At its 280th Session (March 2001) the Governing Body of the International Labour Office decided to place the question of human resources training and development on the agenda of the 91st Session (2003) of the International Labour Conference.

In accordance with article 39 of the Standing Orders of the Conference, which deals with the preliminary stages of the double-discussion procedure, the Office drew up a preliminary report,⁽¹⁾ intended to serve as the basis for the first discussion of this question. The report contains an analysis of the law and practice in various countries in the area of human resources training and development. The report, accompanied by a questionnaire, was communicated to the governments of member States, which were invited to send their replies so as to reach the Office no later than 1 June 2002.

At the time of drawing up the present report, the Office had received replies from the governments of the following 96 member States:⁽²⁾ Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe.

In accordance with article 12, paragraph 3, of the ILO Constitution and article 39 of the Standing Orders of the Conference, governments were invited to consult the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in finalizing their replies to this questionnaire.

The governments of 12 member States included in their replies the opinions of employers’ and workers’ organizations: Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Lithuania, Norway, Oman, Slovakia and Sweden. Other governments forwarded the observations from employers’ and/or workers’ organizations to the Office. In some cases the Office received replies directly from employers’ and workers’ organizations. A number of governments did not reply to the questionnaire, but the employers’ and/or workers’ organizations of these member States did; these replies have been included in the commentaries on each question.

This report has been drawn up on the basis of the replies received, the substance of which, together with brief commentaries, is given in the following pages. The Proposed Conclusions appear at the end of the report.

If the Conference decides to adopt a new international instrument, the Office will draw up a draft to be submitted to governments, for consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, to be discussed at the 92nd Session of the International Labour Conference in 2004.

² Replies that arrived too late to be included in the report may be consulted by delegates at the Conference.

This section contains the substance of the replies to the questionnaire which accompanied the preliminary report. Each question is reproduced and followed by a list indicating the governments that replied to it, grouped in accordance with the nature of the replies (affirmative, negative or other). Where an observation is included qualifying or explaining the reply, the substance is given, in alphabetical order of countries, after the abovementioned list. Where a reply deals with several questions, or refers to an earlier question, the substance of the reply is given under the first of these questions and is only referred to in the other questions. The replies are followed by brief Office commentaries referring to the corresponding point(s) of the Proposed Conclusions at the end of this report.

Some respondents⁽¹⁾ provided information on their national law and practice in their reports. While this is most useful for the work of the Office, this information has not been reproduced unless it is necessary to understand the reply. Affirmative or negative replies from employers’ and workers’ organizations that are not accompanied by remarks are quoted only when they are contrary to the reply from the government, or when the government has not replied to the question.

Towards a new Recommendation on human resources development and training

In view of the profound changes that are taking place in the economy, in society and in the world of work, the overwhelming majority of responding governments and employers’ and workers’ organizations welcomed the development of a new ILO human resources development instrument. Most of these considered that the new instrument should take the form of a Recommendation. The general comments indicated that a more dynamic and applicable instrument should be developed, to be used by member States and the social partners in formulating and implementing human resources development policies which are integrated with other economic and social policies, particularly employment policies. The focus should be on policy targets, frameworks and priority fields of action and less on practical implementation.

Definitions, context and principles of contemporary human resources development and training

A number of respondents were of the view that certain terms are used in ways that are potentially confusing. Requests were made to clarify these terms, and a few replies suggested definitions, but there was no clear pattern to either the requests or the suggestions.

Some respondents expressed the view that the instrument should focus not only on the technical aspects, but on the changing contemporary economic and social context of human resources development and training. Relevant passages of the Conclusions concerning human resources training and development⁽²⁾ (hereinafter referred to as “the Conclusions”) were cited as describing the shift in human resources development objectives, policies and practice in response to the various manifestations of globalization, the growing debt burden of many developing countries, technological changes, new managerial and business practices and the need to tackle the deteriorating labour market and social situation of many disadvantaged groups in society. The preamble of the new Recommendation should reflect these developments.

Some respondents expressed the view that the preamble should refer to the shift towards lifelong learning, individual responsibility and social dialogue as guiding principles of contemporary human resource development and training policies. The majority of respondents felt that these dimensions would be captured by referring to the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975; the abovementioned Conclusions; the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy; and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. A number of other instruments were suggested for inclusion in the preamble, but no clear pattern emerged in the types of instruments mentioned.

Objectives and scope of human resources development and training

Many respondents considered that the new instrument should draw on the relevant paragraphs of the Conclusions, to encourage governments to adopt appropriate economic and social policies aimed at full employment, social inclusion and improved competitiveness in order to enable human resources development and training to contribute fully to these objectives.

Some respondents expressed the view that a broad definition of the term “employability” should be used, and referred to economic and social policies that promote full employment; partnership between governments, employers, trade unions and individual workers; and equity. Many considered that systems of education and training must reflect objectives that go beyond a narrow economic interpretation of the term “employability”. First and foremost, education and training must create free, responsible and critically thinking individuals who can more readily integrate into society, particularly into labour markets that demand increasingly higher levels of skills and flexibility.

Social dialogue in human resources development and training

Many respondents considered that the questionnaire was formulated in a way that suggested central government control, with national government as the architect of all training and learning policy development and implementation. Respondents overwhelmingly endorsed social dialogue as a major guiding principle for education and training policy and programme development and implementation. Considerable room must be made for actors other than government to be involved in education and training, particularly in the area of lifelong learning and training. The role and responsibility of the social partners for human resource development and training should be emphasized to a greater extent, in order to create a balance between their role and that of the government.

Qu. 1

Do you consider that the International Labour Conference should adopt anew international instrument concerning human resources development and training?

Total number of replies: 95.

Affirmative: 93. Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Negative: 1. Australia.

Other: 1. Luxembourg.

Australia. At the 2000 session of the International Labour Conference (ILC), Australia argued that a decision on the need for a new Recommendation should await the ILO’s development of a systematic approach to standard-setting reform. However, in recognition that a majority of member States will support a new instrument in light of the Conclusions adopted at that session of the ILC, the Government provides responses to the ILO questionnaire.
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU): The importance of human resources development and training (HRDT) in economic, enterprise and individual development is becoming increasingly clear. Nations, enterprises and individuals that do not have access to broad-based education and training opportunities will become increasingly uncompetitive.

Austria. Yes. The Recommendation should be as specific as possible.

Luxembourg. Not opposed to the adoption of a new international instrument if the majority of member States are in favour.

Morocco. Federation of Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Services (FCCIS): Yes.

Portugal. Yes. There is a new approach to education and training for quality, which is not sufficiently reflected in previous instruments. Fundamental labour rights are also embodied in the concept of decent work, which should accompany human resources development.

Russian Federation. Federation of Independent Trade Unions (FNPR): Yes.

Slovenia. Association of Employers of Slovenia (ZDS) and Association of Employers of Craft Activities of Slovenia (ZDODS): Yes.

