INTRODUCTION

The EU's interest in qualifications and in the national infrastructure that supports qualifications has focused on transparency. The complexity of national qualifications systems and the different ways of recognising learning mean that work on transparency is necessary if European unity is to mean something more than the sum of the national systems. A clearer understanding of the qualifications of the citizens of other countries can ease barriers to cross-border mobility for both students and workers.

The first step in developing this understanding and creating transparency was to publish large catalogues of qualifications for each country with explanatory text and references. The need for a simpler international classification of qualifications eventually led through a series of steps to the reference levels of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) (European Parliament, 2008) and the Qualifications Framework for the Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA). Other tools, such as the Europass Portfolio and frameworks for quality assurance (European Commission, 2008), have been useful in communicating and developing trust regarding different national approaches to qualifications.

For many centuries trade organisations (guilds or professional associations) have exercised some control over the right to practise a trade and have defined hierarchies of skills within the trade (e.g. assistant, apprentice, qualified worker, master craftsperson). These hierarchies were the forerunners of sectoral and national qualifications frameworks (see Chapter 2). The universities also set down common patterns of recognising progress within higher academic learning, thus defining another hierarchy of qualifications. Hence, within all national qualifications systems there is a set of implicit qualifications structures that aim to ensure that the supply of skilled labour is available for the trades and to promote advances in human knowledge.

Working and learning play a significant role in defining national and regional cultures and the social identities of individuals and communities. Within the EU the dual processes of Bologna (for harmonising higher education qualifications structures) and Copenhagen (for increasing cooperation in vocational education and training (VET)) have been strong influences on the creation of a European dimension for national social and economic development. Countries neighbouring the EU have a clear interest in relating their national qualifications structures to these European models (Coles and Leney, 2009). It is therefore logical that when priorities for cooperation with the EU are discussed, education and training is high on the agenda.

The European Training Foundation (ETF) has been supporting education and training in many ways since it began its work in 1994. Its mission is to help countries that aspire to join the EU and other transition countries to harness the potential of their human resources through the reform of education, training and labour market systems, since these systems can make a fundamental contribution to increasing prosperity, creating sustainable growth and encouraging social inclusion.

The Copenhagen process, and the way in which it strives to increase the portability of qualifications, has pushed the issue of qualifications frameworks up European education policy agendas. Recent European developments have added urgency to international coordination in this field. With the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in mind, stimulating the debate on qualifications frameworks in countries neighbouring the EU is a logical extension of the EU's internal activities. The ETF helps partner countries to become acquainted with European discussions on and experiences with national qualifications frameworks (NQFs), including the different approaches to these frameworks and the practical implications of developing and implementing them.

Experience shows that frameworks have the potential to improve the formal recognition of knowledge and skills that individuals have acquired. Furthermore, because of the functions that can be attached to them, they may also act as a driving force for broader education and training reform. However, NQFs cannot by themselves guarantee that high-quality VET is being offered. Awareness of the possible advantages of NQFs and an understanding of the risks involved in committing resources to developing an NQF will contribute to well-founded policy decisions. NQFs can be a powerful lever for VET reform within countries, but such frameworks are not easy to develop, nor are they in themselves a solution to all the problems that countries might experience with their vocational education systems.

It was with this balanced view of the potential of qualifications frameworks, set against the reality of the difficulties of improving both the quality and the recognition of learning, that the ETF embarked on a number of different regional (multi-country) or country projects and activities with a focus on NQF development. Not all countries and territories began working on the project at the same time, nor did they work according to a single project model. For some countries the development of an NQF was part of a long-term strategy that had much more important short-term goals, for example the development of occupational standards in tourism. The project has evolved to incorporate initiatives relating to qualifications framework development, for example to give more prominence to learning outcomes than programme delivery.

1.1 A Short History of Country Involvement in the NQF Project

The partner countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus have participated in the NQF project since 2005. The objectives were to support the national education and training reform debate using national qualifications as a strategic...