COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 13.1.2022
SWD(2022) 4 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a Council Recommendation
on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union
{COM(2022) 15 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0015 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
1
Contents
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................2
2. State of play of cross-border volunteer mobility in the EU.................................................................3
2.1 The 2008 Council recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the European
Union........................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy and the Council Recommendation on the mobility of
young volunteers across the EU.............................................................................................................3
2.3 Study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities................................................5
2.3.1 Main findings of the study..................................................................................................6
2.3.2 Obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities, according to the study ..........................8
2.3.3 Policy recommendations of the study..............................................................................10
2.4 Expert group report on Promoting the mobility of young volunteers and cross-border
solidarity ................................................................................................................................................12
2.4.1. Main developments since 2008.........................................................................................13
2.4.2 Policy recommendations among different thematic areas....................................................14
3. ANNEX: Stakeholder consultation synopsis report...................................................................21
3.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................21
3.2 Consultation strategy................................................................................................................21
3.3. Survey as part of the study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities....21
3.4. Focus Group as part of the study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity
activities .................................................................................................................................................24
3.5. Feedback on “Have your Say” website ...................................................................................24
3.6. Open public consultation..........................................................................................................24
3.6.1. Analysis of replies on the basis of the different stakeholder categories and per
consultation topic ..............................................................................................................................27
2
1. Introduction
Volunteering, both within and beyond the Union, constitutes a rich experience in a non-formal
and informal learning context and enhances young people’s personal, socio-educational and
professional development, active citizenship, civic participation and employability. In addition,
volunteering is an expression of solidarity, which is at the core of the European project.
Transnational volunteering across the EU contains an additional dimension, namely that of
helping a community in a different country, increasing intercultural understanding, and learning
and working in a foreign language. The European labour market values multilingualism,
multiculturalism and adaptability. Experience shows that moving out of one’s comfort zone by
volunteering in a different country strongly impacts a young person’s personal and professional
development. Opening up more transnational volunteering opportunities for Europe’s young
people translates into their increased employability, greater self-confidence, and greater support
for the European project through a heightened sense of European citizenship.
Europe’s young people have been engaging in volunteering activities for a long time, thereby
supporting local communities and responding to unmet societal needs. Volunteering activities
have the concrete potential to mobilise young people for positive causes and help them develop
essential skills and competences for their own development. This is true for all young people,
including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The recent Covid-19 pandemic has shown
once again that young people were quick to rise to the challenge and to express their solidarity,
including inter-generational solidarity, through practical action. At the same time, the pandemic
has had dramatic effects on young people’s mental health, education and employment. For all
these reasons, President von der Leyen proposed to make 2022 the European Year of Youth, “a
year dedicated to empowering those who have dedicated so much to others”.
This Staff Working Document accompanies and supports the proposal for a Council
Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union and replaces
the Council Recommendation of 20 November 2008 on the same topic. It contains information
on the supporting evidence that underpins the Commission proposal for a new Council
Recommendation. The proposal retains the main messages of the 2008 Communication, since
many of them remain crucial, but supplements and updates them. It aims to facilitate
transnational youth volunteering, propose policy guidance to enhance the inclusiveness, quality,
recognition and sustainability dimensions of transnational youth volunteering, facilitate the
complementarity between volunteering schemes in Member States and the European Solidarity
Corps, and encourage mutual learning and networking in the field of transnational youth
volunteering activities.
This Staff Working Document provides an overview of the steps undertaken to replace the 2008
Council Recommendation with a new Recommendation. It starts with a summary of the 2008
Council Recommendation, to provide the general context, and then presents the main outcomes
of an evaluation, a study, and an expert group report. An annex contains the synopsis report on
the consultation activities undertaken.
3
2. State of play of cross-border volunteer mobility in the EU
2.1 The 2008 Council recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the
European Union
On 20 November 2008, the Council adopted a recommendation on the mobility of young
volunteers across the European Union. The main objective of the Council Recommendation was
to provide more cross-border volunteering opportunities for young people. The recommendation
suggests raising awareness of and capacity for cross-border volunteering opportunities, reducing
barriers to participation, increasing the recognition of the experience and the inclusiveness of the
activity.
More specifically, the recommendation defines cross-border volunteering, recognises its benefits
and identifies common potential obstacles to volunteer mobility; it provides a framework for
Member States to intensify their cooperation in the field. The Council recommended that
Member States promote the mobility of young volunteers by enhancing the conditions for
cooperation between volunteering organisations across Europe. In accordance with their national
frameworks, the Member States should raise awareness of volunteering and its benefits
nationally and improve access to information on cross-border volunteering, disseminate it among
potential target groups, and simplify the relevant administrative procedures. They should support
the development of hosting capacity among the organisations engaged in cross-border
volunteering, and provide contact points in the form of National Agencies. To reduce barriers to
cross-border volunteering, the Member States should increase awareness of the importance of
intercultural competences and language learning among young people. Furthermore, they should
assure quality and provide sufficient information about cross-border volunteering activities and
organisations. The Member States should ensure that volunteers are not discriminated against as
a result of national social protection policies such as health care and social welfare, and that
special visas and residence permits for third country nationals are easy to obtain. The
recommendation also invited to promote appropriate recognition of competences gained through
volunteering, also using EU-wide instruments such as Europass and Youthpass. People with
fewer opportunities should be given particular attention to enhance their access to cross-border
voluntary activities.
2.2 Evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy and the Council Recommendation on the mobility
of young volunteers across the EU
An evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy (EUYS) and the 2008 Council Recommendation
undertaken in 2015-20161
found out that the 2008 Recommendation addressed some of the very
relevant and persistent issues and obstacles to cross-border volunteering. The general perception
among stakeholders was that the 2008 Council Recommendation was one of the key initiatives in
this field, and it benefitted from having been integrated in a long-term youth cooperation
framework, which allowed cross-border volunteering to be kept in EU cooperation activities. The
internationalisation and mobility aspects of volunteering moved up on the agenda in several
1
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2017)281&lang=en
4
countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia and Slovakia), and legal frameworks and tools were developed in a number of Member
States to recognise its value. The Strategy also complemented Member States’ efforts of
increasing cross-border volunteering opportunities through enhancing the mobilisation of funds
for the European Voluntary Service (EVS) and the support to the dissemination of information.
At the same time, it is important to note that it was a challenge during the evaluation to
distinguish the influence of activities launched under the auspices of the Recommendation from
the volunteering activities under the 2010-2018 EUYS. The assumptions made about the positive
effects of the Council Recommendation cannot be clearly verified, as the expected effects are
indirectly linked to the results of the Recommendation. Actions implemented within the
framework of the Council Recommendation are generally considered as complementary to other
voluntary activities organised or implemented by the youth organisations consulted.
Nevertheless, the evaluation affirms that all action lines of the Council Recommendation are still
relevant to the current needs and problems of young volunteers and volunteering organisations.
Information about and dissemination of cross-border volunteering opportunities was identified an
essential aspect, as the interest to volunteer is low in some Member States (Portugal, Estonia,
Sweden, Lithuania, Hungary). The problem to find suitable volunteers occurs in some cases,
which often comes from the lack of awareness about the opportunities, and volunteering abroad
is less popular among young people than participating in the Erasmus+ university exchanges.
Therefore, awareness-raising actions remain highly relevant to spread information about the
available opportunities. Eurodesks and the European Youth Portal helped young people find
information about volunteering opportunities abroad, but the tools are generally not well-know,
and concerns exist in connection with user aspects and up-to-date information. In some countries
(Italy, Spain), volunteering serves as an alternative to not finding a job in their home country,
and as a consequence, more people from these countries wish to volunteer than the number of
available placements (e.g. in Estonia and Sweden). This demonstrates that there is still a great
need for developing opportunities for cross-border volunteering within and beyond the European
Solidarity Corps programme. In most countries, the European Voluntary Service (predecessor
programme of the European Solidarity Corps) proved to be the only opportunity to volunteer
abroad and that the majority of the beneficiaries (70%) initiated cross-border activities within
Youth in Action/Erasmus+ programme.