United States. United States Council for International Business (USCIB): It is not altogether clear that an international instrument is called for. Human resources development (HRD) is an issue that calls for a menu of “best practices” that depends on the circumstances of the country concerned. HRD is a subjective subject that impacts an individual’s standard of living, national productivity and competitiveness. The scope of this questionnaire is huge, covering both basic education and sophisticated systems and processes used by large enterprises to develop the skills of their employees. If an instrument is needed, it may be preferable to focus on the need for basic education for all, access to basic education for disadvantaged groups, emphasis on vocational education, and building partnerships with enterprises where jobs are available and to ensure that the skills being developed are relevant.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO): Yes. Workforce investment plays an increasingly important role in the ability of nations to meet the challenges of a global economy and to produce good jobs: a living wage; health benefits; pension coverage; a variety of tasks within a manageable workload; a healthy and safe working environment; the ability to control the pace and organization of work; social interaction among workers; access to continuous learning; adequate information to make decisions; career ladder opportunities; opportunity for input into job redesign; knowledge of the business; and independent voice through a collective bargaining agreement. A revised instrument on HRDT would be particularly useful in helping governments around the world, regardless of their pace or stage of development, to create workforce investment systems that allow workers to compete on the basis of innovation, quality and skill, and not on the basis of low wages and limited benefits. Such an instrument would also provide invaluable guidance to employers and workers’ representatives as they work together with government to advance the skills and training of the labour force and the strength of the national economy.

The overwhelming majority of governments and all employers’ and workers’ organizations replying to this question considered that the Conference should adopt a new international instrument concerning human resources development and training.

Total number of replies: 93.

Affirmative: 88. Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Negative: 3. Barbados, Ghana, Peru.

Other: 2. Costa Rica, Nigeria.

Australia. ACTU: Yes.

Barbados. No, the instrument should take the form of a Convention, since countries would be obliged to facilitate implementation of its provisions once ratified, requiring all member States of the ILO to report regularly on implementation, allowing for monitoring and provision of technical assistance.
Barbados Employers’ Confederation (BEC): Yes.
Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados (CTUSAB): Yes.

Costa Rica. The development of knowledge societies has made it necessary to adopt legal or technical instruments, either in the form of a Convention or a Recommendation, which offer effective mechanisms benefiting both male and female workers.

Cyprus. Cyprus Workers’ Confederation (SEK): The instrument can take the form of a Recommendation, allowing latitude for national legislation to consider the particularities and needs of individual countries.

France. It should serve as an instrument of reference for constituents when they develop HRD policies. It should also be a practical instrument for the implementation of these policies.

Ghana. No, the instrument should take the form of both a Convention and a Recommendation, so that if a member State cannot ratify the Convention it may follow the provisions of the Recommendation.

Ghana Employers’ Association (GEA): No, it should take the form of both a Convention and a Recommendation.
Trades Union Congress of Ghana (TUC): Yes. The Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142), remains, to a large extent, up to date.

India. Indian Merchants’ Chamber (IMC): No.

Lebanon. The instrument (Recommendation) should mention whether it accompanies Convention No. 142, and supplements its provisions or takes the form of an independent Recommendation.
Association of Lebanese Industrialists (ALI): It should take the form of a Convention.

Mauritius. The Recommendation should contain guidelines for both HRDT policy formulation and implementation.

Morocco. FCCIS: Yes.

Nigeria. It should take the form of both a Convention and a Recommendation.

Peru. It should take the form of a Convention.
Lima Chamber of Commerce (CCL): Yes.

Russian Federation. FNPR: Yes.

Slovakia. Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR): It should take the form of a Convention.

Slovenia. ZDS and ZDODS: Yes.

South Africa. The proposed Recommendation could have a slightly modified structure: I. Preamble; II. Vision (impact to be achieved); III. Values (social dialogue with roles and functions clarified, social justice, innovation, inclusion, etc.); IV. Context for effective education and training strategies (complementarity between HRD, macroeconomics, trade and industry, labour market and social development policies for rising employment, lower poverty, etc.); V. Beneficiaries: employed workers; employers; unemployed workers; and informal sector workers (with subsections dealing with each); VI. Policies and objectives (a generic section of overall frameworks including research, planning, monitoring and evaluation and then subsections dealing with the different beneficiaries); VII. Implementation of policies and objectives (providers, quality promotion and recognition of skills informally acquired); and VIII. Responsibilities and resource commitments of government, business, labour, communities and individuals. The proposed reorganization is not a condition for acceptance of the new proposed instrument.
Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU): A final section should be added setting out follow-up action along the lines of the Job Creation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Recommendation, 1998 (No. 189).

Switzerland. Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (USS/SGB): The instrument should take the form of a Convention.

Ukraine. Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine (FPU): No, it should take the form of a Convention supplemented by a Recommendation.

United Kingdom. Yes. It would be difficult to formulate a new Convention which could improve on Convention No. 142, since that instrument is sufficiently flexible to continue to apply in present-day conditions. While many elements of the Human Resources Development Recommendation, 1975 (No. 150), are still relevant and applicable, it is through a further Recommendation that new issues can be addressed. A Recommendation would also offer greater scope to achieve a wide consensus.

United States. USCIB: If an instrument is necessary, it should be no more than a Recommendation. Human resources development is not an issue that can be regulated. It is an issue that requires alternative actions that governments can take in conjunction with the private sector to improve the education, training and continuous learning for a nation’s workforce.

The majority of the respondents to this question felt that the new instrument should take the form of a Recommendation.

(a) Total number of replies: 86. Affirmative: 80. Negative: 3. Other: 3.

(b) Total number of replies: 89. Affirmative: 86. Negative: 0. Other: 3.

(c) Total number of replies: 76. Affirmative: 71. Negative: 2. Other: 3.

(d) Total number of replies: 82. Affirmative: 76. Negative: 2. Other: 4.

(e) Total number of replies: 36.

