in 2006 when they committed to cooperating on overcoming\nobstacles that impede mobility, there is still work to do.\nParticular attention needs to be paid to the promotion of an\nenvironment for volunteering activities providing equal\nopportunities with regard to access and participation of all\nindividuals.
\nThe Communication discusses EU funding opportunities\nfor volunteering, and the social dimension, including volunteering\nas an expression of European citizenship as well as the benefits in\nterms of education and sporting activities and humanitarian\naid.
\nPolicy recommendations to Member\nStates: in accordance with the\nprinciple of subsidiarity, the Commission does not intend to\npromote one single model of volunteering or to harmonise\nvolunteering cultures at local and regional level. However, the\nCommission recommends that Member States make better use of the\npotential of volunteering in the following ways:
\n\n· \nin countries lacking a volunteering framework\nand where there is a weak tradition or culture of volunteering,\nsetting legal frameworks could give incentives to support the\ndevelopment of volunteering;
\n\n· \nresearch and data collection on volunteering\nshould be encouraged at the national level. In this context, the\nuse of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Manual on the\nMeasurement of Volunteer Work and the United Nations Handbook on\nNon-Profit organisations is recommended;
\n\n· \nrecognition of the competences and skills gained\nthrough volunteering as non-formal learning experiences is\nessential as a motivating factor for the volunteers and one that\ncreates bridges between volunteering and education;
\n\n· \nMember States should remove remaining obstacles\nwhich directly or indirectly impede volunteering in general and in\nparticular cross-border volunteering;
\n\n· \nMember States are invited to open national\nvolunteering schemes for across-borders volunteering to contribute\nto the development of volunteering in the European Union.\n
\nConcrete actions to recognise and promote volunteering\nat EU level: the EU is committed to ensuring a long-term follow-up\nto the 2011 European Year of Volunteering and to continuing the\ndialogue with the relevant stakeholders in the different policy\nareas related to volunteering. The Communication makes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \nthe Commission will propose the creation of a\nEuropean Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps in 2012;
\n\n· \nEU funding programmes in different policy areas\nwill further target volunteers and promote cross-border\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe Commission will make it easier for EU\ncitizens and stakeholders to get an overview of different funding\nprogrammes that can be used by volunteers and for voluntary\nactivities;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is willing to further explore\npossibilities to strengthen the link between volunteering and\nhealth/welfare, in particular with regard to the ageing\nsociety;
\n\n· \non the basis of Member States' reports on the\nimplementation of the Recommendation on the Mobility of Young\nVolunteers in 2012, the Commission will make proposals for further\ndevelopment;
\n\n· \nthe Commission may introduce proposals that\nspecifically cater for volunteering in the EU's employment\nstrategy, in its fight against poverty and social exclusion and in\nthe context of the Commission's \"New\nSkills for New Jobs\" initiative;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is preparing a proposal for a\nCouncil Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal\nlearning including the recognition of competences acquired through\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe future 'European\nSkills Passport' (Europass) will give individuals the\npossibility of keeping a record of the skills and competences they\nacquire through volunteering;
\nLastly, the Commission will give the forthcoming European\nYear of Citizens (2013) an appropriate volunteering dimension,\npromoting notably cross- border volunteering.
\nPURPOSE: Communication on EU Policies and\nVolunteering: Recognising and Promoting Cross- border Voluntary\nActivities in the EU
\nBACKGROUND: Volunteering contributes to the Europe\n2020 growth strategy, in particular to the EU’s employment\nrate target of 75% by 2020, by helping people learn new skills and\nadapt to changes in the labour market. A study found that the\nvoluntary sector could contribute up to 5% of Gross Domestic\nProduct.
\nThe year 2011 has been designated as the European\nYear of Voluntary Activities promoting Active Citizenship. The\nEuropean Year gives the Commission the opportunity to take stock of\nvolunteering in the EU and its contribution to society. It also\nallows the Commission to evaluate what the EU and Member States can\ndo to facilitate and promote volunteering, notably in cross-border\nsituations.
\nCONTENT: this Communication discusses the benefits of\nvolunteering. It notes that volunteering is an important creator of\nhuman and social capital, a pathway to integration and employment\nand a key factor for improving social cohesion. It is a highly\nvisible expression of European citizenship, as volunteers\ncontribute to shaping society and helping people in need. Its\npotential can be further developed within the Europe 2020 Strategy\nfor growth. Volunteers are an important resource in our economy and\nsociety, but must not be considered as an alternative to a regular\nworkforce. By promoting cross-border volunteering in cooperation\nwith Member States and through EU funding programmes, the EU\ncontributes to the mobility and inter-cultural learning of its\ncitizens and reinforces their European identity.