The evaluation concluded that there is a need for simplifying the procedures for cross-border
volunteering, as such processes were reported to be highly bureaucratic through the European
Voluntary Service. However, this creates capacity- and resource-related challenges for local and
small-sized NGOs. They also communicated that there is little support to deal with the
administrative issues when sending volunteers to non-EU countries. Consequently, the demand
for simplifying the procedures remain relevant. The need for better recognition of volunteering
experience remained an issue at the time of the evaluation, even though the Recommendation
seems to have contributed to the increasing popularity and recognition of the Youthpass and
Europass certificates. Member States have taken steps in this field, but the demand for better
recognition and validation is still valid. This is underpinned by that fact that many volunteers,
who return from abroad, face problems with the value of volunteering experience and skills
acquired, as they are often under-estimated and that the recognition of Youthpass by employer
still seems to be low.
5
The inclusion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds was identified as a more pressing issue
in 2015 than it had been in 2008, as were visa applications and attitudes towards foreigners in the
wake of the migrant crisis. This shows that more work needs to be done to reduce barriers to
cross-border mobility for young people from third countries, and make volunteering abroad more
accessible for young people with fewer opportunities (NEETs: neither in employment, education
or training, young people with disabilities, those from rural areas and youth from migrant and
minority background).
The action lines of the Council Recommendation did not adequately address all the needs and
challenges of volunteering organisations. One of the most frequently reported need was the
increase in quality volunteering projects, which can be limited by insufficient training and
capacity coupled with a lack of funding opportunities. The quality of the learning experience is
important for the volunteer in order to acquire transferable skills and competences.
Consequently, volunteer management should be addresses at policy level and supported in
practice. Other emerging needs identified but not addressed by the Recommendation included
the lack of stable funding resources and/or the link to the available EU instruments (e.g.
Erasmus+), the digitalisation of volunteering, and the introduction of “EU volunteer” status to
facilitate visa and tax solutions for cross-border volunteers.
Based on the gathered information, the evaluation recommends the formulation of more
ambitious objectives and more explicit links to the EU funding programmes. In order to improve
the relevance and coherence of policy level cooperation and funded initiatives, the issue of the
Recommendation’s action lines being more reflected in the annual or national programme
priorities of the Erasmus+ was also raised by the evaluation.
All in all the evaluation concludes that although the 2008 Council Recommendation
managed to address and identify the needs of young volunteers and volunteering
organisations, they remained relevant. This was particularly the case in the fields of
quality in ‘volunteer management’, information and dissemination activities on cross-
border volunteering opportunities accompanied by the rights and responsibilities of the
volunteers, making volunteering mobility more accessible to young people with fewer
opportunities and reducing barriers to volunteering mobility.
2.3 Study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities
The study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities2
was carried out between
June 2019 and January 2020 by PPMI Group with the assistance of the Office for Economic
Policy and Regional Development as a subcontractor, as well as individual external experts. The
purpose of the study was to identify the key obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities that
persist at policy and organisational levels across the EU Member States, and to formulate
concrete policy recommendations that can be fed directly into the review of the
2
Study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities, PPMI Group in cooperation with EPRD, 2020,
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1a7042cb-e678-11ea-ad25-01aa75ed71a1
6
Recommendation. The study complements the work of the Expert Group on the mobility of
young volunteers and cross-border as well. The main focus of the study was volunteering, but it
also covered traineeships and jobs within the solidarity field to the extent that they are relevant to
the activities of the European Solidarity Corps programme.
This study required the collection, processing and synthesising of both qualitative and
quantitative data. It embraced a mixed-methods research design, tailored by study team
specifically for this assignment. These included extensive desk research and the mapping of
information at country level (resulting in the preparation of 28 country fiches), analysis of
administrative and monitoring data on European Solidarity Corps projects and the Commission’s
survey of European Voluntary Service participants. Interviews with officials from the European
Commission, stakeholders at EU level, National Agencies and National Authorities, as well as
representatives of the schemes/projects selected for good-practice case studies and a survey of
organisations that hold the European Solidarity Corps Quality Label or are accredited under
Erasmus+ youth volunteering were carried out. In addition, five good-practice case studies were
prepared and a workshop with the Expert Group on the mobility of young volunteers and cross-
border solidarity was organised in Brussels to discuss the study’s findings.
2.3.1 Main findings of the study
The study underlines the importance of the 2019-2027 EU Youth Strategy in terms of youth
solidarity, as it includes the removal of the obstacles to and the facilitation of volunteering
among its objectives. The Strategy aims to expand the 2008 Council Recommendation on the
cross-border mobility of volunteers, and to strengthen the potential and inclusiveness of the
European Solidarity Corps programme through policy cooperation and community building.
Youth participation in organised volunteering activities has been increasing since 2011, but the
participation of young people is still relatively low. The number of volunteers going abroad grew
in most countries with Greece and Austria having the sharpest increase rate (8%). Lithuania,
Bulgaria, Slovenia and the Netherlands demonstrated a decrease in the number of this category,
while stagnation could be observed in Latvia. In general, the share of cross-border volunteers
remains relatively low (at 8%) when compared to in-country solidarity activities, although
the overall increase of 2% between 2014 and 2017 demonstrates a positive trend.
Volunteering traditions and cultures differ among the Member States, but volunteering is popular
and developing. People generally prefer episodic and occasional (short-term and
spontaneous) volunteering activities to regularly organised ones, which usually require long-
term commitment. This also underpins the problem of finding dedicated long-term volunteers,
which had been identified as a challenge in previous studies as well. Apart from the low
popularity of cross-border volunteering, the tradition and culture of volunteering in the EU
appear to be well-developed and favourable to both volunteers and volunteering organisations.
The study divides Member States into four categories on the basis of volunteering culture and
tradition: Member States with comparatively well-developed tradition of volunteering with the
related activities being popular and valued by society; countries that have a volunteering
tradition, but solidarity activities are relatively unpopular; Member States with a developing
7
volunteering tradition, but where such activities are popular and countries with developing
volunteering tradition, where solidarity activities are relatively unpopular. Based on these
categories, the study concludes that different measures are needed to address the existing
obstacles and challenges in Member States.
17 Member States (Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Slovenia, France, Slovakia, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, Malta, Spain) possess one or more
national/regional schemes supporting cross-border solidarity activities, although these do not
necessarily target young people. However, the absence of a national cross-border volunteering
scheme does not mean that no volunteering opportunities/activities exist in that country.
Volunteering activities in these Member States may be provided by privately run organisations,
some of which can be international. The supply for cross-border volunteering opportunities
varies across Europe. The study found that there are opportunities for the mobility of EU
volunteers to non-European countries, bilateral volunteering projects usually between
neighbouring countries and broader national civic schemes have developed opportunities for
foreign exchanges as well. For Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Cyprus and
Croatia however the European Solidarity Corps Programme is the only structured cross-
border volunteering programme offering funding for young persons, although local
organisations in these countries may also provide cross-border volunteering opportunities. The
Corps therefore is highly relevant in countries that lack opportunities for young people to engage
in cross-border solidarity activities, and it serves as a complementary instrument to other,
existing solidarity activities.
The study indicates that most countries make efforts to build and develop capacities of
volunteering organisations by improving their organisational practices and the competences
and skills of the people who manage groups of volunteers. The most common policy instrument
is training and information dissemination initiatives organised by public authorities and agencies.
Capacity building is also aided by developing different guidelines and standards, which mainly
possess recommendatory nature. It can also be observed that there are generally no rigid
centralised quality assurance frameworks for volunteering organisations and projects in Member
States. The evaluation of individual projects relies largely on the organisations that implement
them. Quality assurance is usually ensured through the conditions required for organisations to
receive public funding, for example with an obligation for financial reporting.
Countries are committed to awareness-raising about cross-border volunteering opportunities
for young people, but the information on available volunteering opportunities are usually
not integrated into a single system. Nevertheless, countries tend to have centralised youth
information portal/online volunteering database on the available volunteering opportunities.
Awareness-raising actions include the organisation of regular, dedicated events aimed at
popularising raising awareness of volunteering and local/municipal volunteering and information
centres also contribute to the dissemination of volunteering opportunities.
As far as the 2008 Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the
European Union concerned, the study came to similar conclusions as the Evaluation of the EU
Youth Strategy and the Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the
8
EU. The Recommendation provided a clearer understanding of what cross-border volunteering
entails, but the lack of quality assurance mechanisms persists and there is still more room in
terms of recognition of skills and competences acquired through volunteering activities. The
study concludes that Recommendation pushed volunteering up the on the agenda of policy-
makers and into national youth strategies. However, its general provisions makes it difficult to
measure the Council Recommendation’s impacts, which varied among Member States from
widespread stakeholder consultations to having a limited impact and awareness. The non-binding
character of the Recommendation and the lack of ambition and direct link to EU funding
instruments were listed as major reasons why the Council Recommendation did not have major
impact on Member States.
