A. Context, problem definition
(i) Political context
The White Paper on youth (2001) first suggested a European mobility card. A study on a mobility card (2005) showed 90% of respondents would like such a card. The European Parliament adopted a motion for a resolution suggesting a single European Student Identification card.
The political context of mobility evolved over the last years, with growing emphasis on employability and youth
participation. Youth on the Move (YoM), an EU 2020 Strategy flagship initiative, proposed actions in support of mobility. The 2011 Council Recommendation on YoM emphasized that in spite of progress many obstacles to mobility remain. The Treaty of Lisbon introduced a civic dimension in article 165(2) encouraging "the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe", which is about getting involved in societal activities (e.g. volunteering, youth organisations and politics). The EU Youth Strategy invites the Member States and the Commission to cooperate on issues that affect Europe's youth, such as education, employment, participation and volunteering and, in this context, a Council Resolution from spring 2011 defined "youth participation in democratic life" as the overarching priority for the period July 2011-December 2012.
YoM proposes a Youth on the Move card to facilitate mobility and participation of young Europeans by speeding up their integration when moving abroad and providing advantages in line with existing student/youth cards. The YoM Council Recommendation (2011) calls for a.o. better information, promotion and guidance on mobility, solutions for administrative and institutional issues and involvement of actors who can accelerate and multiply EU initiated actions. The Recommendation encourages the provision of convenient and affordable facilities for mobile learners" and notes particular examples such as housing, catering and transport.
(ii) There are several initiatives at the European and international level that offer cards to students and young people, such as the European Youth Card, the International Student Identity Card/International Youth Travel Card or the Erasmus Student Network card.
The planned initiative shall be complementary to other actions contributing to YoM, which will be developed in parallel, such as "Your first EURES job", the Mobility Scoreboard and the European Skills passport. The proposed initiative will build on the achievements of past EU programmes such as Youth in Action and Life Long Learning, which have provided over 1.5 million participants with mobile learning opportunities. There are also several EU card initiatives in place or under development, including the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC), the EU Health Professional card and the Free Movement card, proposed in the Monti Report on the future of the Single Market (2010).
What are the main problems this initiative will address?
1. Hurdles to mobility
While travelling, studying or moving abroad, young people face a number of hurdles. Eurobarometer survey data (No 319 B) show 53% of young people in Europe are willing or keen to work in another European country. However, there is a large gap between the desire of young people to work abroad and the actual workforce mobility: less than 3% of Europe's working population currently lives outside their home country. Only one in seven (14%) of young Europeans have been abroad for education or training.
The large gap is mainly caused by a lack of available funding for mobility purposes and poses a significant hurdle to increased education and employment mobility of young people. Roughly two-thirds (65%) of respondents who had stayed abroad for education or training purposes said they had used private funds or savings to finance their longest stay abroad. When young adults who had never stayed abroad for education, training, working or volunteering purposes were asked to select the most or second most important reason for not having spent time abroad, a third of respondents answered that they had no access to funding or that it would have been too expensive to stay abroad. A slim majority of respondents in Romania (51%), Hungary, Croatia and Bulgaria (all 55%) said that a lack of funding was the most or second most important reason for not having spent time abroad.
In connection with other initiatives to foster mobility in the context of Youth on the Move, the YoM card initiative can alleviate the financial burden of being mobile and further supports the other EU policy developments supporting youth mobility as part of YoM.
The same Eurobarometer data (No 319 B), as well as the conclusions of YoM card expert meetings, show additionally that young people face personal and social challenges to moving abroad. The lack of a social network abroad, difficulties to obtain local information and language barriers prevent young people from moving elsewhere to pursue education or employment opportunities. The data show that a lack of foreign language skills and a lack of information about mobility opportunities were selected as the most important reasons for not having spent time abroad by 14% and 13%, respectively, of the young adults that never stayed abroad for education, training working or volunteering purposes. Moreover, the existence of social barriers implies a direct negative effect on the participation of young people in environments abroad.