\nThe Communication also sets out the challenges. On the\nbasis of a study of eight industrialised countries by the Johns\nHopkins University and the experience of the European Year 2011 so\nfar, the potential obstacles to volunteering, in particular across\nborders, were identified as follows:
\n\n· \nlack of a clear legal framework in :almost one\nin five Member States;
\n\n· \nlack of national strategies for promoting\nvoluntary activities regarding training, holiday benefits, social\nsecurity, entitlement to unemployment benefits for cross-border\nvolunteering activities, accommodation and reimbursements of\nout-of-pocket expenses;
\n\n· \nfinancial constraints, with organisations based\non voluntary activity often facing a lack of sustainable\nfunding;
\n\n· \nmismatch between supply and demand: the\nincreasing trend towards professionalising the voluntary sector\ncauses a certain mismatch between the needs of volunteering\norganisations and the aspirations of new volunteers. Volunteers are\navailable for short-term projects while organisations need people\nto make long-term commitments;
\n\n· \nskills that are gained through volunteering\nactivities are not always sufficiently recognised or given\ncredit;
\n\n· \nMember States apply different tax treatments to\nvolunteers' income/allowances and to the reimbursement of the\nexpenses. Consequently, volunteers may encounter tax obstacles when\noperating across borders;
\n\n· \ninsufficient data: better comparable data on\nvolunteering in the Member States can help identify best practices\nand improve policy making.
\nWhilst Member States made some progress on these\nissues in 2006 when they committed to cooperating on overcoming\nobstacles that impede mobility, there is still work to do.\nParticular attention needs to be paid to the promotion of an\nenvironment for volunteering activities providing equal\nopportunities with regard to access and participation of all\nindividuals.
\nThe Communication discusses EU funding opportunities\nfor volunteering, and the social dimension, including volunteering\nas an expression of European citizenship as well as the benefits in\nterms of education and sporting activities and humanitarian\naid.
\nPolicy recommendations to Member\nStates: in accordance with the\nprinciple of subsidiarity, the Commission does not intend to\npromote one single model of volunteering or to harmonise\nvolunteering cultures at local and regional level. However, the\nCommission recommends that Member States make better use of the\npotential of volunteering in the following ways:
\n\n· \nin countries lacking a volunteering framework\nand where there is a weak tradition or culture of volunteering,\nsetting legal frameworks could give incentives to support the\ndevelopment of volunteering;
\n\n· \nresearch and data collection on volunteering\nshould be encouraged at the national level. In this context, the\nuse of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Manual on the\nMeasurement of Volunteer Work and the United Nations Handbook on\nNon-Profit organisations is recommended;
\n\n· \nrecognition of the competences and skills gained\nthrough volunteering as non-formal learning experiences is\nessential as a motivating factor for the volunteers and one that\ncreates bridges between volunteering and education;
\n\n· \nMember States should remove remaining obstacles\nwhich directly or indirectly impede volunteering in general and in\nparticular cross-border volunteering;
\n\n· \nMember States are invited to open national\nvolunteering schemes for across-borders volunteering to contribute\nto the development of volunteering in the European Union.\n
\nConcrete actions to recognise and promote volunteering\nat EU level: the EU is committed to ensuring a long-term follow-up\nto the 2011 European Year of Volunteering and to continuing the\ndialogue with the relevant stakeholders in the different policy\nareas related to volunteering. The Communication makes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \nthe Commission will propose the creation of a\nEuropean Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps in 2012;
\n\n· \nEU funding programmes in different policy areas\nwill further target volunteers and promote cross-border\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe Commission will make it easier for EU\ncitizens and stakeholders to get an overview of different funding\nprogrammes that can be used by volunteers and for voluntary\nactivities;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is willing to further explore\npossibilities to strengthen the link between volunteering and\nhealth/welfare, in particular with regard to the ageing\nsociety;
\n\n· \non the basis of Member States' reports on the\nimplementation of the Recommendation on the Mobility of Young\nVolunteers in 2012, the Commission will make proposals for further\ndevelopment;
\n\n· \nthe Commission may introduce proposals that\nspecifically cater for volunteering in the EU's employment\nstrategy, in its fight against poverty and social exclusion and in\nthe context of the Commission's \"New\nSkills for New Jobs\" initiative;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is preparing a proposal for a\nCouncil Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal\nlearning including the recognition of competences acquired through\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe future 'European\nSkills Passport' (Europass) will give individuals the\npossibility of keeping a record of the skills and competences they\nacquire through volunteering;
\nLastly, the Commission will give the forthcoming European\nYear of Citizens (2013) an appropriate volunteering dimension,\npromoting notably cross- border volunteering.