Affirmative: Algeria ((b) to (d)), Argentina ((b) and (d)), Australia ((a) and (b)), Austria, Bahrain, Barbados ((b) and (d)), Benin ((b) to (d)), Bolivia ((a)), Botswana ((a)), Brazil, Burundi ((a), (b) and (d)), Canada, Central African Republic ((a) to (c)), Chile, China ((a) to (d)), Costa Rica, Croatia ((a) and (b)), Cuba, Cyprus ((a) to (d)), Czech Republic ((b) to (d)), Denmark, Ecuador ((a) and (b)), Egypt ((a), (b) and (d)), El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, Gabon, Germany ((a) to (d)), Ghana, Greece, Guatemala ((a), (b) and (d)), Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, India ((a) and (b)), Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel ((b) to (d)), Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan ((b)), Kenya ((a) to (d)), Latvia, Lebanon ((a) to (c)), Lithuania, Mali ((a) to (d)), Malta, Mauritius ((a) to (d)), Mexico ((a) to (d)), Republic of Moldova ((a) to (d)), Myanmar, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria ((a)), Norway, Oman ((b) to (d)), Pakistan, Panama ((a) to (d)), Papua New Guinea, Peru ((a) and (b)), Philippines ((a) to (d)), Poland, Portugal ((a) to (d)), Qatar, Romania ((a), (b) and (d)), San Marino, Seychelles ((a) to (d)), Singapore ((a) and (b)), Slovakia ((a) to (d)), South Africa ((a) to (d)), Spain, Sri Lanka ((a) to (d)), Suriname, Sweden ((a) to (d)), Switzerland ((a) to (d)), Syrian Arab Republic ((a) to (d)), Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey ((a) and (b)), Uganda ((a) to (d)), Ukraine, United Arab Emirates ((a) to (d)), United Kingdom ((a) to (d)), Venezuela, Yemen ((b) and (d)), Yugoslavia ((a) to (d)), Zimbabwe.

Negative: Australia ((c)), Benin ((a) and (e)), Germany ((e)), Israel ((a)), Lebanon ((d)), Mauritius ((e)), Oman ((a)), Seychelles ((e)), Switzerland ((e)), Turkey ((c) and (d)), Uganda ((e)), Yugoslavia ((e)).

Other: Australia ((d)), Bulgaria ((e)), China ((e)), Cyprus ((e)), Egypt ((e)), France, Hungary ((e)), Israel ((e)), Kenya ((e)), Lebanon ((e)), Malaysia, Mali ((e)), Mexico ((e)), Republic of Moldova ((e)), Netherlands, Oman ((e)), Panama ((e)), Philippines ((e)), Portugal ((e)), Romania ((e)), Slovakia ((e)), South Africa ((e)), Sri Lanka ((e)), Sweden ((e)), Syrian Arab Republic ((e)), United Arab Emirates ((e)), United Kingdom ((e)).

Australia. (d) While this instrument is important, it has no direct relevance to this topic.
ACTU: (c) Yes, if agreed by the parties. However, the issue under consideration goes far beyond multinational enterprises (MNEs). Besides, MNEs are already in the forefront of recognizing the importance of education and training. (d) Yes, if agreed by the parties. It should not be considered an essential part of a new Recommendation.

Austria. (a) to (d) It should refer to all the relevant previous international instruments.

Brazil. National Confederation of Industry (CNI): (d) No.

Bulgaria. (e) The European Commission Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (2000).

China. (e) Include employment services (Employment Service Convention, 1948 (No. 88)).

Croatia. Croatian Association of Employers (HUP): (e) The preamble should refer to the Cologne Charter: Aims and Ambitions for Lifelong Learning (1999) reproduced in Appendix II and Education and training: A joint statement by BIAC and TUAC (1991) reproduced in Appendix III of Report IV (1).
Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (SSSH): (c) and (d) Yes.

Cyprus. (e) The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159).

Czech Republic. Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS): (e) The European Commission Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (2000).

Denmark. Salaried Employees’ and Civil Servants’ Confederation (FTF): (e) The Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140).

Egypt. (e) The preamble should focus on the issue of mitigating the negative labour and production implications of globalization, especially in developing countries, with direct support and unambiguous commitment of developed countries and international organizations to achieve: (i) the development of exports of developing countries and the reduction of trade barriers in developed countries; (ii) increased direct investment by industrialized countries in developing countries; (iii) material, technical and scientific support; (iv) freedom of movement of capital and labour in the framework of international conventions; and (v) supporting technological advancement in developing countries.
Federation of Egyptian Industries (FEI): (c) If this is included in the preamble it would be an implicit recognition of the content of this Declaration, a question which has yet to be determined by many member States.

France. The new instrument should refer to a limited number of international texts which deal, in particular, with HRD.

Ghana. GEA: (e) The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159), and Recommendation (No. 168).

Hungary. (e) The Hamburg Declaration on Adult Learning (UNESCO, 1997), the European Commission Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (2000) and the European Union directives on employment policy.

India. Federation of Karnataka Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FKCCI): (e) Any instrument that makes HRD more acceptable is improving managerial practices, such as email and electronic media.
Employers’ Association of Rajasthan (EAR): (a), (b) and (d) Yes. (c) Cannot comment as this Declaration is not known.
IMC: (a) to (d) Yes. (e) The Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention, 1988 (No. 168).

Indonesia. (d) Yes, since the recognition and protection of workers’ rights are important for raising workers’ motivation for work.

Japan. Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO): (e) The Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122).

Kenya. (e) Convention No. 122.

Lebanon. (d) No, as the fundamental Conventions addressed by the Declaration do not directly concern training and human resources development. (e) The Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), No. 122 and No. 159.
ALI: (a) Since the proposed instrument should be a new Convention covering all aspects of human resources development, there is no need to refer to the existing Convention.

Malaysia. Documents referred to in this question are not available for comment.

Mali. (e) Convention No. 111, Convention No. 140, the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), and Convention No. 159.

Mexico. (e) The Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 96).

Republic of Moldova. (e) Convention No. 159 and Recommendation No. 168.

Morocco. FCCIS: Yes.

Netherlands. (e) If possible, give examples of national best practice.
Confederation of Netherlands’ Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW): (e) Reference should be made to the Cologne Charter: Aims and Ambitions for Lifelong Learning (1999). It would be appropriate to refer not only to other instruments, but to include in the preamble a description of the context and to highlight the new HRD perspective in comparison to that which existed in 1975. The relationship between education and training and the labour market, and the balance between supply and demand, cannot be found in the planning paradigms of the 1970s. Nowadays, the key to a good fit is not in the hands of the State, but of workers and employers. Education, if this was ever the case, no longer prepares one for stable lifetime jobs, but enables young people to acquire a broad range of competencies as a basis for lifelong learning, including learning to learn; career skills; and the capacity to respond to changes in the labour market. It is important to note that education and training alone are not enough to ensure sustainable economic and social development.

Oman. (e) The Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138); Convention No. 142.

Pakistan. Employers’ Federation of Pakistan (EFP): (b) A direct reference to the Conclusions will not be of much use. (c) No, as it applies to multinational enterprises only, which are in a better position to develop their human resources.

Panama. (e) Investment in training as a commitment of the public and private sectors, and individuals, under conditions of equal opportunity.

Peru. CCL: (b) Yes.