2. Inconsistent offer and recognition of existing youth and student cards
The aforementioned youth/student cards provide benefits at various degrees for young people at the Member State level, and in some cases beyond. However, there are obstacles reducing the ability of youth/student cards to fully support mobility across borders.
There is fragmentation in the offer of benefits resulting in substantial differences in benefits in different countries and there are hardly benefits that apply across the whole of Europe. The benefits offered for comparable services vary strongly per country.
There is also inconsistency in the access to and recognition of youth/student cards, so that not all young Europeans have the possibility to enjoy the benefits offered. More specifically, certain cards are not offered in some Member States.
The result of these obstacles is that the benefits for young people vary strongly per Member State and not every young person in Europe has access to the same level of services and discounts to engage in mobility activities for the purposes of learning, working or participation to other activities abroad. In some Member States where (European) youth cards are not available, young people from those countries cannot avail themselves of the advantages that cards bring for the purposes of mobility within Europe. Conversely, mobility to those same Member Sates from other Member States where youth cards are available is not facilitated.
Who will be affected by it?
· Mainly young people between 13 and 30 years old residing in Europe. The initiative does not only concern students, pupils, apprentices, trainees, but also researchers, volunteers, and young professionals. The age limit of 13 to 30 years old follows the rationale and definition of "young people" as described in the Youth in Action programme.
· Current card-issuing organisations such as the European Youth Card Association (EYCA), the International Student Identity Card (ISIC), and the Erasmus Student Network (ESN).
· Youth organisations
· The Council of Europe via their "Partial Agreement on Youth Mobility through the Youth Card". The partial agreement involves youth mobility projects, participation and intercultural learning projects, quality development and support measures
· EU Member States, EEA countries, candidate countries, partner countries
(i) European action is justified and in line with the Treaty articles.
· Union action should be aimed at developing a European dimension in education (Art. 165 TFEU)
· Union action should encourage the mobility of students and the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe (Art. 165 TFEU)
· Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured in the European Union and entails the right to move freely within the territory of the Member States for this purpose (Art. 45 TFEU)
The Council endorsed the Youth on the Move Communication and the Europe 2020 Strategy calls for specific action on the YoM card. EU action will not replace existing initiatives, but add a European dimension to the current well-established local and national benefits, and ensure the availability thereof to all young people. The EU initiative would respect the diversity of traditions and practices in different Member States of the European Union. The European Commission would clearly not be involved in the micro-management of the cards, but arrange its practical implementation with delivery partners instead.
(ii) The very nature and scale of the YoM card initiative, notably the cross border, pan-European aspect, make it complex for Member States to achieve the objectives of the initiative. Member States have thus far not taken any action to improve the mutual recognition of existing youth/student cards across Europe. Moreover, the described differences in benefits, recognition and availability of youth cards in Member States demonstrate that Member States alone cannot achieve the objectives of the YoM card in an equal way. Member States lack the possibility to push forward and coordinate pan-European action, particularly due to the large divergence of cards in Member States.
(iii) Through policy action, the EU can help all MS and those MS in particular that lag behind in providing young people with opportunities via youth/student cards by encouraging and promoting the use of youth cards, negotiating pan-European discounts, and establishing a quality framework to ensure the cross-border value of cards. Action on the EU level can ensure common standards to satisfy user expectations across borders.
The EU can lead this initiative in a much more effective way than Member States could do individually. By creating a forum of involved stakeholders at the EU level, the negotiation power of these stakeholders will increase significantly and as such, support from the EU will lead to a higher acceptance of the YoM card initiative in the Member States.
In addition, launching an umbrella initiative will require fewer resources than a bottom-up approach. The European Commission has the facilities and contacts to mobilise all stakeholders at the EU level. At the same time, this would give the opportunity to create synergies with other EU actions related to the YoM initiative, as well as the Free Movement card and the European Health Insurance card.
B. Objectives of the initiative
What are the main policy objectives?
General objective:
The YoM Card initiative aims to support the increase of educational and professional mobility and youth participation in Europe. As such, it will contribute to building a more cohesive and competitive society in the long term.