\nPURPOSE: Communication on EU Policies and\nVolunteering: Recognising and Promoting Cross- border Voluntary\nActivities in the EU
\nBACKGROUND: Volunteering contributes to the Europe\n2020 growth strategy, in particular to the EU’s employment\nrate target of 75% by 2020, by helping people learn new skills and\nadapt to changes in the labour market. A study found that the\nvoluntary sector could contribute up to 5% of Gross Domestic\nProduct.
\nThe year 2011 has been designated as the European\nYear of Voluntary Activities promoting Active Citizenship. The\nEuropean Year gives the Commission the opportunity to take stock of\nvolunteering in the EU and its contribution to society. It also\nallows the Commission to evaluate what the EU and Member States can\ndo to facilitate and promote volunteering, notably in cross-border\nsituations.
\nCONTENT: this Communication discusses the benefits of\nvolunteering. It notes that volunteering is an important creator of\nhuman and social capital, a pathway to integration and employment\nand a key factor for improving social cohesion. It is a highly\nvisible expression of European citizenship, as volunteers\ncontribute to shaping society and helping people in need. Its\npotential can be further developed within the Europe 2020 Strategy\nfor growth. Volunteers are an important resource in our economy and\nsociety, but must not be considered as an alternative to a regular\nworkforce. By promoting cross-border volunteering in cooperation\nwith Member States and through EU funding programmes, the EU\ncontributes to the mobility and inter-cultural learning of its\ncitizens and reinforces their European identity.
\nThe Communication also sets out the challenges. On the\nbasis of a study of eight industrialised countries by the Johns\nHopkins University and the experience of the European Year 2011 so\nfar, the potential obstacles to volunteering, in particular across\nborders, were identified as follows:
\n\n· \nlack of a clear legal framework in :almost one\nin five Member States;
\n\n· \nlack of national strategies for promoting\nvoluntary activities regarding training, holiday benefits, social\nsecurity, entitlement to unemployment benefits for cross-border\nvolunteering activities, accommodation and reimbursements of\nout-of-pocket expenses;
\n\n· \nfinancial constraints, with organisations based\non voluntary activity often facing a lack of sustainable\nfunding;
\n\n· \nmismatch between supply and demand: the\nincreasing trend towards professionalising the voluntary sector\ncauses a certain mismatch between the needs of volunteering\norganisations and the aspirations of new volunteers. Volunteers are\navailable for short-term projects while organisations need people\nto make long-term commitments;
\n\n· \nskills that are gained through volunteering\nactivities are not always sufficiently recognised or given\ncredit;
\n\n· \nMember States apply different tax treatments to\nvolunteers' income/allowances and to the reimbursement of the\nexpenses. Consequently, volunteers may encounter tax obstacles when\noperating across borders;
\n\n· \ninsufficient data: better comparable data on\nvolunteering in the Member States can help identify best practices\nand improve policy making.
\nWhilst Member States made some progress on these\nissues in 2006 when they committed to cooperating on overcoming\nobstacles that impede mobility, there is still work to do.\nParticular attention needs to be paid to the promotion of an\nenvironment for volunteering activities providing equal\nopportunities with regard to access and participation of all\nindividuals.
\nThe Communication discusses EU funding opportunities\nfor volunteering, and the social dimension, including volunteering\nas an expression of European citizenship as well as the benefits in\nterms of education and sporting activities and humanitarian\naid.
\nPolicy recommendations to Member\nStates: in accordance with the\nprinciple of subsidiarity, the Commission does not intend to\npromote one single model of volunteering or to harmonise\nvolunteering cultures at local and regional level. However, the\nCommission recommends that Member States make better use of the\npotential of volunteering in the following ways:
\n\n· \nin countries lacking a volunteering framework\nand where there is a weak tradition or culture of volunteering,\nsetting legal frameworks could give incentives to support the\ndevelopment of volunteering;
\n\n· \nresearch and data collection on volunteering\nshould be encouraged at the national level. In this context, the\nuse of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Manual on the\nMeasurement of Volunteer Work and the United Nations Handbook on\nNon-Profit organisations is recommended;
\n\n· \nrecognition of the competences and skills gained\nthrough volunteering as non-formal learning experiences is\nessential as a motivating factor for the volunteers and one that\ncreates bridges between volunteering and education;
\n\n· \nMember States should remove remaining obstacles\nwhich directly or indirectly impede volunteering in general and in\nparticular cross-border volunteering;
\n\n· \nMember States are invited to open national\nvolunteering schemes for across-borders volunteering to contribute\nto the development of volunteering in the European Union.\n
\nConcrete actions to recognise and promote volunteering\nat EU level: the EU is committed to ensuring a long-term follow-up\nto the 2011 European Year of Volunteering and to continuing the\ndialogue with the relevant stakeholders in the different policy\nareas related to volunteering. The Communication makes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \nthe Commission will propose the creation of a\nEuropean Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps in 2012;
\n\n· \nEU funding programmes in different policy areas\nwill further target volunteers and promote cross-border\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe Commission will make it easier for EU\ncitizens and stakeholders to get an overview of different funding\nprogrammes that can be used by volunteers and for voluntary\nactivities;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is willing to further explore\npossibilities to strengthen the link between volunteering and\nhealth/welfare, in particular with regard to the ageing\nsociety;
\n\n· \non the basis of Member States' reports on the\nimplementation of the Recommendation on the Mobility of Young\nVolunteers in 2012, the Commission will make proposals for further\ndevelopment;
\n\n· \nthe Commission may introduce proposals that\nspecifically cater for volunteering in the EU's employment\nstrategy, in its fight against poverty and social exclusion and in\nthe context of the Commission's \"New\nSkills for New Jobs\" initiative;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is preparing a proposal for a\nCouncil Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal\nlearning including the recognition of competences acquired through\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe future 'European\nSkills Passport' (Europass) will give individuals the\npossibility of keeping a record of the skills and competences they\nacquire through volunteering;
\nLastly, the Commission will give the forthcoming European\nYear of Citizens (2013) an appropriate volunteering dimension,\npromoting notably cross- border volunteering.