Philippines. (e) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Portugal. (e) Convention No. 122.
Confederation of Trade and Services of Portugal (CCP): (b) Yes. The preamble should highlight: (i) economic globalization and its effects on the labour market; (ii) the need for States to ensure greater linkage between policies such as economic and employment policies; (iii) the notion of employability, closely linked to basic skills such as information and communication technology (ICT), skills, problem-solving, teamwork, knowledge of foreign languages, ability to communicate, etc.; and (iv) a shared responsibility approach between the State, firms and individuals. (d) Yes, to promote an integrated approach to human resources development, as set out in the Declaration, particularly as it refers to the need to maintain the mutually reinforcing link between social progress and economic development.
Confederation of Portuguese Industry (CIP): (c) and (d) No.
General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN): (d) No.
General Union of Workers (UGT): (e) Recommend to countries that changes introduced in education and training will only be effective if they are accompanied by other policies and measures such as employment policy, macroeconomic policy and investment in science and technology. The fundamental role of the social partners should be highlighted.

Romania. (e) European Commission Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (2000) and the Council Resolution of 3 December 1992 on transparency of qualifications.

Russian Federation. FNPR: (a) to (d) Yes. (e) The Vocational Training Recommendation, 1962 (No. 117), and the Employment Policy (Supplementary Provisions) Recommendation, 1984 (No. 169).

Slovakia. (e) Convention No. 140.

Slovenia. ZDS and ZDODS: (b) Yes.

South Africa. (e) A limited number of key instruments of the Bretton Woods institutions and UNESCO could be included in order to explicitly articulate alignment. This would be consistent with the spirit of the Global Employment Forum, which sought to improve coordination of policies and activities across institutions.
COSATU: (e) The Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), and Recommendation No. 122 and relevant United Nations documents, including the conclusions of the World Summit for Social Development and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The preamble should also refer to the Conclusions adopted at the 88th Session of the ILC (June 2000). It should make explicit reference to those aspects of the general discussion that will not be covered in the substantive paragraphs of the revised instrument. For example, it should refer to the following issues raised in the Conclusions: the importance of increasing overseas development assistance and providing international debt relief; and encouraging multinational corporations to engage in fair technology transfer agreements, to develop local high-level skills in developing countries and to help create the infrastructure for the new knowledge economy.

Sri Lanka. (e) Convention No. 122 and Convention No. 159.

Sweden. (e) The Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156).

Switzerland. (a) to (d) Yes, but in the order (d), (b), (a) and (c). (e) No, although perhaps the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (June 2000) could be included.
Confederation of Swiss Employers (UPS): (e) The Cologne Charter: Aims and Ambitions for Lifelong Learning (1999).

Syrian Arab Republic. (e) Some of the issues discussed at the International Conference on Education (Geneva, 1994) concerning complementarity between education and training systems for workforce development.

United Arab Emirates. (e) Examples of good practice of member States.

United Kingdom. (c) Yes. The Declaration reinforces the importance of workforce development and makes clear the benefits to business as well as workers. It also highlights the contributions that multinational enterprises can make to learning and training “as part of a contribution to national development”, which fits well with current thinking on corporate social responsibility. (d) Yes, the Declaration is at the heart of the ILO’s work and specifically mentions vocational training in its preamble. (e) The key instruments are covered above. If, however, there were a general consensus to include further instruments, Conventions Nos. 122 and 140 should be included.

United States. USCIB: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. The Tripartite Declaration contains no content that is relevant. (d) No. The Declaration contains no content that is relevant to this subject. (e) None.

The majority of respondents indicated that the instrument should include a preamble referring to:

(a)  the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975;
(b)  the Conclusions concerning human resources training and development, adopted at the 88th Session of the International Labour Conference;
(c)  the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy; and
(d)  the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

Respondents referred to the Cologne Charter: Aims and Ambitions for Lifelong Learning and Education, and Training: A joint statement by BIAC and TUAC, both of which appear as appendices to Report IV (1). A number of respondents mentioned the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), and the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159), and Recommendation (No. 168). A few respondents indicated that the preamble should refer to the European Commission Memorandum on Lifelong Learning.

Qu. 4

Should the instrument recommend that governments formulate, apply and monitor national human resources development and training policies, which are coherent with other economic and social policies, based on social dialogue, and reflect the different roles of government and the social partners?

Total number of replies: 93.

Affirmative: 91. Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Negative: None.

Other: 2. Portugal, United Kingdom.

Belgium. Walloon Government: Yes, on condition that the State assume an exclusive role with regard to basic education and a decisive role in training, an area in which it alone determines policies. Also on condition that cultural circumstances and objectives are taken into account in HRD policy formulation, as provided in Article 1(2)(c) of the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142).

Czech Republic. Confederation of Industry and Transport (SPD CR): Add “recommend that governments define the competence of authorities on human resources development and training, and to clearly state forms of social dialogue”.

Denmark. Coherent policies for HRD and training policies should be based on social dialogue, reflecting the different roles and responsibilities of the players.

France. By integrating economic policies with employment and social policies, it will be possible to avoid situations where employment and training policies are often used as instruments of adjustment or adaptation in the short term. This approach is also likely to bring about a shift in the perceptions of economic decision-makers, who may consider the financing of training to be a cost and even a risk. Economic and labour market polarization can be avoided, since all actors who are responsible for investing in human resources and competencies also have a stake in the level of this investment and in ensuring equality of access. As the approach is likely to improve social cohesion, it also contributes to better overall performance and, ultimately, higher growth.

Germany. Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA): Yes, in principle, but the setting of specific objectives should be left to States, particularly with regard to national policies and their oversight.

Japan. Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren): Although it is appropriate for governments to formulate and apply national HRD policies, there are reservations about “monitoring” them.

Mauritius. The instrument should also specify the mechanisms for policy formulation and social dialogue.

Morocco. FCCIS: Yes.

Netherlands. Trade Union Federation for Middle and Senior Staff (Unie mhp): Perhaps not formulate policies, but facilitate and monitor them.

Portugal. The instrument should aim to assign distinct functions to governments and the social partners, but should be sufficiently flexible to encompass various forms of participation.

Russian Federation. FNPR: Yes.

Slovenia. ZDS and ZDODS: Regarding Questions 4 to 6: both employers’ organizations agree with all the objectives, scope, and definitions suggested in the questionnaire. Above all, governments should facilitate lifelong learning and employability, and stress the importance of innovation, competitiveness and growth of the economy. They should expand public and private investment in the infrastructure needed for the use of ICT, in education and training hardware and software, and in the training of teachers and trainers, making use of local, national and international collaborative networks.

South Africa. Yes, but replace “coherent” with “complementary”. It is important to convey the notion that HRD is central to the achievement of growth and development objectives and is indeed often the forerunner.
COSATU: The instrument should also recommend that governments adopt other appropriate economic and social policies that are directed at full employment and social inclusion, enabling training and human resource development to realize and contribute to economic growth and full employment.

Switzerland. Yes, specifying the different and complementary roles of the State, the social partners and other actors.

United Kingdom. Certainly governments should formulate, apply and monitor policies, but this should not be based solely on social dialogue. Clearly the social partners should be closely involved in the development and implementation of policy. The instrument should make reference to the involvement of other important stakeholders, such as education and human resource development experts and training providers. It should also attempt to incorporate the contribution that can be made by those who are not fully represented by the social partners, such as unemployed people, women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older workers, as well as those engaged in non-traditional work.