2.3.2 Obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities, according to the study
The study found that no common definition of solidarity or solidarity activities exists across
the EU, aside from the definition provided by the European Solidarity Corps. This lack of a
shared understanding of key terms often leads to poor understanding of the programme. The term
“solidarity activities” is not used in connection with volunteering in many Member States.
There are substantial differences in administrative and legal frameworks on volunteering
across the Member States. The study concludes that the key barrier in relation to the
administrative and regulatory frameworks governing the volunteering field is their diversity,
which results in a lack of alignment among EU Member States, and developing common
guidelines would be a challenge because of their national circumstances. Most Member States
have legal acts and definitions of volunteers and volunteering in place, but they differ
significantly and do not ensure a clear legal status for volunteers. Too rigid or loose definitions
can lead to barriers and obstacles in terms of working conditions and the definition of roles.
Formal and informal types of volunteering can also create obstacles when it comes to the
formulation of legal frameworks in Member States. These frameworks can also change
dynamically, and in some cases, the process of its development is slower which often stems from
the lack of political will. A number of countries do not have a dedicated law on volunteering, but
provisions on volunteering are included in other policy documents.
Difficulties in obtaining visa and residence permits as a volunteer coming from a third-
country are still relevant.
Provision and portability of entitlements and benefits to volunteers are not uniformly
ensured. The provision and portability of entitlements and benefits such as health insurance and
unemployment or disability benefits, along with the taxation of various reimbursements, are
important factors for long-term cross-border volunteers. Information about the governance of
these provisions are scattered in many cases and volunteering and traineeships might fall under
the supervision of different policy areas and strategies.
Another key obstacle is the lack of sufficient awareness of cross-border volunteering
opportunities. Even though the majority of volunteering organisations agree that sufficient
opportunities exist for both in-country and cross-border volunteering, the fragmentation or lack
of efforts to raise awareness of the value and benefits of cross-border volunteering experience, as
9
well as of opportunities to volunteer abroad, are further obstacles identified by the study.
Although most EU Members States have instruments and tools aimed at promoting and raising
awareness of existing volunteering opportunities, these efforts are usually neither systemic nor
integrated and it is one of the key challenges facing the volunteering/solidarity sector in Europe.
Lack of awareness can also originate from the differences in the socio-economic background of
young people, as persons from disadvantaged groups and those from rural areas are often
reported as being less informed.
The study concluded that there is a lack of sufficient recognition of volunteering
experience. There is mixed feedback about the employers’ perceptions of volunteering
experiences and their value. The absence of a unified national framework for the recognition of
skills and competences acquired through volunteering activities (especially for European
Solidarity Corps and cross-border volunteering) was identified by a number of stakeholders from
different Member States as one of the key challenges and obstacles that provide a disincentive to
the participation of young people in (cross-border) volunteering activities. In certain Member
States, the formal recognition mechanisms available (for instance Youthpass) are insufficiently
integrated, and as a result, newly developed skills often go unrecognised by prospective
employers. The ability of the volunteer to communicate the skills and competences they have
acquired is also a factor when it comes to recognition.
Even though the majority of volunteering organisations have a positive view on their
capacity to implement volunteering activities, there is a stronger need to ensure the quality
of volunteering and increase the capacity of organisations in some areas. The lack of stable
funding was found as a relevant obstacle. The study also identified the need to ensure the quality
of volunteering placements. Evidence from a survey indicates that another key obstacle to (cross-
border) volunteering and solidarity activities is the misuse of volunteers‘ work and its
exploitation as a substitute for regular work among some host organisations.
The study indicates that the insufficient inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities
is still relevant. Desk research confirmed that in a number of countries, volunteering is still
widely considered an activity for upper/more affluent classes, and people with fewer
opportunities are underrepresented in the sector. However, 67% of the organisations surveyed
positively assessed their capacity and willingness to include young people with fewer
opportunities in solidarity activities. At the same time, one-third of the organisation reported that
negative attitudes towards people with fewer opportunities exist in voluntary organisations. The
study determined that the obstacles and challenges faced by the European Solidarity Corps are
similar to those pertaining to cross-border solidarity activities in general. However, several
additional challenges exist that relate specifically to the development and successful
implementation of the Corps.
Besides the above-described obstacles, the study identified a number of individual reasons,
which may be obstacles to cross-border volunteering of young people. These reasons include
uncertainty or anxiety, lack of confidence and independence, adaptation problems, existing
mental and physical conditions, and commitments and not being able to cope with the arising
challenges. One of the main concerns is the poor command of foreign languages for both the
10
volunteering organisations and young people. Financial barriers can occur both on individual and
organisational level, and additional financial support is especially important for the inclusion of
young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. As reflected in the recently adopted Framework
of inclusion measures of the Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps Programmes 2021-
2027, persons with disabilities often face costs linked to their disability and targeted financial
support may facilitate the participation of young people with disabilities.
2.3.3 Policy recommendations of the study
Based on the above-mentioned findings, the study formulated recommendations to address the
key obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities in general. These recommendations are relevant
at both national and EU levels. A recommendation was also provided in connection to the
structure and implementation of a revised Council Recommendation and possible measures to
enhance it, building on the key issues identified in relation to the 2008 Council
Recommendation. The recommendations and proposed actions relevant to cross-border
volunteering are the following:
 Increase collaboration to ensure the better alignment of legal and administrative
frameworks and knowledge sharing between Member States
The recommendation entails that Member States should provide openly accessible information
about the national and legal administrative framework governing volunteering. YouthWiki could
potentially become the main source of information in this area, and it could also further align
information. There is also a need for a closer collaboration between Member States by peer-
learning activities and exchange of good practice case studies. The new Council
Recommendation could also promote measures to be taken in this field.
 Clarify legal status of volunteers and participants in other solidarity activities
Member States should take steps towards the clarification of volunteers’ legal status and it
should include the provisions of obligations and rights of volunteers (entitlements, benefits and
their portability). Countries should aim towards a status of volunteers, which would be the same
for national schemes with cross-border opportunities and the European programmes. At the
same time, the definition of legal rules and regulations, as well as the status of volunteers and
participants in other solidarity activities should not be so strict as to make it impossible for
communities or local organisations to initiate volunteering activities.
The European Commission could provide guidelines, toolkits and recommendations to Member
States. At a later stage, these minimum standards and requirements should be referenced and
included in existing instruments.
 Facilitate the obtaining of visas/residence permits for the purpose of volunteering
and other solidarity activities
Relevant rules need to be fully and correctly implemented and, where appropriate, enforced (in
particular the provisions of Directive (EU) 2016/801). In addition, relevant laws of Member
States should include volunteering and other solidarity activities as a ground to obtain a visa
11
and/or residence permit. The development of a fast-track visa procedure with relevant safeguards
to avoid fraud is recommended. This could be achieved through special agreements on visa
facilitation for participants in EU programmes, but cross-border volunteering that takes place
outside EU programmes should also be taken into account.
 Ensure the provision and portability of social benefits for volunteers
Member States should clarify the available entitlements and benefits to volunteers, ensure cross-
border portability of certain benefits (other than social security benefits) and develop cross-
sectoral policies to address social benefits. A review of the relevant rules in order to avoid
taxation of benefits is also recommended for Member States. There is a need for agreement
between Member States on minimum standards for benefits and entitlements given to cross-
border volunteers. The European Commission could mediate these efforts and develop a
roadmap with specific recommendations for Member States to implement the minimum
European standards agreed for volunteers’ benefits and entitlements. Mediation processes could
also be supported by the Presidency of the Council.
 Improve the promotion and outreach of EU and national-level cross-border
volunteering schemes
National Authorities should support the spread of information for example with ”one-stop-shop “
websites. Member States should be encouraged to promote information as part of formal
education and secondary education curricula, and employment agencies could also promote
volunteering opportunities as part of skills- and career development. The European Commission
could organize cross-ministerial discussions and stakeholder groups and the updates on the
European Youth Portal could also be carried out to add information about national-level
schemes.