\nPURPOSE: Communication on EU Policies and\nVolunteering: Recognising and Promoting Cross- border Voluntary\nActivities in the EU
\nBACKGROUND: Volunteering contributes to the Europe\n2020 growth strategy, in particular to the EU’s employment\nrate target of 75% by 2020, by helping people learn new skills and\nadapt to changes in the labour market. A study found that the\nvoluntary sector could contribute up to 5% of Gross Domestic\nProduct.
\nThe year 2011 has been designated as the European\nYear of Voluntary Activities promoting Active Citizenship. The\nEuropean Year gives the Commission the opportunity to take stock of\nvolunteering in the EU and its contribution to society. It also\nallows the Commission to evaluate what the EU and Member States can\ndo to facilitate and promote volunteering, notably in cross-border\nsituations.
\nCONTENT: this Communication discusses the benefits of\nvolunteering. It notes that volunteering is an important creator of\nhuman and social capital, a pathway to integration and employment\nand a key factor for improving social cohesion. It is a highly\nvisible expression of European citizenship, as volunteers\ncontribute to shaping society and helping people in need. Its\npotential can be further developed within the Europe 2020 Strategy\nfor growth. Volunteers are an important resource in our economy and\nsociety, but must not be considered as an alternative to a regular\nworkforce. By promoting cross-border volunteering in cooperation\nwith Member States and through EU funding programmes, the EU\ncontributes to the mobility and inter-cultural learning of its\ncitizens and reinforces their European identity.
\nThe Communication also sets out the challenges. On the\nbasis of a study of eight industrialised countries by the Johns\nHopkins University and the experience of the European Year 2011 so\nfar, the potential obstacles to volunteering, in particular across\nborders, were identified as follows:
\n\n· \nlack of a clear legal framework in :almost one\nin five Member States;
\n\n· \nlack of national strategies for promoting\nvoluntary activities regarding training, holiday benefits, social\nsecurity, entitlement to unemployment benefits for cross-border\nvolunteering activities, accommodation and reimbursements of\nout-of-pocket expenses;
\n\n· \nfinancial constraints, with organisations based\non voluntary activity often facing a lack of sustainable\nfunding;
\n\n· \nmismatch between supply and demand: the\nincreasing trend towards professionalising the voluntary sector\ncauses a certain mismatch between the needs of volunteering\norganisations and the aspirations of new volunteers. Volunteers are\navailable for short-term projects while organisations need people\nto make long-term commitments;
\n\n· \nskills that are gained through volunteering\nactivities are not always sufficiently recognised or given\ncredit;
\n\n· \nMember States apply different tax treatments to\nvolunteers' income/allowances and to the reimbursement of the\nexpenses. Consequently, volunteers may encounter tax obstacles when\noperating across borders;
\n\n· \ninsufficient data: better comparable data on\nvolunteering in the Member States can help identify best practices\nand improve policy making.
\nWhilst Member States made some progress on these\nissues in 2006 when they committed to cooperating on overcoming\nobstacles that impede mobility, there is still work to do.\nParticular attention needs to be paid to the promotion of an\nenvironment for volunteering activities providing equal\nopportunities with regard to access and participation of all\nindividuals.
\nThe Communication discusses EU funding opportunities\nfor volunteering, and the social dimension, including volunteering\nas an expression of European citizenship as well as the benefits in\nterms of education and sporting activities and humanitarian\naid.