United States. USCIB: Yes, in a broad sense, but in specifics, no. Government-driven HRDT policies are largely ineffective because they are insufficiently connected to the workplace and jobs, and become programmes of “training for training’s sake”.
AFL-CIO: All stakeholders within the community must participate in developing a strategic plan for identifying long-term goals and prioritizing objectives. Working together, stakeholders assess their resources, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, allies, opponents and targets, and specific action steps are identified. Assessments should look at both the supply (skills and needs of the workforce) and the demand (industry needs) issues in the area. For example, the ILO instrument should recommend, formulate and monitor HRDT policies that are heavily based on social dialogue and reflect the different roles of government and the social partners.

Most respondents stated that the instrument should recommend that governments formulate, apply and monitor national human resources development and training policies, which are coherent with other economic and social policies, based on social dialogue and reflect the different roles of government and the social partners.

Total number of replies: 94.

(a) Total number of replies: 91. Affirmative: 89. Negative: 0. Other: 2.

(b) Total number of replies: 88. Affirmative: 86. Negative: 0. Other: 2.

(c) Total number of replies: 88. Affirmative: 86. Negative: 0. Other: 2.

(d) Total number of replies: 87. Affirmative: 81. Negative: 3. Other: 3.

(e) Total number of replies: 90. Affirmative: 85. Negative: 0. Other: 5.

Affirmative: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia ((b)), Botswana ((a) to (c) and (e)), Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic ((a), (c) to (e)), Denmark ((a) to (d)), Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany ((a) to (d)), Ghana, Greece, Guatemala ((a), (b), (d) and (e)), Honduras, Hungary, India ((a), (b) and (d)), Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel ((a), (c) to (e)), Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan ((a)), Kenya ((a) to (c) and (e)), Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico ((b), (c) and (e)), Republic of Moldova, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands ((a) to (c) and (e)), New Zealand ((a), (c) and (e)), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman ((a), (c) and (e)), Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland ((a) to (d)), Portugal ((a) to (d)), Qatar, Romania ((a) to (c) and (e)), San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa ((b) and (d)), Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland ((a) to (c) and (e)), Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey ((a) and (e)), Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Yemen ((e)), Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Negative: Botswana ((d)), Kenya ((d)), Switzerland ((d)).

Other: Bulgaria ((c) and (e)), Denmark ((e)), Mexico ((a) and (d)), New Zealand ((b) and (d)), Oman ((b) and (d)), Poland ((e)), Portugal ((e)), South Africa ((a), (c) and (e)).

Australia. Queensland: (e) Lifelong learning and employability are a key focus of vocational education, learning and training strategies and contribute to community cohesion. The notion of government and other agencies providing a collaborative, holistic response to human resource issues is gaining prominence. Developing a culture of innovation across the vocational education and training system is a priority. ICT training has an important role to play in bridging the gap between the “information and technology-rich” and the “information and technology-poor”.
Victoria: (c) It should read: “stress the importance of innovation, competitiveness and growth of the economy, job satisfaction of workers, and the regular upskilling of the workforce to ensure its continuing employability”.
ACTU: (e) Yes. However, given the limitations of many countries in terms of affordability of technology, availability of expertise and the lack of reliable energy supplies, there should not be too much reliance on a high-level information technology (IT) solution to delivery of education and training.

Austria. (a) to (e) Yes, with the addition of the following: “human resources development and training policies should also promote personal development”.
Austrian Confederation of Trade Unions (ÖGB): (a) to (e) Yes, with the addition of the following: “human resources development and training policies should also promote personal development and democratic political capacity”.

Barbados. CTUSAB: (a) to (e) Yes, as it demonstrates: (i) a commitment to the concept that learning is a continuous process; (ii) a need to encourage individuals to embrace the notion of keeping themselves employable through lifelong learning and retraining; (iii) an understanding of contemporary economic and social conditions/challenges which are, to a great extent, met through education and training; and (iv) recognition of the fact that all the social partners must “pull their weight” in ensuring that the infrastructure for this new approach to education and training is in place.

Belgium. Walloon Government: (a) Yes, with regard to lifelong learning only. No, with regard to employability, as this concept is incompatible with Convention No. 142. (b) Yes, provided that cultural circumstances and objectives are taken into account when formulating HRD policies. (c) No, as these objectives are based on enterprise interests only; the interests of workers are equally important, according to Convention No. 142 (Article 1, paragraphs 4 and 5). (e) Yes, but with the following reservations: (i) new ICT is not accessible to all concerned, whereas basic education and vocational training should be provided to everyone on an equal and non-discriminatory basis; (ii) other more conventional technologies are still useful, as ICT is not necessarily used effectively and is not necessarily better or more appropriate; (iii) the use of new ICT requires that the individuals concerned have developed a capacity for critical analysis through basic education.

Brazil. CNI: (a) to (e) It is important that any formulation be preceded by consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Bulgaria. (c) This should be rephrased as follows: “stress the importance of innovation, competitiveness and growth of the economy, and the employability, adaptability and mobility of the labour force”. (e) Investment in methodology should also be included.

Canada. (c) Productivity could be added to these elements.

Central African Republic. (d) Yes, HRD through workers’ knowledge acquisition and training, combined with policy incentives, can transform informal economy activities.

Croatia. SSSH: (c) Yes, but it is necessary to complement economic development with the protection and preservation of the environment.

Cyprus. Pan-Cyprian Federation of Labour (PEO): (a) No. The concept of employability shifts responsibility for unemployment to the workers, and reference to it should be avoided in the Recommendation. (c) No.

Czech Republic. SPD CR: Above all, the instrument should help to create proper conditions for developing lifelong learning and corresponding employment opportunities.

Denmark. (e) Instead of “expand ... investment” it should read “promote ... investment” in relation to structures which support ICT.
FTF: The instrument should focus on lifelong learning, the objective of which is to strengthen individuals’ employment opportunities as well as social development. It should define education/training as a right. Compulsory basic education and vocational training should be every individual’s right.

Egypt. (a) to (e) Yes, combined with the support of the industrialized countries and the international organizations concerned.

Finland. (c) Yes, in accordance with national policies. (d) Yes, although the concept of the informal economy, as well as its integration into the mainstream economy, is a complex matter. (e) Yes. Infrastructure development is a prerequisite, but much more is required for successful implementation policies on HRD.

Germany. BDA: (e) Yes, but policies that strictly regulate or determine private investment should not be identified, since an interventionist approach is not desirable.

India. EAR and IMC: (a) to (e) Yes.

Indonesia. (a) Yes, provided it reflects the demands of the labour market.

