Last weekend I got across The implementation of CVT in the meeting held in Bilbao with Basque Country Social Partners
- Mikel Burzako Samper- Director of Coordination- Presidency of Basque Government Director de Coordinación-Presidencia-Gobierno Vasco.
- Arantza García- Secretary for Training of Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions in BAC (Basque Autonomous Community)-Secretaría de Formación CCOO-Euskadi
- Felipe García-Responsible for Training/Employment and Projects of the Trade Union General Workers’ Confederation in BAC-Basque Autonomous Community-Responsable de Formación/empleo y proyectos UGT-Euskadi.
- Nestor Eriz-Director of Training Department of CONFEBASK(Basque business organization)-Departamento de Formación de Confebask
- Carlos Pereda-Training Department of CONFEBASK(Basque business organization)-Departamento de Formación de Confebask
. The implementation of CVT policies can be analysed according to the main institutions and public actors dealing with CVT. There are several levels at which CVT is implemented and managed by public institutions, the existence of any coordination bodies, and the outcomes of social partners’ autonomous bargaining activities in terms of collective bargaining and bilateral joint activities.
Actually I beat my brains out setting out the level of implementation of CVT policies all arounf EU countries.
CENTRALIZED policy implementation:Overall, 11 of the 28 countries report a centralised policy implementation; they are usually smaller countries, with the notable exception of Poland. Social partners are usually involved in these activities on a tripartite basis.
These countries are therefore centrally coordinated with regard to CVT: differences among them depend on both the country size and institutional design, thus introducing a certain diversity in contracting out policies, qualification standards, training centre accreditation and learning outcomes.
DESCENTRALISED Policy Implementation:
At the other end of the spectrum are Austria, Belgium, Germany and Romania, which show a strongly decentralised implementation level.In Belgium, each region has a wide regulatory scope with broad regulatory powers over CVT standards. They maintain strong links to employment policies and their own public employment services, which act as coordinating bodies for training and CVT.
In Austria, the regional branches of employment services (Arbeitsmarktservice, AMS) coordinate CVT interventions with little regulation from the Lander but close interaction with the social partners.
On the other hand, German Lander enjoy some legislative powers, and a joint committee among the social partners – with the participation of a teachers’ representative – guarantees regional-level coordination.
No national or regional CVT policy or level of intervention:
Finally, neither the Czech Republic nor Sweden has any national or regional CVT policy or level of intervention; this area is left entirely to the social partners at company and occupational or sectoral level.However, in Sweden, local-level tripartite involvement is rather widespread in the area of adult education.
Meanwhile, Collective Bargaining on CVT tends to be far more decentralised than is the case for the tripartite involvement or concertation of the social partners. Collective bargaining is predominantly centralised in some small countries with either intersectoral training funds (Cyprus and Greece) or where the social partners play a significant role as training providers (the Czech Republic, Finland, Slovenia).
Fiscal policies are an important tool in promoting CVT participation; 16 out of the 28 countries offer the incentive of tax deductibility from the company income or from payrolls. It is usually managed at central level in an automatic way, apart from Spain where local public employment services have discretionary power. Fiscal incentives are complementary to national-level coordination, with the social partners’ involvement in most countries as a reinforcing tool.