\nPolicy recommendations to Member\nStates: in accordance with the\nprinciple of subsidiarity, the Commission does not intend to\npromote one single model of volunteering or to harmonise\nvolunteering cultures at local and regional level. However, the\nCommission recommends that Member States make better use of the\npotential of volunteering in the following ways:
\n\n· \nin countries lacking a volunteering framework\nand where there is a weak tradition or culture of volunteering,\nsetting legal frameworks could give incentives to support the\ndevelopment of volunteering;
\n\n· \nresearch and data collection on volunteering\nshould be encouraged at the national level. In this context, the\nuse of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Manual on the\nMeasurement of Volunteer Work and the United Nations Handbook on\nNon-Profit organisations is recommended;
\n\n· \nrecognition of the competences and skills gained\nthrough volunteering as non-formal learning experiences is\nessential as a motivating factor for the volunteers and one that\ncreates bridges between volunteering and education;
\n\n· \nMember States should remove remaining obstacles\nwhich directly or indirectly impede volunteering in general and in\nparticular cross-border volunteering;
\n\n· \nMember States are invited to open national\nvolunteering schemes for across-borders volunteering to contribute\nto the development of volunteering in the European Union.\n
\nConcrete actions to recognise and promote volunteering\nat EU level: the EU is committed to ensuring a long-term follow-up\nto the 2011 European Year of Volunteering and to continuing the\ndialogue with the relevant stakeholders in the different policy\nareas related to volunteering. The Communication makes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \nthe Commission will propose the creation of a\nEuropean Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps in 2012;
\n\n· \nEU funding programmes in different policy areas\nwill further target volunteers and promote cross-border\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe Commission will make it easier for EU\ncitizens and stakeholders to get an overview of different funding\nprogrammes that can be used by volunteers and for voluntary\nactivities;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is willing to further explore\npossibilities to strengthen the link between volunteering and\nhealth/welfare, in particular with regard to the ageing\nsociety;
\n\n· \non the basis of Member States' reports on the\nimplementation of the Recommendation on the Mobility of Young\nVolunteers in 2012, the Commission will make proposals for further\ndevelopment;
\n\n· \nthe Commission may introduce proposals that\nspecifically cater for volunteering in the EU's employment\nstrategy, in its fight against poverty and social exclusion and in\nthe context of the Commission's \"New\nSkills for New Jobs\" initiative;
\n\n· \nthe Commission is preparing a proposal for a\nCouncil Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal\nlearning including the recognition of competences acquired through\nvolunteering;
\n\n· \nthe future 'European\nSkills Passport' (Europass) will give individuals the\npossibility of keeping a record of the skills and competences they\nacquire through volunteering;
\nLastly, the Commission will give the forthcoming European\nYear of Citizens (2013) an appropriate volunteering dimension,\npromoting notably cross- border volunteering.
\nThe Committee on Culture and Education adopted the\nown-initiative report drafted by Marco SCURRIA (EPP, IT) in\nresponse to the Commission communication entitled “Recognising\nand promoting cross-border voluntary activities in the\nEU”.
\nThe report recalls that ‘volunteering’ means\nactivities which are undertaken voluntarily on the basis of a\nperson’s own free choice and motivation, and without concern\nfor financial gain. Given that volunteering is an informal learning\nexperience suitable for persons of all ages, Members invite the\nMember States, who do not have a clear or adequate legal\nframework for volunteers, to put one in place.
\nMember States are also called upon to:
\nVolunteers and the European Neighbourhood\nPolicy: Members note the benefits\narising from cooperation between volunteers from the European\nUnion’s Member States and third countries and point out that\nsuch cooperation is particularly important in the context of the\nEuropean Neighbourhood Policy. They call on the Council and the\nCommission to continue to make progress in the negotiations towards\neasier visa regimes for non-EU citizens wishing to enter the EU for\nthe purpose of volunteering, provided they fulfil the criteria to\nperform volunteering activities and to implement the provisions of\nCouncil Directive 2004/114/EC\n on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for\nthe purposes of studies. The purpose would be to simplify the\nprocedures for the granting of visas, or to abolish them, for those\nwishing to undertake voluntary activities as part of the EU\nneighbourhood policy. Members encourage the Member States to\nrecognise the benefits of participating in cross-border volunteer\nactivities to provide citizens with new skills, contributing to\ntheir employability and mobility and strengthening the development\nof social inclusion, and to support cooperation between organisers\nof voluntary activities in EU countries in order to promote the\nmobility of volunteers of all ages across Europe.