Specific objectives:
To this purpose, the YoM Card aims to remove or reduce the barriers that young people face in becoming mobile across country borders; help them integrate more easily and more quickly into their new country; and facilitate access to local support services when / if needed by the young people during their stay.
1. Remove existing obstacles in the Member States to the use of youth/student cards to improve recognition and acceptability of cards across borders.
2. Develop pan-European discounts and services to encourage and facilitate mobility across borders.
3. Create a platform to support societal integration and foster youth participation, providing young people with access to relevant sources of information and to social networks to speed up integration in new environments.
4. Reduce disparities and improve the consistency in the offer of services across different areas in Europe and the lack of youth/student cards in certain Member States.
5. Promote good practices among Member States to stimulate distribution, outreach and use of existing cards.
Do the objectives imply developing EU policy in new areas?
This objective does not imply developing EU activity in new areas.
C. Options
(i) What are the policy options being considered?
(ii) What legislative or 'soft law' instruments could be considered?
(iii) How do the options respect the proportionality principle?
(i and ii) The policy options outlined hereafter reflect the possible legislative or soft-law instruments available for EU policy making in the field of Youth.
Option 1: Baseline Scenario: No EU Action/Status Quo
The baseline scenario would correspond with "No EU action". The baseline scenario, defined as the continuation of the status quo, entails that the existing youth/student cards are likely to continue to offer mainly local benefits to a relatively small part of the young people in Europe and that existing obstacles remain. Based on the existing card initiatives, those Member States that offer youth/student cards could take multilateral actions to establish more pan-European benefits for card holders and promote their outreach.
Option 2: Encouraging self regulation
This option would be to encourage self-regulation among youth card issuers as well as potential discount providers. Commission would support the creation of a platform to bring partners together and facilitate negotiations of benefits in the areas of transportation, accommodation, culture etc.
The Commission could also broker the signature of an agreement between card issuers whereby they would commit to try and reduce the problems described above regarding the situation of youth cards.
Option 3: A Legal Framework for a YoM label
A YoM label would provide guidance to removing obstacles to the use of existing cards. It would guarantee agreed quality criteria for existing cards, pan-European social and economic benefits.
Such a YoM label would be created as a trademark registered in the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) which can be placed on existing youth/student cards meeting pre-defined quality criteria. The label would provide users with truly pan-European discounts and benefits. The Commission would also support the creation of a platform of stakeholders to facilitate negotiations of benefits in various areas. The framework for such a label could either be a Council recommendation (Article 165 TFEU based) or a Commission recommendation (Article 292 TFUE based). A Council Recommendation could be a good tool to provide a coherent framework for this label while fully respecting the subsidiarity principle.
Option 4: Promoting the use of youth cards via Youth Open Method of Coordination (OMC)
The OMC in the youth field could monitor and report on Member State actions to increase learning mobility, to remove obstacles to the use of youth/student cards and to share best practices to encourage a wider offer of cards and benefits across Europe.
Organising peer learning events in combination with a monitoring and reporting system would allow Member States to be aware of youth/student card practices elsewhere, duplicate initiatives and learn from each other. It could also foster networks for national actors for the negotiation of pan-European benefits.
The Commission would take supportive measures to encourage access to information and networks.
Option 5: A new EU Youth Card: the Youth on the Move card
A YoM card could be created and offered to either all young Europeans, or at least those young Europeans participating in EU programmes such as Erasmus and European Voluntary Service.
A YoM card would offer young people a pan-European dimension of benefits on a selected number of mobility related products such as travel, accommodation and insurance, but also access to local and European information. A single card would remove obstacles to recognition and acceptability of cards when used. The YoM card would not cover any of the local/national advantages that are currently offered by youth/student cards, such as culture, food and beverage, and goods. These benefits would alleviate the social and economic problems related to mobility and address inconsistent recognition and offer of existing cards.
(iii) Proportionality: All suggested options are in accordance with the objectives of the Treaties including Article 45 and 165 TFEU. The proposed options do not go further than what is necessary to achieve these objectives. Budget requirements are limited and can be accommodated within already existing budget and legal framework.
D. Initial assessment of impacts
What are the benefits and costs of each of the policy options?