 Improve the formal and informal recognition within EU Member States of skills and
competences acquired through volunteering activities
The European Commission could update recognition instruments like Youthpass, Europass and
Diploma Settlement, and Member States should also be encouraged to use EU recognition
instruments. The European Commission and Member States together should support and
coordinate various events and initiatives related to recognition, and the sharing of good practices
through cross-ministerial and stakeholder meeting should also be facilitated. Societal recognition
of volunteering and other solidarity activities at local level should be enhanced through the
development of more embedded and sustainable comparative analysis of evidence-based
research on the benefits of volunteering in relation to community impact. Support for the further
development of quality standards for volunteering is needed as well. Finally, the Commission
should encourage the involvement of local policy makers and communities through the
development of a new ‘quality and community impact label for volunteering’.
 Support the further development of quality standards for volunteering
The European Commission should work to further develop quality standards for volunteering,
including recommendatory minimum standards and guidelines. It should focus on priorities such
12
as developing specific strategies, practices, methods and tools to reach and include young people
with fewer opportunities in volunteering activities. Specific actions and strategies to ensure that
the involvement of volunteers complements and supplements the work of paid staff should be
identified.
 Increase the inclusion within cross-border solidarity activities of young people with
fewer opportunities
In connection with this recommendation, Member States should build on existing inclusion
policies, strategic approaches and tools to improve outreach and access of EU programmes to a
wider audience. Measures to improve the capacity of local organisations to work with young
people with fewer opportunities is also a proposed action for the European Commission and the
Member States.
 Equip the new EU Council recommendation with measurable goals and targets as
well as an action plan for implementation
According to the study, the revised Council Recommendation should be more ambitious and
should include more concrete measures, as well as targets to remove obstacles to cross-border
solidarity activities. Relevant developments since 2008 and the increased importance of
volunteering at the policy level should be considered. It is proposed for Member States to set
their own national targets and prioritise specific areas from the Recommendation that are most
relevant to their national context. An action plan for implementation and a monitoring
framework – providing long-term oversight – should also be developed by the European
Commission. This should take into account the individual targets and priorities set by Member
States. Actions in order to ensure awareness among key stakeholders and policymakers are also
desirable, which could be achieved by creating concrete links to EU funding instruments and
programmes, such as to Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps.
2.4 Expert group report on Promoting the mobility of young volunteers and cross-border
solidarity
An expert group, made up of (public and private) experts from Member States, REY Europe, the
European Youth Forum and the Centre for European Volunteering met between September 2019
and September 2020. The above-mentioned study informed the expert group. The report3
of the
expert group was published in October 2021, with the aim to inform and inspire actors interested
in the cross-border mobility of volunteers and solidarity activities. It presents examples of good
practices in this field, and it also serves to propose inputs to the review of the 2008 Council
recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers in Europe.
3
Expert Group on the mobility of Young volunteers and cross-border solidarity, Background paper to support the
Commission in reviewing the 2008 Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers, Ecorys, February
2020 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/50effcd2-271e-11ec-bd8e-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en/format-PDF/source-235472968
13
2.4.1. Main developments since 2008
The report introduces the developments that took place since the adoption of the 2008 Council
Recommendation, for example the EU Youth Strategy for 2019-2027 period, which was
adopted by the Council in November 2018. Under the ‘connect; core area, it invites Member
States and the Commission within their respective field of competence to enable access for all
young people to cross-border mobility by eliminating obstacles and implementing support
measures, with special attention to young people with fewer opportunities. It also calls to
encourage young people’s engagement in solidarity, promoting support schemes and seeking
complementary synergies between EU funding instruments. Furthermore, Member States and the
Commission are invited to share best practices and further work on effective systems for
validation and recognition of skills and competences gained through solidarity and volunteering
activities. This shows that the EU agenda was set to review the 2008 Council Recommendation
and to establish an expert group to provide inputs to this exercise.
One of the main developments in the field is the 2016 launch of the European Solidarity
Corps programme, which replaced the European Voluntary Service. The Corps extended the
programme not only in terms of funding, but also with the introduction of new types of activities,
such as traineeships and jobs. Volunteering remained the main action of the programme, and
under this action, solidarity activities take the form of voluntary unpaid activities that last from 2
weeks to 12 months. Young people have the opportunity to volunteer for organisations that work
for the benefit of communities and in the service of general interest, in the forms of volunteering
projects, volunteering partnerships and volunteering teams in high priority areas.
New activities and areas emerged, which can be regarded as possible factors to cross-
border solidarity. Cybervolunteering is undertaken via the internet and does not require
physical presence or the mobility of the volunteer. It provides new opportunities for less mobile
young people, and it can be used to underpin, complement and prepare for later physical
mobility. Service learning is a ‘grey zone’ between volunteering and formal education, as it
includes placements that are undertaken in a solidarity context but as part of the curriculum of a
formal education programme. Voluntourism refers to the practice of combining volunteering
and a holiday, with people participating in volunteering activities as an integral part of a touristic
experience. Many tour operators and NGOs recognised its business potential and started to offer
travel packages that include a volunteering experience abroad. However, there is a concern that
the introduction of a financial motive opens it up to risks of misuse. Climate crisis should also
be addressed, as cross-border volunteering activities involve large numbers of people moving
across borders in Europe.
The report found that volunteering is increasingly popular among young people, which is
demonstrated by a growing demand for it. According to the 2019 Eurobarometer report4
, about
31 % of young people have been involved in organised volunteering activities in 2019. The
majority of activities (69 %) are aimed at changing something in the local community, but
participation in cross-border volunteering has also increased, with 8 % of young respondents
having volunteered abroad in 2019.
4
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2224
14
2.4.2 Policy recommendations among different thematic areas
The experts identified 15 themes that need to be addressed in order to determine specific
messages and recommendations. Some of these were already included in the 2008 Council
Recommendation, while other themes reflected on new developments since the adoption of the
Recommendation. The COVID-19 crisis introduced a new type of barrier to the organisation and
implementation of cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities. The lessons learnt from the
pandemic should be addressed in the new Recommendation due to its impact on these activities.
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the expert group decided to keep the original 15 themes, but
small amendments and changes were added. The themes were formulated among three
categories, namely organisational framework, participants and processes.
Organisational frameworks
1. Capacity building
The theme of the 2008 Council Recommendation in terms of the need for supporting the
development of the hosting capacity for cross-border volunteers is still important. Several
organisations would commit to cross-border solidarity activities, but they lack the capacity or the
funds to prepare young people to go abroad. Budget cuts across Europe worsened this problem in
the 5–10 years up to 2019 and it has constrained organisational capacity. The lack of ability to
self-assess and self-improve also plays an important role in organisational capacity. The report
suggests that the revised recommendation should not only be addressed to ‘youth workers’, but
also explicitly encompass all voluntary organisation practitioners.
Therefore the expert groups recommends to ensure that organisations are able to adequately
prepare and monitor/accompany volunteers, as well as offer returning volunteers support to
continue their engagement in solidarity activities, especially youth with fewer opportunities. The
mobility and training of youth workers and voluntary organisation practitioners should be
supported, and cooperation and networking between mobility providers should be strengthened.
Furthermore, efforts should be made to strengthen the (financial) sustainability of organisations
to ensure the sufficient number of organisations with the motivation and resources to carry out in
practice the intentions enshrined in the recommendation. Financial stability is especially
important for those organisation whose main revenue comes from physical mobility.
2. Community involvement and impact
The 2008 Recommendation mainly focused on volunteers and the outcomes of their
participation. The acquisition of competences and the development of active citizenship were
considered as well. However, the report states that besides the hosting community, the sending
community should also receive particular attention. It is important to recognise that community
impact is also a major benefit of volunteering and solidarity activities.
The specific recommendations in relation to this theme include the recognition of the two
beneficiaries of cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities: the individual participants and
the communities. Support should be given to returning volunteers to enable them to continue to
engage in solidarity activities. The impact of volunteering and solidarity activities should be
15
emphasised, in particular the value of intercultural exchanges to communities. Programmes
should make provisions so that when physical cross-border mobility is not possible, adaptations
can easily be made. Programmes should contain clauses that allow budget flexibility and, in
extreme cases, budget increases to alleviate the consequences of force majeure.
3. Complementarity
The evidence shows that there is a need to create more synergies, complementarities and
continuities between the different European and national schemes and initiatives. The new
recommendation should reflect the fact that the European Youth Strategy includes an element
about the complementarity and synergy between EU funding instruments and national, regional
and local schemes. Complementarity between European schemes themselves (such as the
European Solidarity Corps, Erasmus internships, Your first EURES job, EU Aid Volunteers5
,
Interreg and Europe for Citizens) are also important factors.