\nCalls on the Commission to improve the facilities of\nvolunteering organisations and volunteer centres for providing\ninformation and training and for coordinating activities between\nvolunteers and volunteering organisations;
\nEnhance the quality of voluntary\naction: the report highlights the\nneed to ensure that high-quality volunteering is developed, both\nnationally and at cross-border level, through a structured\nframework of comprehensive information and appropriate training for\nvolunteers which includes current best practice, the development of\nhosting capacities for providers and organisations at local and\nnational level, a recognition of the rights of volunteers to\nreconcile their voluntary work with their personal lives, and by\ncreating the necessary infrastructure at all levels.
\nEnhance the quality of voluntary\naction: MEPs ask the Commission to\nstrengthen the capacity of organizations and volunteer centers to\nprovide information and training. The Commission should publish a\nreport identifying barriers to cross-border volunteering, such as\nage limits in the insurance and, where appropriate, legislative\nproposals.
\nTo enhance the quality of volunteer work, the report\nstresses the following:
\nVolunteering and senior citizens: Members note that older people who engage in\nvolunteering find it easier to make the transition from work to\nretirement. It stresses the importance of providing information,\nadequate funding and support for senior citizens wishing to\nvolunteer in another EU country. It notes that volunteering\ncontributes to integration, social inclusion and social innovation,\nand can also contribute to poverty reduction, thus helping to\nachieve economic and social cohesion. Members point out that\nvolunteering also promotes solidarity between generations by\nencouraging cooperation between young people and senior citizens,\nand that it contributes to active ageing. Members call on\nthe Commission and the Member States to give a high profile to\nvolunteering in sport, particularly at the grassroots level, to\nacknowledge the important role played by volunteer-led sporting\norganisations in strengthening culture, etc.
\nRecognition of volunteering: Members support the Commission’s proposal to\nestablish a ‘European Skills Passport’, so that\nthe skills acquired through volunteering may be officially\nrecognised, both for professional and learning purposes. For\nMembers, this Passport should not be a series of new separate\ncertificates but, rather, a comprehensive document listing all\npractical experience, training and soft and vocational skills\nacquired through life-long learning, including those gained through\nvolunteering, if desired by the volunteer. The report suggests\ntherefore including the skills acquired through volunteering in the\nECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) for\nstudents.
\nThe Commission is called upon to:
\nMember States are urged to:
\nThe report proposes that a training and\nqualifications framework for volunteer coaches be\nestablished and incorporated into the European Qualifications\nFramework in order to improve the mobility of volunteer coaches and\nenhance the transferability of skills and competences developed\nthrough volunteering.
\nEuropean Voluntary Humanitarian Aid\nCorps: the report supports the\nCommission’s proposal to create a ‘European Voluntary\nHumanitarian Aid Corps’, which will increase the participation\nof volunteers in solidarity actions in the context of the EU’s\nhumanitarian aid policy. It calls on the Commission also to take\nexisting structures into consideration and actively to incorporate\nthese from the outset when establishing this voluntary corps and\nemphasises that the duplication of organisations in the area of\ncivil protection is not desirable and should be avoided.
\nRemoving technical barriers: Members urge the national, regional and local\nauthorities and the EU to ensure adequate and stable funding and to\nsimplify administrative procedures, including tax incentives, for\nthe organisations involved in volunteering work, including all the\nrelevant associations and networks, particularly for small\nassociations with limited resources, with a view to enhancing their\nroles, activities and achievements for the benefit of\nsociety. They call, therefore, for the concept of grants\nto associations to be clarified so that association funding is not\nconfused with state aid, which could hinder competition in the\nfinancial sector. The Commission is called upon to propose a\nmechanism to allow Member States wishing to strengthen civil\nsociety to exempt from VAT all or most of the activities and\ntransactions carried out by voluntary non-profit-making\norganisations. At least the smaller non-profit-making organisations\nshould be covered by such a mechanism.
\nMember States are called upon to:
\nEuropean financing for voluntary work: Members call on the Commission to ensure that\nfunding is guaranteed for volunteering projects and for the\nstructures organised by voluntary activities in the EU.
\nThey also call on the Commission to:
\nThey ask the Commission to allocate adequate\nresources to the creation of a European Volunteer Centre\nDevelopment Fund aimed at developing infrastructure to support\nvolunteering.
\nEuropean Statute:\nMembers call on the Commission to propose a European Statute for\nAssociations to give them the legal framework within which to\noperate, reduce the administrative costs associated with\ncross-border volunteering activities and establish voluntary\nstructures at a European level which encourage mobility of\nvolunteers in the EU. They propose that a cross-border network of\nvoluntary organisations in the various Member States should be set\nup by coordinating the existing voluntary organisations and call\nfor the promotion of volunteer work in EU policies.