Ireland. (a) Governments can facilitate lifelong learning, for example, by: ensuring universal attainment of literacy and numeracy skills, and completion of primary education; eliminating unqualified early school leaving; promoting a high level of participation in post-secondary education and ongoing education and training; supporting a strategic framework for lifelong learning; and encouraging a lifelong learning culture in the workplace. (b) This can be done by pursuing a variety of policies to maintain a competitive business environment and create more and better jobs. Such policies may include: creating a climate supportive of new business start-ups; repositioning indigenous manufacturing enterprises from low-tech, low-productivity to higher-value activities offering higher-quality jobs; and upgrading national research and development (R&D) and technological and innovation capability.

Italy. (a) The right to lifelong learning and the related investment should not be left to the individual or to the ethical conscience of the employer, but should be set out in laws applicable to all, and agreed to by the social partners.

Japan. JTUC-RENGO: (b) In determining the definition of “employability”, the Conclusions adopted at the 88th Session of the International Labour Conference should be fully incorporated. (d) Given the expansion of the informal economy, this issue should be explicitly reflected in the new instrument.

Kenya. (d) No, change is continuous in this sector.

Lebanon. (a) to (e) The formulation “Should the instrument encourage governments” might be replaced by “Should the instrument recommend that governments”. (a) It is important that job opportunities be available so that training and human resource development policies are not in vain. (b) These policies must consider the realistic requirements of society, which may differ between States. A start has to be made by providing basic education for disadvantaged groups in order to establish the basis for further skills acquisition. (d) Adequate training must be provided in the informal economy in order to generate self-employment opportunities. It is important to have a clear conception and definition of the informal economy. The question is, to what extent can this sector be organized, and does its organization mean its abolition or transformation into the formal sector?
Confederation of Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (CCCIA): (a) to (e) Yes, although a new paragraph should be included on retraining the workforce to meet contemporary needs.

Mexico. (a) It is essential that education and training policies be designed according to a holistic and multidisciplinary approach, linking school and employment. (d) The content of ILO policy statements on the informal sector should be incorporated in order to propose and implement specific policies. Decency connotes honesty and legality, and a job in the informal sector can be as decent as any job in the formal economy. Therefore, the term “decent” should be deleted, which would not alter the meaning of the phrase.

Morocco. FCCIS: Yes.

New Zealand. (b) This might be rephrased to read: “give balanced consideration to both economic and social ...”. (d) Note should be made of the general discussion on the informal economy at the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference.
Business New Zealand (Business NZ): (d) Real consideration needs to be given to the extent to which the recent growth in the informal economy is related to a lack of training and educational opportunities and not, as it might seem, a reflection of increasingly stringent employment protection, which discourages formal sector employers from employing people. If, for many countries, the latter holds, then human resources development and training are unlikely to make much headway in transforming informal economy activities.
New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU): (b) Yes.

Nigeria. Technical assistance for developing countries should be emphasized.

Oman. (b) Replace the phrase “equal consideration” with “reasonable consideration”. (d) A Convention on workers in the informal economy should be adopted before this instrument considers it.

Pakistan. (a) to (d) These aspects should be considered in view of the changing labour market conditions emerging from globalization and technological progress.
EFP: (b) Yes, but the concept of “decent work” is not universal. (d) No, unless there is a significant change in the registration of employers in the informal sector.

Poland. (b) The social function of basic education and training should be a priority. (e) Public and private investment in any infrastructure may be better expanded by economic policies other than HRD policies. For the latter, the necessity of developing ICT should be stressed.

Portugal. (c) Education and training systems should give higher priority to lifelong learning; encourage agreements between the social partners on innovation and lifelong training; explore the complementarity between lifelong learning and adaptability; promote flexible management of working time and job rotation; and highlight the social responsibility of enterprises for promoting best practices in lifelong learning, organization of work, equality of opportunity, social inclusion and sustainable development. (d) The social partners are crucial in addressing this challenge. (e) Public and private investment should be set within a framework which maximizes the return on resources.
CCP: (b) Social objectives are only achievable through economic means, since it is economic growth and development that generate the wealth necessary to bear the cost of social policies. In this regard, the question should not be stated in the present form. Rather than using the term “equal consideration”, the instrument should provide for a balanced and realistic approach.
CIP: (b) Replace the phrase “equal consideration” with “greater consideration”.

Romania. (a) Policies and strategies should ensure equality of opportunity in access to training and lifelong learning. (c) These factors make it necessary to have high standards of education and qualifications in all economic sectors to ensure quality training and continuous development of skills as jobs change.

Russian Federation. FNPR: (a) to (e) Yes.

South Africa. (a) In the context of the preamble, it would probably be best to speak of the purpose of such interventions (outcome/impact), namely “human resources development policies” which contribute to enhanced employment rates, increased productivity, expanded internal and external career paths, reduced poverty and social inclusion, as well as re-entry into the labour market for those displaced by restructuring or with childcare responsibilities that interrupt their working lives. “Lifelong learning and employability” are the inputs needed to achieve these outcomes. (b) Yes, but in line with the restructuring suggestion, this would go to a section dealing with vision and preconditions and contextual considerations for successful implementation of training policies. (c) Add to this the notion of reducing inequality and discrimination in the labour market. (d) Yes. Add a reference to the need for HRD policies and strategies to be integrated with other interventions (e.g. microcredit and market access) to achieve this outcome. (e) There should be two separate statements: one dealing with the need to expand public and private investment in general, linked to improved returns on that investment, and the other referring to the need to invest in ICT to achieve the vision and objectives of the Recommendation.
COSATU: (a) The instrument should encourage governments to identify HRD and training policies that facilitate lifelong learning and employment security. The concept of employability should be defined in its broadest dimensions. In this regard, the idea that workers are to blame when they are unemployed because they are not “employable” should be avoided. There are distinct elements to this concept: (i) employability is only meaningful in the context of macroeconomic policies which promote employment (one cannot be truly employable when there are no jobs); (ii) employability is a joint partnership between trade unions, employers, governments and individual workers (workers cannot be expected to carry the primary or exclusive responsibility in this regard, particularly on the issue of financing); (iii) employability is achievable in an environment where global economic activity is undertaken on an equitable basis (workers in the developing world will be condemned to unemployment if issues of investment, trade, international debt, development assistance, technology transfers, etc. are not addressed); (iv) the HRD contribution to “employability” is not confined to technical and vocational training, but should include all elements of the national education system; and (v) “employability” is a crucial, but not the only, goal and outcome of education and training (other goals and outcomes include the full development of the human being, realizing the responsibility of citizenship, critical thinking and culture). Training can be one mechanism to address the challenge of the informal sector and to help transform marginal activities into decent work, which is fully integrated into the mainstream economy. This point should be fully reflected in the new instrument. (e) Yes.