Option 1: Baseline Scenario: No EU Action/Status Quo
Expected impact: Not taking action entails that the existing fragmentation of benefits and unequal offer of youth/students cards will remain. Young people will continue be confronted with the identified social and economic barriers to mobility. Any possible bi- or multilateral incentives would entail a rather lengthy process of negotiations depending on the voluntary involvement of Member States.
Moreover, keeping the status quo would not adequately grasp the reality of limited youth mobility and would not be in accordance with the Youth on the Move Communication, and the Council Recommendation Youth on the Move - Promoting the learning mobility of young people adopted in 2011, which proposed the development of a YoM card.
Cost efficiency: There would be no financial costs.
Option 2: Encouraging self regulation
Expected impact: the self regulation option would be based on the good will of the organisations and companies concerned, and would involve Member States who also need to take part in the development of youth cards, especially in countries where the youth cards are promoted by public authorities. The impact of self regulation could thus be limited.
The Commission would moreover have to handle the action with great care, to avoid encouraging any anticompetitive behaviour between card issuers.
Cost efficiency: Limited budgetary implications (organisation of meetings) remaining below € 5m.
Option 3: A Legal Framework for a YoM label
Expected impact: A EU initiative for a label would strengthen the basis for cooperation at national and EU level and create a clear framework for effectively removing obstacles and providing incentives as a contribution to overcoming some of the current problems related to youth mobility. It would ensure quality and pan-European coverage of an EU product: a YoM label and provide agreed guidelines to Member States to further promote the use of youth and student cards. It would also encourage self-regulation by the organisations providing youth cards services and encourage sharing and implementing best practices among Member States. Finally, it would provide a clear framework for developing the tools to provide access to information sources encouraging youth participation.
If the instrument chosen is a Council Recommendation, it could address the general and specific objectives mentioned. EU coordination and promotion of the YoM label would ensure a wider endorsement of the existing initiatives, while leaving the handling to the national level and the private organisations on a decentralised basis. The proposed measures are generally accepted by the Member States in youth policy.
Cost efficiency: Limited budgetary implications (e.g. possible marketing costs) remaining below € 5m.
Option 4: Promoting the use of youth cards via Youth Open Method of Coordination (OMC)
Expected impact: The Open Method of Coordination is a flexible framework which can introduce objectives and an agenda at Member State level. Applying the OMC would encourage Member States to jointly reflect on removing obstacles, share best practices on existing initiatives to stimulate diffusion and use of existing cards, and address the inconsistent offer of discounts and lack of youth/student cards within the Member States. This would allow visibility and promotion of mobility initiatives, yet only on a voluntary basis. Conversely, it is unlikely to provide in itself the means to reach more pan-European benefits and create Europe-wide platforms for encouraging access to information and social networks. The Commission would need to undertake additional measures, for which it will need to seek cooperation with relevant partners and Member States for each action individually. The above would imply that objectives would only be reached over a longer period, or in the absence of a joint agenda, reach in an incomplete way.
Cost efficiency: No budgetary implications
Option 5: A new EU Youth Card: the Youth on the Move card
Expected impact: A YoM card would solve the problems of obstacles related to inconsistent availability and recognition and provide strong incentives for obtaining better pan-European benefits, while at the same time offering young people the comprehensive access to information and networks to tackle the social barriers they face when moving abroad for employment and education opportunities. There are, however, indications that a new youth card may not appeal to a large enough audience considering the distribution and coverage of existing youth/student cards as the youth card market seems in saturated in terms of offer. Creating an EU youth card to be introduced in all Member States may interfere with existing initiatives in Member States, potentially leading to duplication of offer or competition with commercial/civil society/public initiatives in this field.
Cost efficiency: The costs of issuing a new card would certainly be above €5m.
Could any or all of the options have significant impacts on (i) simplification, (ii) administrative burden and (iii) relations with other countries, (iv) implementation arrangements? And (v) could any be difficult to transpose for certain Member States?