\nVoluntary work and the European Year: Members recommend that the Commission and the Member\nStates maintain a continuity between 2011 and future years by\nstrongly integrating the volunteering dimension, which is an\nexpression of active citizenship that promotes social integration,\nincluding that of older citizens, within both the European Year for\nActive Ageing (2012) and the proposed European Year of Citizens\n(2013). They call on the Commission to maintain the useful contact\npoints set up both with ‘EYV 2011 Alliance’ and the\nsuccessor Volunteer Platform. They call on the Commission to act,\nwhere it deems appropriate, on the Policy Agenda on Volunteering in\nEurope (PAVE), which was drawn up by the volunteering organisations\ninvolved in the EYV 2011 Alliance.
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted the own-initiative report by Renate WEBER (ADLE,\nRO) on the EU Charter: standard settings for media freedom across\nthe EU. Members recall that freedom of the media is a cornerstone\nof the values enshrined in the Treaties and that freedom of\nexpression in the public sphere has been shown to be formative of\ndemocracy and the rule of law itself. Accordingly, Member States\nand the European Union must respect, guarantee, protect and promote\nthe fundamental right to freedom of expression and information as\nwell as media pluralism. They must refrain from exerting threats\nto media freedom such as trying to unduly and politically\ninfluence or pressure and impose censorship on the media in the\nservice of private or political interests.
\nIn order to achieve this, legally\nbinding procedures and mechanisms must be put in place for\nthe selection and appointment of public media heads to ensure\nprofessionalism, integrity and independence in the media in terms\nof representing the entire political and social\nspectrum.
\nApplication of the Charter on Fundamental\nRights: recalling that the EU Charter\non Fundamental Rights protects media pluralism, Members call on the\nCommission to ensure that Member States guarantee proper\nimplementation of the Charter. They underline the fundamental role\nof a genuinely balanced European dual system, in which private and\npublic service media play their respective roles, as requested by\nParliament, the Commission and the Council of Europe.
\nPublic service media:\nMembers recall the important role of public service media, funded\nby citizens through the state, as well as their institutional duty\nto provide high quality, accurate and reliable information. They\nalso recall the specific and distinctive role of public service\nmedia, which is directly related to the democratic, social and\ncultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media\npluralism. Public service media have a social, educational,\ncultural and democratic role that must be guaranteed even in times\nof financial crisis and budget cuts.
\nRegulation and competition thresholds: Members stress that measures to regulate the\naccess of media outlets to the market through broadcast licensing\nand authorising procedures, rules on the protection of state,\nnational or military security and public order and rules on public\nmorality and child protection should not be abused for purposes\nof imposing political or partisan control or censorship on the\nmedia. A proper balance needs to be ensured in this respect,\nand should not be threatened by the influence of specific interest\ngroups, economic actors, or religious groups. The Commission and\nMember States are asked to apply competition and media rules, to\naddress and prevent dominant positions, possibly through setting\nlower competition thresholds in the media industry than in other\nmarkets.
\nThey stress that the existence of press groups\nowned by enterprises that have the power to award public\nprocurement contracts represents a threat to media independence\nand call on the Commission to assess how existing competition\nrules relate to the increasing concentration of commercial media in\nMember States. They also call for concrete measures to prevent\nexcessive media concentration.
\nAvoiding conflicts of interest: Members call for rules to ensure that conflicts of\ninterest such as those resulting from the amalgamation of political\noffice and control over media outlets are properly addressed and\nresolved. They call for the effective implementation of clear rules\nto ensure transparent and fair procedures for media funding and\nstate advertising and sponsoring allocation.
\nThe report highlights the fact that market power in\nthe media industry arises not only from monopoly pricing power, but\nalso from political influence leading to regulatory capture,\nmaking dominant positions more difficult to dismantle once they are\nestablished. Members recall that the Commission has on several\noccasions been asked about the possibility of introducing a legal\nframework to prevent concentration of ownership and abuse of\ndominant positions. They call on the Commission to propose concrete\nmeasures to safeguard media pluralism, including a legislative\nframework for media ownership rules introducing minimum standards\nfor Member States.
\nJournalistic independence: the committee underlines the importance of ensuring\nthe independence of journalists in the face of external pressure.\nIt highlights the fact that the right of access to public documents\nand information is fundamental for journalists and citizens,\nand calls on the Member States to establish a solid and extensive\nlegal framework with regard to freedom of governmental information\nand access to documents of public interest. Journalists must also\nbe protected from pressures, intimidation, harassment, threats\nand violence. Members recall the particular role of investigative\njournalists. They call on Member States to adopt legislation\nso as to prevent the infiltration of newsrooms by intelligence\nofficers. They stress that an increasing number of journalists\nfind themselves employed under precarious conditions, and call for\nthe improvement of the working conditions of media\nprofessionals.