As for the recommendations for this theme, the report proposes the promotion of peer learning
and the exchange of good practice, the mutual recognition of quality labels and other support
mechanisms between European and national/regional schemes for cross-border volunteering and
solidarity activities to reduce the administrative work of the organisations involved. The Youth
Wiki database should be used to promote and inform local, national and European cross-border
volunteering schemes in a coherent way. In crisis situations that prevent cross-border mobility,
established relationships and complementarity between EU-funded cross-border schemes and
national schemes should be leveraged as essential tools for finding flexible, fast and suitable
solutions for reassigning participants.
4. Knowledge sharing and networking
Sharing knowledge and learning between organisations participating in cross-border
volunteering and solidarity activities is crucial to improve the quality of activities and practices
in Europe. Platforms for knowledge sharing already exist (European Youth Portal, SALTO-
YOUTH centres, Youth Wiki database), as well as various communities of practice. Alumni
networks can also constitute another important resource. However, there is potential for the
further development of this aspect and exploitation of the opportunities presented. It is also
important to consider relevant organisations outside the youth sector, as expertise and experience
on issues impinging on cross-border volunteering and solidarity are distributed among many
actors.
Recommendation for this theme include the better use of existing spaces, where resources and
knowledge can be shared among Member States and NGOs. Space for innovation and peer
learning activities should be made available to further develop new forms and methods of
volunteering. Networking through alumni communities and the exchange of youth workers and
voluntary organisation practitioners should be intensified. Enhanced training and qualification
opportunities should be made available.
Participants
5
The EU Aid Volunteers programme allowed for the deployment of 788 volunteers to third countries between 2016
and 2020, out of which 86% were aged between 18 and 35 years old.
16
5. Access and inclusion
International volunteering and cross-border solidarity activities are often not accessible to all
segments of the youth population, rather just to the privileged few. Simplifying application and
reporting procedures may provide easier access for volunteers, especially with the aid of
technology. Nevertheless, digitalisation is not necessarily an answer in itself. It can create new
barriers, complicating procedures that may prevent some young people from applying. Particular
attention should be paid to making sure that websites and online tools are accessible for persons
with disabilities. The availability of insurance for certain groups (e.g. persons with disabilities) is
limited, and this can discourage them from participating in cross-border solidarity activities. The
2008 Council recommendation made reference to access, particularly for young people with
fewer opportunities, and highlighted the exploitation of existing mechanisms and adopting a
flexible approach to developing opportunities for cross-border volunteering. These
recommendations should be retained in a revised recommendation, but with clearer and more
detailed messages.
The specific recommendations of the expert group in relation to this theme are as follow: more
opportunities should be provided for young people with fewer opportunities and enhance the
range of opportunities for those who cannot afford to go abroad (e.g. through cybervolunteering),
youth organisations and other civil society organisations should develop motivational aspects to
enable young people with fewer opportunities to become more comfortable with the idea of
going abroad. There is a need for the simplification of application and reporting procedures and
the promotion of existing European mechanisms that foster youth mobility. National
governments should work with insurance providers to make insurance available for all groups of
volunteers.
6. Administrative obstacles
Many Member States do not have a dedicated legal framework regulating cross-border
volunteering and solidarity activities, and this can lead to a number of administrative obstacles,
notably to obtaining visas and residence permits for non-EU nationals. In some cases, it is not
possible to obtain a visa or residence permit as cross-border volunteering is not a legal ground
for obtaining one. While significant progress has been made in recent years at EU level (notably
with Directive (EU) 2016/801), the report found very few developments in this area. Even in
Member States where this option does exist, complicated and burdensome administrative
procedures may create barriers to participation. The expert group suggests including the relevant
EU legislation relating to free movement, the granting of visas and residence permits and mutual
recognition within the preamble to the new recommendation. In the expert group’s view, this
would make the responsible authorities at national level more aware of the relevant EU
legislation.
Within this theme, the group recommends that national authorities should provide easier access
for participants in cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities to visas and residence
permits by simplifying application procedures. Cross-border solidarity activities should be
recognised as grounds for applying for a visa or residence permit and administrative procedures
(including digitalised procedures) should, be simplified.
17
7. Awareness
The evidence shows that only a minority of people in the potential target group are aware of
opportunities for cross-border volunteering and other solidarity activities. It is important to note
that awareness goes beyond information; it is also about the motivation and commitment of
young people. Therefore, there is a need to develop people’s knowledge of the benefits of
volunteering. The need for increased awareness-raising was an important issue in the 2008
recommendation, and it is a challenge that still needs to be addressed. Overall consciousness of
quality in cross-border volunteering should be also be raised to enable young people to make
informed choices between the many opportunities that exist, as potentially dangerous and poor-
quality volunteering opportunities are a growing phenomenon in Europe.
Developing people’s knowledge of the benefits of volunteering, traineeships and other cross-
border solidarity activities are among the recommendations proposed for this theme. Awareness
in the national volunteering sector of the opportunities for international volunteering should be
strengthened. Young people’s awareness of the importance of intercultural competences,
language learning, EU citizenship and solidarity should also be increased. The creation of local
contact points to provide information all, including people with disabilities, young volunteers,
and youth and civil society/solidarity organisations generally, should be supported. Organisations
involved in cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities should receive information and
assistance to develop aspects of inclusion and support in their strategies. There should be
sufficient information about a voluntary activity, its organisers and the volunteer to enable both
parties to make an informed decision about the activity’s suitability and meet any legal
requirements.
8. Protection
Adequate mechanisms for protecting both participants and those organising the activities are
essential, so that problems can be detected before they develop and emergency situations can be
dealt with in a timely and concerted manner. Such protection should cover both the physical and
the mental well-being of those involved. The experts also emphasised that young people are not
provided with support services on their return. Consequently, the report indicates that is
particularly important to include the ‘return’ period in a revised recommendation.
The group recommends that the protection should cover volunteers, staff and other people
involved in the implementation of the activities, and the beneficiaries of the activities.
Organisations involved in the implementation of cross-border volunteering and solidarity
activities should have clear and adequate procedures in place for dealing with crises and
emergency situations, and these should be communicated to all. Force majeure clauses should
ensure that in crisis situations all participants, irrespective of project context and organisational
attachment, receive proper attention and care.
9. Social and legal status
The social and legal status of cross-border volunteers is often unclear or not defined at all in
legislation, both at home and abroad. This can lead to participants facing barriers to accessing the
host Member State’s social security system, and social security benefits being lost in their home
Member State on return. The concept of ‘solidarity jobs and traineeships’ does not yet exist in
any structured form other than in the framework of the European Solidarity Corps programme.
18
Provisions governing the right to insurance, compensation for costs incurred while volunteering,
taxation of allowances/pocket money and travel refunds are usually included in different legal
documents and a unified source of information is lacking. The 2008 Recommendation underlined
the need to examine further relevant social protection provisions to make full use of the
possibilities under EU and national legislation. Volunteers should also be entitled to social
security benefits when they return and should not be penalised for their absence from the country
to undertake solidarity activities.
Based on the above, the specific recommendations in relation to this theme include the
development of a common understanding of cross-border solidarity activities in relation to
existing schemes and the recognition of the legal status of cross-border volunteers at national
level. Information on the status of people engaging in cross-border volunteering and solidarity
activities should be provided on the Youth Wiki platform. Cross-border volunteers should have
access to the host country’s healthcare facilities and healthcare professionals.
Processes
10. Digital forms of cross-border volunteering and solidarity
The 2008 Recommendation referred only to the physical mobility of persons in relation to cross-
border volunteering. However, new forms of volunteering and cross-border solidarity activities
based on IT have since been gathering pace and became an integral part of the overall picture of
European solidarity. Digital volunteering or cybervolunteering play a crucial role in recruiting
volunteers and delegating and completing voluntary work. During the COVID-19 crisis, digital
volunteering has become the major – if not only – mechanism for implementing cross-border
volunteering and solidarity activities. However, it is important not to see digital volunteering as
just an independent activity; it should also be considered alongside physical mobility. It can be
an alternative for physical mobility only in situations where physical mobility is not possible.