For none of the first 4 options a significant impact in the areas mentioned here above under points (i) to (v) is expected. With regard to option 3, a legal framework is likely to encourage cooperation and possibly streamlining of various local, regional or national card initiatives, which could potentially lead to a more consistent offer and less fragmentation. For option 4, it should be noted that there is already a reporting mechanism in the Youth field in place, and as such, this option would not create any additional administrative burden. Option 5 however, would have some significant impact on the administrative burden, relations with other countries and implementation arrangements..
(i) Will an IA be carried out for this initiative and/or possible follow-up initiatives? (ii) When will the IA work start? (iii) When will the IA Steering Group be set up and how often will it meet? (iv) What DGs will be invited?
(i) Yes
(ii) The IA work started in September 2011.
(iii) The IA Steering Group Members have been identified and has been convened in November 2011. In line with the guidelines for IA, the IA Steering Group will hold at least two other meetings to discuss the result of the various consultations and the draft final report.
(iv). Secretary-General, Directorate Generals: Internal Market and Services, Health and Consumer Affairs, Education and Culture, and Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
(i) Is any of options likely to have impacts on the EU budget above €5m?
(ii) If so, will this IA serve also as an ex-ante evaluation, as required by the Financial regulation? If not, provide information about the timing of the ex-ante evaluation.
(i) No for option 1-4. Taking the turnover of existing youth cards into account, adding the European dimension of negotiations and marketing costs, Option 5 would have an impact above € 5m.
(ii) Only if option 5 turned out to be the preferred option.
E. Evidence based planning of further work and consultation
(i) What information and data are already available? Will existing impact assessment and evaluation work be used?
(ii) What further information needs to be gathered, how will this be done (e.g. internally or by an external contractor), and by when?
(iii) What is the timing for the procurement process & the contract for any external contracts that you are planning (e.g. for analytical studies, information gathering, etc.)?
(iv) Is any particular communication or information activity foreseen? If so, what, and by when?
(i)
- A recent survey on the Youth on the Move card, undertaken between 4 April and 4 June 2011. This survey intends to collate input from stakeholders on existing youth/student cards experience and on future desired features of the YoM card. The survey received input of over 3200 stakeholders. A report summarizing the main results has been issued. The survey results show that according to 75% of the respondents, a student/youth card definitely supports the mobility of young people. Nonetheless, 33% of the respondents state the current benefits offered are too limited and that discounts vary widely across the EU.
- Two stakeholder meetings including youth organisations, card issuers, young people, and representatives of Presidencies, the Council and involved Commission DGs (see description below).
- Eurobarometer survey on Youth (NO 319 A+ B): Two Eurobarometer surveys have been commissioned as part of the EU's "Youth on the Move" flagship initiative. The aim of the Flash Eurobarometer survey "Youth on the Move – 319a" was to study young EU citizens’ participation in society, by looking at their involvement in various kinds of organisations, political elections, and different types of activities and projects. The objective of the Flash Eurobarometer survey "Youth on the Move – 319b" was to look at young Europeans' mobility with respect to education and work, and to investigate how they view the attractiveness of vocational and higher education.
- Youth report 2012: The first EU Youth report was released in April 2009, together with the Commission Communication on the new EU Youth Strategy. It was the first comprehensive EU report in a decade to present updated statistics, data and analyses on the situation of young people. Subsequent EU Youth Reports have been produced every three years (next in 2012). The 2009 report indentifies relevant statistics and data, and identifies trends and good practices across EU Member States
- Past study on European Mobility card (2005): A 2005 feasibility study, performed by ECOTEC Research & Consulting, asked stakeholders what their opinion about existing mobility cards was, and what they would think about the introduction of a European Mobility Card or a European Mobility Module. The study showed existing mobility cards were highly regarded by young people. The card most often assessed by young people was the Euro<26(now EYCA), and this was also the card most highly valued, followed by the ISIC card. Around 90% of the respondents would have liked a European Mobility Card or Module to be introduced. It was highlighted that such a scheme would increase users' feelings of being European, and the EU being more visible and transparent to young people and business, e.g. through an EU logo, better information and dissemination strategies, better links on websites with a focus on mobility.