Sri Lanka. Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC): (b) In developing countries, the inability to achieve social objectives is clearly attributable to the inability to achieve economic goals. While the latter take precedence, countries need to be mindful of social issues and strike a reasonable balance. (d) The instrument needs to note the important contribution of the informal sector to national economies. Transformation of the informal sector should not be at the cost of destroying it. Enterprises in the sector should be given opportunities to integrate into mainstream economic life, but, at the same time, the informal sector will continue to absorb new entrepreneurs.

Sweden. (a) Yes. One important stage in the achievement of sustainable competence development is the establishment of strategies and measures whereby manpower, working conditions and work organization develop with ongoing social changes. Education is important both for the liberty and security of the individual and for the growth and prosperity of society, and it must be continuous. Recurrent training initiatives are needed to reduce the risk of exclusion during the active phase of the life cycle. The instrument should identify targets which emphasize the importance of innovation, competitiveness and growth in the economy. (b) Yes. As regards policy initiatives, governments can help to enhance competence development through financial incentives for the economically active, in the form of entitlements to tax deductions for expenditures related to education and training or other work skills development. This would enable them to save gross earnings to offset loss of earnings related to personal skills development.

Switzerland. (c) Yes, although the questionnaire, in general, seems to focus on the needs of the economy, for example concerning the question of employability. A primary objective of education and training should be to develop free and responsible citizens. (d) No. This aspect should be covered by a reference to the general discussion on the informal economy at the 90th Session of the ILC.
UPS: (b) and (d) The concept of decent work should be clarified. (e) The issue is not one of increasing public investment. The role of the public authorities is to put in place structures, such as judicial and security services, and basic infrastructure that will permit free enterprise growth.
USS/SGB: (a) The term “employability” in the instrument should always be accompanied by a reference to “capacity for social integration”. (e) This objective must be complemented by investment in libraries and the development of stimulating training materials. While the value of ICT is not questioned, care must be taken that it is not used by employers as a way to economize on basic training, which is needed by the most disadvantaged workers. This comment also applies to Questions 9(d), 15 and 19(b).

United Kingdom. (d) Yes. The general discussion on the informal economy at the 90th Session of the ILC concluded that “investing in people ... in their education, skills training, lifelong learning [and] health and safety” was vital to helping people move from the informal into the formal economy. The ILO’s work should be “aimed at creating decent jobs and education, skill-building and training opportunities”. (e) Yes, but the wording is very prescriptive; it should perhaps say “explore and implement ways to expand ...”. The instrument should also emphasize sustainable investment in this area, and the links with other national infrastructure development projects such as electricity and telecommunications, without which much of the investment in ICT is wasted.

United States. USCIB: (a) Yes. In competitive global markets, job security cannot be guaranteed. Employment security requires lifetime learning and cannot be assured by the employer, employment policies or international labour standards. Employability requires the individual to take responsibility. Work in the twenty-first century requires both employers and workers to learn, adapt and acquire new skills, constantly, to keep pace with emerging new technologies, new methods of operation, and new forms of workplace organization. (b) Yes, broadly speaking. Clearly, a social/political environment that is built on a commitment to social inclusion is one that would be supportive of these aims. (c) Yes. Competition and innovation have made economies more efficient and created hundred of millions of jobs. Globalization generates an upward spiral of jobs and prosperity for countries that embrace the process, although the advantages will not reach everybody at the same time. Workers’ investment in their own employability guarantees that they are prepared to take advantage of the new job opportunities created through innovation, competitiveness and the growth of the economy. (d) Yes, but it should be recognized that HRD policies in this context are different from those in the formal sector. (e) Yes.
AFL-CIO: (d) Partnerships to develop high-level, quality and innovative skills must address the challenges posed by the growing informal sector (temporary and contingent workers, for example) and try to create opportunities for stable job growth within these sectors.

The overwhelming majority of member States felt that the instrument should encourage Members to identify human resources development and training policies which facilitate lifelong learning and employability; give equal consideration to economic and social objectives in the context of the global economy, and knowledge- and skills-based society, with emphasis on balanced economic and social development, decent work, social inclusion and poverty reduction; stress the importance of innovation, competitiveness and growth of the economy, and the employability of workers; address the challenge of transforming activities in the informal economy into decent work fully integrated into mainstream economic life; expand public and private investment in the infrastructure needed for the use of ICT, in education and training hardware and software and in the training of teachers and trainers, making use of local, national and international collaborative networks. A few respondents raised concerns about the complexity of the informal economy and the extent to which it can be organized. Others raised the challenge of defining decent work across economies and sectors.

Total number of replies: 95.

(a) Total number of replies: 92. Affirmative: 87. Negative: 0. Other: 5.

(b) Total number of replies: 89. Affirmative: 86. Negative: 0. Other: 3.

(c) Total number of replies: 90. Affirmative: 89. Negative: 0. Other: 1.

(d) Total number of replies: 91. Affirmative: 90. Negative: 0. Other: 1.

(e) Total number of replies: 89. Affirmative: 87. Negative: 1. Other: 1.

(f) Total number of replies: 89. Affirmative: 84. Negative: 1. Other: 4.

(g) Total number of replies: 90. Affirmative: 87. Negative: 0. Other: 3.

(h) Total number of replies: 89. Affirmative: 87. Negative: 0. Other: 2.

(i) Total number of replies: 88. Affirmative: 87. Negative: 0. Other: 1.

(j) Total number of replies: 32.

Affirmative: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados ((a) to (e), (g) to (i)), Belgium, Benin, Bolivia ((c)), Botswana ((a) to (i)), Brazil, Burundi ((a), (b), (e) to (g)), Canada ((b) to (i)), Central African Republic ((a) to (i)), Chile, China ((a) to (f), (h) and (i)), Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus ((a), (c) to (i)), Czech Republic ((a), (c), (d), (f) to (i)), Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France ((a), (d) to (h)), Gabon, Germany ((b) to (f), (h) and (i)), Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, India ((d) and (e)), Indonesia, Iraq ((a) to (i)), Ireland ((a) to (h)), Israel ((a) to (d), (f), (g) and (i)), Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan ((a)), Kenya ((b) to (e), (g) to (i)), Latvia, Lebanon ((a) to (e), (g) and (i)), Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius ((a) to (i)), Mexico ((a) to (i)), Republic of Moldova ((a) to (i)), Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands ((a) to (d), (f), (h) and (i)), New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria ((a) to (h)), Norway, Oman ((a) to (i)), Pakistan, Panama ((a) to (i)), Papua New Guinea, Peru ((a) to (e), (g) to (i)), Philippines ((a) to (i)), Poland ((a) to (f), (h) and (i)), Portugal ((a) to (d), (f) to (i)), Qatar, Romania ((a) to (i)), San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa ((b), (c), (e), (g) to (i)), Spain, Sri Lanka ((a) to (i)), Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland ((a) to (e), (g) to (i)), Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda ((a) to (i)), Ukraine, United Arab Emirates ((a) to (i)), United Kingdom ((c) to (i)), Venezuela, Yemen ((a), (d), (g) and (i)), Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Negative: Barbados ((f)), Germany ((j)), Israel ((e)), Kenya ((j)), Mauritius ((j)).