The acknowledgement of digital forms of cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities as
an opportunity to strengthen cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities is among the
recommendations for this theme. They provide an alternative means of including participants
who are not in a position to travel physically (e.g. because of severe physical disabilities, mental
health difficulties and caring responsibilities). Digital forms of volunteering can be fostered
during crises that prevent cross-border mobility and digital forms of cross-border volunteering
and solidarity activities can also be used in connection with the physical mobility of volunteers
as a means of motivation and preparation. A precise definition of digital cross-border
volunteering and solidarity activities should be provided, as well as what it means in the
European solidarity context. Funding opportunities for cross-border volunteering and solidarity
activities should be extended to cover digital activities.
11. Environmental context
Since the 2008 recommendation was implemented, concern for the environment has grown
dramatically, especially among young people. Cross-border activities are a source of greenhouse
gas emissions, especially when they involve air transport, and it is therefore important to
consider climate impacts when implementing cross-border activities. However, all volunteering
19
and solidarity projects should incorporate an environmental dimension in their activities and
consider how the carbon footprint they leave behind can be reduced as much as possible.
The specific recommendations of the expert group in relation to this theme are as follows: the
environmental impact of all actions in a volunteering project should be taken into account (e.g.
travel, resource consumption, food consumption), participants should be involved in these
reflections to ensure that they develop an awareness of environmental issues; and funds should
be available to offset the additional costs of making environmentally friendly choices (e.g.
travelling trips of less than 500 km by train rather than by air or by car wherever it is possible).
Volunteering projects concerned with the protection of the environment should be given specific
attention, as actions to protect the environment and combat climate change can constitute a form
of solidarity.
12. Learning
In addition to benefiting communities, participation in cross-border volunteering and solidarity
activities also benefits participants. It enables them to acquire essential competences that
contribute to their personal and socio-educational development and foster their active
participation in society. This way they can improve their employment prospects and strengthen
their role as active citizens. This aspect was already acknowledged in the 2008 Council
Recommendation, but it needs to be included and further developed in the revised
recommendation. It should be noted that learning potential does not necessarily unfold by itself;
it needs to be supported before, during and after an activity to take effect.
The expert group proposed the following recommendations within this theme: organisations
should consider documenting learning outcomes together with participants before, during and
after activities, outcomes should be underpinned by structured preparation,
mentoring/supervision and debriefing interventions in order to support learning processes and
additional focus should be placed on language learning in view of the transnational context of the
activities. In emergency situations, when participants are forced to end their stay abroad through
no fault of their own, they should be considered for participation in complementary or further
activities that allow them to complete their learning journey.
13. Recognition
Participation has important potential for the learning and personal development of those involved
in solidarity activities that are undertaken for the benefit of others and without personal gain. It is
important that learning outcomes in this field are made visible, documented and – where feasible
– validated and recognised in relation to formal learning trajectories. The 2012 Council
recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning underlines the important
role that non-formal and informal learning can play in enhancing employability and increasing
motivation for lifelong learning, especially for people with few or no qualifications. Therefore, it
is essential that non-formal and informal learning receive proper recognition. It can be observed
however that validation procedures are still not universally implemented for learning outcomes
acquired in a volunteering context. The report provides four forms of recognition of learning
outcomes of non-formal/informal learning processes: formal, political, social recognition and
self-recognition. Many methods exist for validating and recognising youth work and non-formal
learning/education at European and national levels.
20
The first specific recommendation made by the expert group in relation to this theme is that
organisers of cross-border solidarity activities should ensure that participants’ learning outcomes
are adequately identified, documented and – where feasible – validated, recognised and made
visible. Secondly, maximum use should be made of existing European-level tools and processes
serving this purpose, e.g. Europass and Youthpass, and the review of the 2012 Council
recommendation on validation of non-formal and informal learning.
14. Quality assurance
The popularity of cross-border volunteering gave rise to ‘voluntourism’ (described above). The
introduction of fees and a profit motive places an added emphasis on the concept of quality,
meaning that it should be clear what activities will be carried out so that young people can make
informed choices. This also means that it should be clear how activities will benefit genuine
causes based on real local community needs and that participants are not exploited as free labour
to the detriment of local employment opportunities. This aspect was only indirectly addressed in
the 2008 Council Recommendation. Given the proliferation of opportunities for cross-border
volunteering and solidarity activities, it is important that these are transparent to prospective
participants and other concerned parties. The development of a European-level ‘quality charter’
for transnational volunteering and solidarity activities is a complex task that lies outside the
scope of the revised recommendation, but this issue should be acknowledged and addressed in
more detail than in the 2008 Council recommendation.
In relation to this theme, the report recommends that cross-border volunteering and solidarity
activities should be based on a needs analysis to ensure that they support an identifiable need and
lead to beneficial outcomes. Organisers should have a clear idea of what they want to achieve by
a particular project and develop indicators that can help them determine if the objectives have
been met. These indicators should reflect the target group and the circumstances. Projects should
be properly evaluated to ascertain their degree of success and identify important lessons that can
help improve future activities. In the quest for quality, organisers should draw on existing
knowledge and tools and strive for a common understanding of what quality is.
15. Research
Cross-border volunteering and solidarity activities remain an under-researched phenomenon, and
the existing research usually covers a national context and is not systematically translated and
disseminated across borders. The word ‘research; was not mentioned in the 2008
Recommendation, but the text included the need to ‘improve the level of knowledge of voluntary
activities’ and ‘exchange information’. Even though there were some progress in this area, there
is still an important gap in understanding the phenomenon of cross-border volunteering and
solidarity activities. Research therefore needs to be actively encouraged to fill the many gaps in
our knowledge and provide the necessary basis for the development of policies and practices.
The specific recommendations of the expert group in relation to this theme are as follows:
research should be carried out to ensure that policy priorities and practices are based on solid
evidence rather than anecdotal information and activities should be constantly monitored through
research carried out on youth indicators. The Commission is uniquely placed to undertake
comparative research on the state of cross-border solidarity activities in the EU-27. Priority
21
should be placed on research that is undertaken in direct contact with practice and with the
involvement of practitioners, and in which the results are available within a reasonable time
frame (e.g. action research, accompanying research). Research should be carried out on the
impact of cross-border solidarity activities, especially longitudinal and tracer studies that can
identify outcomes over a longer-term perspective (e.g. impact research, summative evaluations).
Finally, research outcomes should be made accessible to all those concerned, including across
national borders.
3. ANNEX: Stakeholder consultation synopsis report
3.1 Introduction
This synopsis report aims to provide a summary of the results of the consultation activities on
‘youth volunteering’ during the period September 2019 until July 2021. It is meant to inform:
 policymakers on the outcome of all consultation activities
 stakeholders on how their input has been taken into account.
3.2 Consultation strategy
The objective of the consultation was to gather citizens’ and stakeholders’ opinions on obstacles
to cross-border volunteering activities. Moreover, the European Commission wanted to collect
citizens’ views to help identify possible gaps, with a view to developing solutions that could be
recommended to Member States and the European Commission in order to tackle these
obstacles.
The mapping of stakeholders included young people, volunteering organisations and NGOs with
a youth branch, researchers of members of academia, active in the field of volunteering, policy-
makers in the field, national agencies in charge of implementing the EU youth programmes
(Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps) in the EU Member States.
The consultation included two main sources. The first consultation activity was carried out as
part of a study on obstacles to solidarity activities and consisted in a survey carried out in
October 2019, and a workshop on 11 December 2019. This survey targeted youth organisations
and organisations dealing with volunteering activities throughout Europe. The second
consultation activity was a public consultation on EU survey, carried out from 28 April to 21
July 2021. The main outcomes of each consultation process are outlined below.
3.3. Survey as part of the study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity
activities
The purpose of the targeted survey of youth and volunteering organisations in the EU in October
2019 was to obtain feedback regarding cross-border solidarity activities, particularly regarding
any barriers to participation in solidarity activities.
A total of 660 valid responses were submitted to personalised invitations, together with 36
additional valid responses that came from an open call published on the European Youth Portal.
22
Out of these 696 total responses, 641 were fully completed questionnaires and 55 were partially
completed. The survey questions focussed on obstacles to cross-border volunteering and policy
recommendations.
Survey outcome:
Obstacles to cross-border volunteering
Major obstacles:
 Capacity of organisations: “There is a lack of stable funding sources for the
organisations working in the volunteering field in my country”: 79% of the respondents
agreed or strongly agreed whereas 22% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
 Lack of information: “Information on cross-border volunteering opportunities (abroad)
is adequately disseminated in my country”: 66% of the respondents disagreed or strongly
disagreed whereas 34% agreed or strongly agreed. “
 Insufficient awareness raising on benefits: “Enough information is provided to the
local communities and the society about the value and the impact of volunteering”: 66%
of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed whereas 34% agreed or strongly
agreed.