(ii) A mapping of the existing situation is currently undertaken internally, on the basis of material provided by the main stakeholders.
A study will be undertaken by an external contractor in order to support the prior evaluation of the planned initiative. It will assess potential costs, benefits and drawbacks of every option envisaged in the roadmap for young mobile persons in Europe.
(iii) The multiple framework contract for evaluation and impact assessment of the DG Education and Culture will be used for the study on modelling various scenarios. The contract has been signed in April 2012 and the study should be finalised around July 2012.
(iv) Information and communication activities are ongoing, for example, via the presentation of the stakeholder survey conclusion in the second part of 2011, as well as Expert Meetings.
Which stakeholders & experts have been or will be consulted, how, and at what stage?
Several consultations (on-line survey, visits in Member States, meetings with stakeholders) were undertaken in 2010-2011:
· Stakeholder meeting (DG EAC, Brussels, 10 December 2010): A stakeholder meeting exploring first ideas and suggestions for a future YoM card has involved representatives of card organisations (European Youth Card Association, International Student Identity Card, Erasmus Student Network), youth and student unions, youth information networks, and young people. Stakeholders presented their first ideas on the feasibility of a YoM card and expressed their expectations of the card.
· Expert meeting (DG EAC, Brussels, 19 April 2011): Experts from the youth/student card field presented 3 particular success stories in Europe, and shared their experiences and advice. These workshops were organised to create practical proposals to implement the short term objectives and define the role of each stakeholder: The YoM card label was perceived as the most appropriate means to implement the initiative to avoid exclusivity, unfair competition and remain open to innovation. The role of the Commission as an 'honest broker' in the negotiation process with business partners was strongly encouraged by all card organisations. All stakeholders offered strong support in realizing the first practical stage of the YoM card label: cross-border, pan-European discounts
· Online survey:
· An online survey was open until 4 June 2011, and collated input from more than 3000 stakeholders on existing youth/student cards and on future features of the YoM card. The results will be analysed and summarised in a report. The report will be published in autumn 2011 and will feed into the impact assessment.
· Several youth card related events: the Young Scot Conference in Edinburgh, the ISIC Event in Talinn and the EYCA Conference in Amsterdam allowed the Commission to establish valuable contacts with relevant stakeholders and, moreover, gave clear insight into the challenges faced by youth and youth cards.
· A technical expert group composed of the main stakeholders has been set up to assist the Commission. This group meets regularly.
· A targeted consultation of Youth policy makers will also take place during spring 2012.
A last stakeholders' consultation will be organised through a meeting in spring 2012.
Apart from representatives of youth field, national policy makers, youth representatives, communication channels and card organisations, the following specific stakeholders have been identified and consulted:
· European Youth Card Association (EYCA)
· International Student Identity Card (ISIC)
· Young Scot
· Council of Europe
· Eurodesk
· European Youth Information and Counselling Agency (ERYICA)
· European Union Federation of Hostel Associations (EUFED)
· Injuve
· Erasmus Student Network (ESN)
· European Students Union (ESU)
· European Youth Forum (YFJ)
· Trio Presidency (PL-DK-CY)
· Scotland House
· Mecenat
· National Youth Ministries
· Mondial Insurance
· European Parliament
· Railplus
· European Confederation of Youth Clubs (ECYC)
Download the document "The Youth on the Move card label".
Les rapports "Résultats et gestion budgétaire" (RRGB). La Cour des comptes remet aujourd’hui, 30 mai 2012, à l’Assemblée nationale et au Sénat son rapport sur les résultats et la gestion budgétaire de l’Etat en 2011, en application de l’article 58-4° de la loi organique relative aux lois de finances (lolf). Télécharger le RRGB - Rapport complet sur les résultats et la gestion budgétaire (exercice 2011). Ce rapport est complété par 60 analyses de la gestion de chacune des missions du budget général et chacun des comptes spéciaux, publiées pour la première fois en 2012 dans leur intégralité. Voir tous les documents.
/https%3A%2F%2Fprofilepics.canalblog.com%2Fprofilepics%2F1%2F0%2F1076071.jpg)