\nCodes of conduct and ethical rules: Members ask the Commission to propose a legal\ninstrument (e.g. by means of a recommendation) to ensure that the\nMember States oblige the media sector to develop professional\nstandards and ethical codes which include the obligation to\nindicate a difference between facts and opinions in reporting, the\nnecessity of accuracy, impartiality and objectivity, respect for\npeople’s privacy, the duty to correct misinformation and the\nright of reply. They call on all Member States in which defamation\nis a criminal offence to decriminalise it and to set up\nself-regulatory bodies of the media, such as complaints\ncommissions and ombudspersons.
\nInternet: the report\nstresses that the fundamental right to freedom of expression and\nfreedom of the media is not only reserved for traditional media,\nbut also covers social media and other forms of new media on the\ninternet. It emphasises the growing importance of news\naggregators, search engines and other intermediaries in the\ndissemination of and access to information and news content on the\ninternet and calls on the Commission to include these internet\nactors in the EU regulatory framework when revising the Audiovisual\nMedia Services Directive.
\nMonitor media pluralism:\nMembers underline the importance and urgency of annually monitoring\nmedia freedom and pluralism in all Member States and reporting on a\nyearly basis on the matter, in liaison with all stakeholders both\ninstitutional and others. They believe that the Commission, the\nFundamental Rights Agency and/or the EUI Centre for Media Pluralism\nand Media Freedom must carry out this task and publish an annual\nreport with the results of the monitoring. That report should be\npresented to Parliament and the Council and proposals made for any\nactions arising from conclusions on the report.
\nReview the current legislative\nframework: recalling EU competences\nto take legislative measures to guarantee media freedom and\npluralism, Members believe that any regulation should take place on\nthe basis of a detailed and careful analysis of the situation in\nthe EU and Member States. Non-legislative initiatives, such\nas monitoring, self-regulation and codes of conduct, should be\npursued.
\nThe committee repeats its call on the Commission to\nreview and amend the Audiovisual Media Services\nDirective (AVMSD) and extend its scope to minimum\nstandards for the respect, protection and promotion of the\nfundamental right to freedom of expression and information, and to\nensure that the national regulatory authorities are fully\nindependent, impartial and transparent. The Commission should also\ninstitutionalise EU-level cooperation and coordination, for\ninstance by establishing a European regulators’ group for\naudiovisual media services, and streamline and strengthen the\nstatus and role of the national regulatory authorities.
\nThe National Regulatory Authorities, for their part,\nare asked cooperate and coordinate at EU level on media matters,\nfor instance by establishing a European Regulators’\nAssociation for audiovisual media services.
\nThe committee makes other recommendations, such\nas:
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted the own-initiative report by Renate WEBER (ADLE,\nRO) on the EU Charter: standard settings for media freedom across\nthe EU. Members recall that freedom of the media is a cornerstone\nof the values enshrined in the Treaties and that freedom of\nexpression in the public sphere has been shown to be formative of\ndemocracy and the rule of law itself. Accordingly, Member States\nand the European Union must respect, guarantee, protect and promote\nthe fundamental right to freedom of expression and information as\nwell as media pluralism. They must refrain from exerting threats\nto media freedom such as trying to unduly and politically\ninfluence or pressure and impose censorship on the media in the\nservice of private or political interests.
\nIn order to achieve this, legally\nbinding procedures and mechanisms must be put in place for\nthe selection and appointment of public media heads to ensure\nprofessionalism, integrity and independence in the media in terms\nof representing the entire political and social\nspectrum.
\nApplication of the Charter on Fundamental\nRights: recalling that the EU Charter\non Fundamental Rights protects media pluralism, Members call on the\nCommission to ensure that Member States guarantee proper\nimplementation of the Charter. They underline the fundamental role\nof a genuinely balanced European dual system, in which private and\npublic service media play their respective roles, as requested by\nParliament, the Commission and the Council of Europe.
\nPublic service media:\nMembers recall the important role of public service media, funded\nby citizens through the state, as well as their institutional duty\nto provide high quality, accurate and reliable information. They\nalso recall the specific and distinctive role of public service\nmedia, which is directly related to the democratic, social and\ncultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media\npluralism. Public service media have a social, educational,\ncultural and democratic role that must be guaranteed even in times\nof financial crisis and budget cuts.
\nRegulation and competition thresholds: Members stress that measures to regulate the\naccess of media outlets to the market through broadcast licensing\nand authorising procedures, rules on the protection of state,\nnational or military security and public order and rules on public\nmorality and child protection should not be abused for purposes\nof imposing political or partisan control or censorship on the\nmedia. A proper balance needs to be ensured in this respect,\nand should not be threatened by the influence of specific interest\ngroups, economic actors, or religious groups. The Com