 Volunteering perceived as a ‘lost year’: “young people perceive long-term
volunteering in another country as a lost year in their employment record”: 63% of the
organisations surveyed agreed/strongly disagreed, 37% agreed/strongly agreed.
Less important obstacles:
 Support to volunteers: “My organisation has enough capacity to adequately support
volunteers upon their return from volunteering activities”: 82% of the respondents agreed
or strongly agreed whereas 19% disagreed or strongly disagreed. “My organisation has
enough capacity to adequately train and prepare volunteers”: 92% of the respondents
agreed or strongly agreed whereas 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
 Quality: “There are enough organisations in my country capable of implementing good
quality cross-border volunteering activities”: 72% of the respondents agreed or strongly
agreed whereas 28% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
 Family pressure: 53% of the respondents found the statement “How relevant are the
following obstacles to volunteering in your country or abroad?: There is family pressure
for young people not to go volunteering in other countries because of their caring duties
and responsibilities” not very relevant or not at all relevant whereas 46% of the
respondents found it very relevant or fairly relevant.
23
 Job substitution: Volunteers used as underpaid substitutes for paid staff. “Volunteers are
often used as underpaid substitutes for regular staff or unpaid traineeships in my
country”: 58% of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed and 42% agreed or
strongly agreed.
 Lack of foreign languages skills: “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statements about the capacities of your organisation and other organisations in
your country to implement volunteering activities: The foreign language skills of young
people going to volunteer in other countries / volunteers coming to my country are
sufficient”: 64% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed whereas 35% disagreed or
strongly disagreed.
 Recognition of competences and skills acquired: “Employers in my country recognise
the competences developed during the volunteering experience of young people as
relevant to the labour market”: 59% of the respondents to the survey of organisations
agreed/strongly agreed, 41% agreed/strongly disagreed.
o “Volunteers receive some kind of formal recognition for their participation in
volunteering activities”: 88% of the organisations surveyed agreed/strongly
agreed, 12% agreed/strongly disagreed.
 Legal framework: “There is no clear legal framework defining volunteering field in my
country”: 43% responded very/fairly relevant, 57% not very relevant or not at all
relevant.
 Health insurance and welfare payments: “Young people lose their national health
insurance if they leave to volunteer long-term abroad”: 71% responded: not very/not at
all relevant, 29% very or fairly relevant. “Young people receiving state welfare
payments (unemployment benefits, disability pay, etc.) might lose them if they become
volunteers”: 56% responded not very relevant or not at all relevant, 44% responded
very/fairly relevant.
 Visas and residence permits: “Volunteering does not give legal grounds for obtaining a
visa in my country”: 73% responded not very relevant or not at all relevant, 27%
responded very/fairly relevant. “Volunteering does not give legal grounds for obtaining a
residence permit in my country”: 65% responded not very relevant or not at all relevant,
34% responded very/fairly relevant.
Policy recommendations
 EU common volunteering definition: “The European Union should aim to have a
common definition of volunteering across the Member States”: 95% of the respondents
agreed or strongly agreed whereas 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
24
 EU legal alignment: “EU Member States should collaborate more closely to align legal
rules and regulations governing the volunteering field”: 95% of the respondents agreed or
strongly agreed whereas 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
3.4. Focus Group as part of the study on removing obstacles to cross-border
solidarity activities
A dedicated workshop with 16 public and private-sector experts took place on
11 December 2019 in Brussels. The experts identified the recognition of the value of
volunteering, the legal frameworks for volunteering, entitlements and benefits (portability),
access to and promotion of the European Solidarity Corps and organisational capacity as the five
most pressing obstacles to cross-border volunteering. These identified five obstacles served as a
basis for the EU survey for the Open Public Consultation.
3.5. Feedback on “Have your Say” website
Three individual feedbacks on the initiative were submitted on the “Have your Say” website in
February and March 2021. They concerned the possible exploitation of volunteers through job
substitution, cross-border volunteers facing problems in obtaining access to the European Health
Insurance Card (coverage for a short time, 2-3 months only, or need to be employed) and not
receiving the same access to EHIC as Erasmus+ university students. Another respondent spoke
out in favour of facilitating volunteering of the young who are very poor, as well as projects with
these young people and project in the field of the environment and the energy transition. Most of
these points have been addressed by the proposed recommendation.
3.6. Open public consultation
The open public consultation (OPC) was published on the Commission’s ”Have your say” portal
and ran from 28 April to 21 July 2021. The goal was to collect opinions of young people,
volunteering organisations and NGOs, youth organisations or NGOs with a youth branch, NGOs
active in the humanitarian aid field, businesses and enterprises, researchers or members of
academia active in the fields of mobility, volunteering and solidarity, and policy-makers at
different territorial levels.
The OPC registered a total of 80 replies. Over 60% of the respondents were NGOs, and almost
half of the respondents were organisations representatives active in the field of volunteering. A
factual report on the outcome of the open public consultation has been published6
.
6
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12774-Youth-volunteering-working-on-
projects-in-other-EU-countries-update-/public-consultation_en
25
Statement “I am giving my contributions as…”
Type of organisation representative
26
Country of origin of respondents
In addition (and outside of the “Have your say” website), the Commission received four position
papers during or shortly after the consultation period: three from NGOs, and one from a Member
State.
The position paper from a Member State called for synergies between the various civic and
volunteering programmes of Member States, as well as between national and European mobility
and volunteering schemes. Furthermore, access to volunteering should be simplified and
financial and administrative structures of the respective organisations strengthened. The position
paper pointed to the importance of information networks such as Eurodesk for awareness-raising
on volunteering projects, social security cover for young volunteers, research into the impact of
the mobility on social inclusion of the young and in society. The validation and recognition of
acquired competences should be strengthened. Generally speaking, this Member State pleaded
for paying more attention to the situation of the disabled and to the young Europeans in the EU’s
outermost regions, as otherwise they would not have access to the programmes. Digital
volunteering could be promoted, but rather in support of physical mobility and not as a substitute
of it. The environmental impact should be taken into consideration when designing projects
involving mobility. The reference to the Youth Pass could be strengthened and a mobile-friendly
version developed, as well as competence self-evaluation tools for the young volunteers. The
importance of the mobility of young youth workers was highlighted as well. Finally, the extra-
EU dimension of youth volunteering, linked to the integration of the humanitarian aid strand in
the ESC, should be considered as well.
27
A non-governmental organisation taking part in the ESC submitted its views and proposals on
how to improve the administrative procedures of the ESC. Another non-governmental
organisation active in the field of learning mobility of pupils and volunteers listed as main
challenges the lack of sufficient awareness of the ESC and other cross-border volunteering
schemes on the side of the authorities, problems with the provision and portability of
entitlements and benefits to volunteers, and difficulties in obtaining visa and residence permits
for volunteers. The organisation recommended to enable young people from third countries to
volunteer in EU Member States and to tackle the problem of visas and residence permits for
these people. Links between ESC accredited organisations and services related to social
inclusion would support the engagement of socially disadvantaged groups. Blended learning for
cross-border volunteers would enable volunteers to contribute to volunteering in a remote way.
Involvement in the activities of organisers of solidarity activities should also be considered
volunteering, even if not directly with people in need.
A third non-governmental organisation active in the welfare field submitted recommendations on
the strengthening of the inclusion aspect for Erasmus+ and ESC programmes. These included
involving people with fewer opportunities and special needs as experts in the planning,
implementation and evaluation of the programmes; directly addressing target groups
experiencing disadvantages and discrimination with structured information; using accessible
programme documents; applying flexible rules in the support of additional expenses for
participants with fewer opportunities; raising awareness among evaluators and decision-makers
about the special needs of disadvantaged target groups; funding of supporting structures for
interested volunteers; the equal application of the rules across all programme countries and all
national agencies should be ensured and ensuring target group-specific support for language
learning.
The broad topics of these individual submissions are all covered in the proposed
recommendation.
3.6.1. Analysis of replies on the basis of the different stakeholder categories and per
consultation topic
Two main stakeholder categories participated in the open public consultation:
 51 non-governmental organisations (NGOs): active in the field of volunteering, (cross-
border) solidarity or as a youth organisation / scholarship-giving NGO of careleavers who
want to experience international exchange / European network to foster international
cooperation in the field of youth information/culture/disability
 18 EU citizens with previous volunteering experience, or currently volunteering
On the competences that volunteering should provide, NGOs and EU citizens agreed on the
three most important ones: respect for diversity and tolerance of other points of view,
interpersonal skills and team work, and the ability to cooperate and leadership. NGOs gave more
importance to problem-solving and decision-making, critical thinking and skills related to
28
societal challenges than the EU former or current volunteers. The EU former or current
volunteers gave more weight to linguistic proficiency and skills related to employment than the
NGOs.
In the obstacles to volunteering part, the NGOs and the EU former and current volunteers
agreed on the following three most important issues under the heading of “awareness”: 1) lack
of information/awareness regarding the opportunities provided through volunteering abroad, 2)
lack of information / recognition of the value of volunteering, and 3) lack of cooperation and
awareness between youth and other sectors/institutions. EU former or current volunteers gave
more weight to the problem of skills and competences developed during volunteering not being
recognized by employers as relevant to the labour market, whereas NGOs gave more weight than
the citizens to the problem of lack of preparation of such activities at earlier stages of
education/social interaction activities.
As regards obstacles related to COVID 19 and other impairments to mobility related to
calamities, the NGOs and the EU former or current volunteers agreed on the most important
obstacle, namely travel restrictions or even interdictions, which lead to closed borders in an
emergency situation or repatriation difficulties. NGOs gave more weight than the former or
current EU volunteers to the lack of support measures for organisations active in the fields of
volunteering and solidarity and the lack of detailed action/contingency/repatriation plans
regarding the health and safety of young people volunteering on a project abroad. EU former or
current volunteers were more worried than NGOs about the lack of recognition of the benefits of
online volunteering.
As regards structural/societal obstacles, the biggest problems for former or current volunteers
were financial obstacles and the volunteering experience of young people and its impact
generally not being valued by society, due to the absence of a volunteering tradition. The latter
was also the issue most highlighted by NGOs, followed by the financial obstacles. The third
most important problem, shared by both stakeholder groups, was caring duties and
responsibilities preventing young people to go for volunteering in other countries. A third of the
former or current volunteer respondents mentioned the fear of becoming unemployed after a
volunteering mobility.
With a view to administrative and legal obstacles, the top concern for the NGO side was the
requirement for visas and residence permits for volunteers from third countries. The top concern
for former or current EU volunteers was the absence or fragmentation of legal frameworks for
volunteering (top 3 concern for NGOs), the fact that no volunteering law specifically for youth
exists, and the loss of state welfare payments for youth (top 2 concern for NGOs).
As regards the topic of obstacles related to the European Solidarity Corps (ESC), NGOs
pointed mostly to the administrative burden when applying to the ESC, followed by the low
number of measures for capacity building and support and the low number of organizations
having the capacity to take part in the ESC. The former or current EU volunteers thought that
none of the answers were relevant, but also pointed to lack of promotion and outreach of the
ESC, lack of a strong ESC brand and the low number of measures for capacity-building and
support.
29
In terms of obstacles related to cooperation between the EU and Member States, the NGOs
listed the lack of complementarity between European and national volunteering schemes, as well
as of sufficient information on administrative procedures. The former or current EU volunteers
did not have strong views on any reply. The replies mentioned most were lack of
complementarity between European and national volunteering schemes, lack of common
understanding of what volunteering is, and lack of sufficient information on administrative
procedures – or thought that none of the replies was relevant.
The NGOs left most of the comments in the open text box on “other obstacles”, focussing on
the issue of funding, low interest to volunteer from young EU residents, the IT infrastructure,
inclusiveness of disadvantaged youth, the quality of the projects, which are often not interesting
for qualified young people, lack of/non-transferability of services for the disabled when living
abroad, lack of accessibility of information on websites and tools for users with disabilities, and
long processing times. Only three former or current EU volunteers left comments, focussing on
the wish to make volunteering projects accessible to minors, mobility obstacles for people from
outermost regions and problems with visa and health insurance, and the administrative burden of
the ESC and losing the well-built EVS brand.
NGOs and former and current EU volunteers put different priorities when it came to actions for
EU and Member States to focus on in the future. For the NGOs, the most important actions
were:
1) support the creation of local contact and information points to raise children and
young people’s awareness on a) benefits of volunteering, b) the role volunteering
plays in solidarity, and c) to promote its impact and the benefits for communities
2) make available opportunities to properly assess, validate and certify the skills that
people gain through volunteering or other solidarity activities across the Member
States, so that they can be recognized, for instance by employers and in the education
system
3) improve the attractiveness of the European Solidarity Corps programme including by
improving the awareness and outreach to children and young people and by raising
awareness on the importance of volunteering activities, which relate directly to
solidarity
4) increase the inclusiveness of young people with fewer opportunities in cross-border
solidarity activities; act to simplify administrative procedures to access cross-
solidarity activities
5) Improve targeted acquisition, recognition and validation of transversal skills to
employment and other societal challenges (e.g. climate crisis and the green transition)
to tackle skills gap and skills mismatch.
For the former or current EU volunteers, the most important actions were:
1) make available opportunities to properly assess, validate and certify the skills that
people gain through volunteering and other solidarity activities across the Member
30
states, so that they can be recognized, for instance by employers and in the education
system
2) improve (or create) quality standards for volunteering
3) improve targeted acquisition, recognition and validation of transversal skills relating
to employment and other societal challenges (e.g. climate crisis and the green
transition) to tackle skills gap and skills mismatch; increase the inclusiveness of
young people with fewer opportunities in cross-border solidarity activities
4) create more synergies and facilitate complementarity between the European and
Member States’ solidarity, volunteering, civic service and mobility schemes for
young people; act to simplify administrative procedures to access cross-border
solidarity activities
5) promote more linguistic support – foreign language training.
The NGOs also left many comments in the open text field on ‘any field that future actions
should focus on to promote the mobility of young people who want to undertake cross-
border solidarity activities’. These ranged from ideas such as a “Nobel Prize” for the best
volunteer and creating a volunteering programme also for children, extraordinary cost coverage
and more stable funding, training of regional multipliers, promoting green policies in
volunteering, recognition of soft skills and awareness-raising of cross-border volunteering
programmes, to solving the visa problem for third country nationals and an EU initiative to
create affordable housing for mobility.
One former or current EU volunteer left the comment that minors should be given access to
volunteering projects, and schools should be actively involved to inform about the possibilities.
Three non-EU citizens suggested to make opportunities for people from third country partner
countries, to have better tools in place to learn a language, to forbid organisations to host
volunteers without providing accommodation, and to make sure that the organisations are really
read to host volunteers.
In conclusion, one main concern of the former or current EU volunteers is the wish to have their
learning outcomes properly assessed, validated and certified, so that they can be recognized
by employers or in the educational system. Linked to this, a significant number of the responding
former or current volunteers also mentioned the fear of becoming unemployed after a
volunteering mobility. They would also like to see quality standards for volunteering and
increase the inclusiveness of young people with fewer opportunities. The proposed policy
lines of the recommendation foresee to raise awareness of the existing frameworks for
identification, documentation and validation of learning outcomes of volunteering activities, as
well as supporting organisers of volunteering activities in a more systematic and generalized use
of existing national or EU frameworks for this purpose. Furthermore, they foresee measures to
ensure that organisers of volunteering activities deliver on high quality and socially inclusive
volunteering opportunities.
NGOs also supported opportunities to assess, validate and certify the skills gained and to
increase the inclusiveness of disadvantaged young people. They felt that it was of prime
importance to raise awareness on the benefits of volunteering, which the proposal for a
recommendation also tackles. In the obstacles part, the NGOs focussed (more than the EU
31
volunteers) on the problem of lack of preparation of volunteering activities, the lack of
support measures for organisations and the lack of detailed action/contingency/repatriation
plans regarding the health and safety of young volunteers. NGOs were also concerned about
the access to the volunteering projects, and the legal conditions: visa and residence permit
requirements for third country volunteers, fragmented legal frameworks for volunteering and the
potential loss of state welfare payments for youth. Whilst the EU volunteers held no strong views
on the interplay of European and national volunteering schemes, this was a problem for the
NGOs. The proposed recommendation addresses all of these points.