Other: Botswana ((j)), Bulgaria ((g), (h) and (j)), Burundi ((j)), Canada ((a)), China ((g) and (j)), Cyprus ((b)), France ((b) and (c)), Germany ((a) and (g)), Iraq ((j)), Ireland ((j)), Israel ((j)), Kenya ((a) and (f)), Lebanon ((f), (h) and (j)), Mexico ((j)), Republic of Moldova ((j)), Nigeria ((i)), Oman ((j)), Panama ((j)), Philippines ((j)), Poland ((j)), Portugal ((e)), Romania ((j)), South Africa ((a), (d), (f) and (j)), Sri Lanka ((j)), Switzerland ((f)), Uganda ((j)), United Arab Emirates ((j)), United Kingdom ((a), (b) and (j)).

Australia. (a) The right to education and training could be defined more clearly by distinguishing between education/training that equips everybody for economic, social and intellectual participation, and further education/training of well-educated/highly trained people. The latter is not necessarily a right, and need not be universally accessible. (f) Governments should be encouraged to assume primary responsibility for investing in basic education. “Initial training” should be defined; this will help determine whether primary investment responsibility should lie with governments or with others, such as private providers or employers.
Queensland: (f) The government should provide an education and training safety net and foundation and strategically use government funds to foster complementary private investment. Governments could also be encouraged to differentiate between their responsibility for investing in basic education, and individuals’ responsibility for their own training and development beyond basic education. (g) Training that ensures all segments of the community access and equitable provision, skilling to meet the needs of emerging industries, provision to fill skill gaps due to market failure, and development of pathways and infrastructure that support lifelong learning.
Western Australia: (a) The instrument should recognize the fundamental right of every child to access to quality education.

Austria. (d) Yes, although matching supply and demand should occur not only in the sphere of further training but also, where appropriate, in initial training. (e) Such a system should also take into account increasing internationalization. (g) Mention certain types of training, e.g. labour market programmes and remedial courses for completing secondary education. The financing of training and further training, especially in adult education, should be coordinated at the national level in order to meet the challenges of lifelong learning. (h) The State should provide training advisory services for enterprises and training for qualifications for employees.
Federal Chamber of Labour (BAK) and ÖGB: (a) Yes, although the term “universal access” should be replaced with “open access”. (d) Yes, although this should apply to initial training when appropriate. (f) Yes, provided the phrase “... assume greater responsibility for financing lifelong learning” is added to (j). (g) Other forms of training should be mentioned; at least, some examples should be given. (j) The instrument should encourage governments to recognize education as the responsibility of the State, as a matter of principle.
BAK: (e) A national training system should also be internationally compatible.

Barbados. (i) Yes, only at the national level.
BEC: (d) Governments should establish a national framework to help enterprises and employment agencies match skill demand and supply. However, a more decentralized approach, which allows decisions to be taken at the company level and through collective agreements, should also be encouraged.
CTUSAB: (f) Yes.

Belgium. Walloon Government: (a) Yes, with regard to the right to education and initial and continuous training for all. No, regarding cooperation between the social partners to ensure universal access, as this is the responsibility of the State. (b) No, in Belgium this is the responsibility of the French Community; yes, only with regard to vocational training. (c) No. HRD should also meet social and cultural (objectives in accordance with Article 1(2)(c) of Convention No. 142). (d) Yes, at least at the regional level. (g) This depends on the type of training.

Botswana. (j) Provide loans and incentives to workers to encourage them to enrol in training.

Brazil. CNI: (j) When formulating and implementing education and training plans and policies, better links between education, training, labour, employment, science, technology and economic and social development should be promoted. Training geared to entrepreneurship should be promoted, and micro- and small enterprises that generate employment and income should be fostered.

Bulgaria. (g) This should be rephrased as follows: “invest in other forms of training, with a view to priorities”. (h) This should be reworded to read “support the creation of a general economic environment and incentives ...”. (j) Popularize HRD activities, programmes, methods, etc.; support HRD institutional development; develop clear conceptions for HRD and the participation of the main actors.

Burundi. (j) Activities that favour an integrated approach to employment creation.

Canada. (c) Macroeconomic priorities should also be taken into account. (g) A definition of “other” forms of training is needed.

Central African Republic. (c) Yes, in order to match skill demand and supply and facilitate retraining of laid-off workers. (h) Yes, the State, in its public procurement, could favour enterprises that truly invest in education and training.

China. (g) Should be rephrased to read: “encourage investment in other forms of training”. (j) Promote linkages between employment services and training; provide special measures for disadvantaged groups.

Croatia. HUP: (a) to (i) Yes. (j) Invest in training for self-employment and entrepreneurship and promote distance learning programmes.
SSSH: (a) to (i) Yes. (j) Establish partnerships to address labour market issues at the local, regional, national and interregional levels, and launch activities that will develop good industrial relations and hence improve the profitability of enterprises.

Cuba. (b) Yes, although the strategies, institutional framework and duties of the parties must be defined in accordance with the specific conditions of the country.

Cyprus. (b) Substitute “appropriate infrastructure” for “institutional framework”.
PEO: (h) Investment in training cannot be the responsibility of workers.
SEK: (a) Yes, it is essential to clarify individuals’ right to access to learning and training, irrespective of their status, knowledge, qualifications and age. Access to lifelong learning means the promotion of equal opportunity, greater social inclusion and economic development. (b) Yes. (d) The definition of such a framework should be made after serious consideration of the objective data of every occupation and with the participation of the social partners. (h) Individuals should not carry the main burden for financing their learning and training; the State and employers should provide most of the financing. Collective funds established through tripartite and bipartite agreements could be created to finance learning and training projects.

Czech Republic. SPD CR: (j) Support the implementation of training policies at all possible levels of economic life.

Denmark. (b) and (d) Yes, but should be softened in order to focus on the development of coherent strategies and systems of qualifications.

Egypt. (a) to (i) Yes, provided that governments of industrialized countries earmark a percentage of their national revenues to assist developing countries in implementing their programmes.

Finland. (g) Yes. Secondary and tertiary education should be mentioned as well. (h) Yes, in accordance with national economic, educational and labour market policies.

France. (a) Yes, it is essential that coordinated policies be implemented by the State, representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and organizations representing self-employed workers, but also by territorial authorities, associations, professional and family organizations, public and private education institutions and enterprises. (b) The Recommendation should not specify the roles of the various parties because, as yet, there is no universally applicable model for assigning responsibilities and tasks. (c) Actual policy development and implementation should take place at national and/or regional level (institutional framework, system of training providers). Regional/local authorities may be called upon to assume particular responsibilities in this area. (d) Yes. However, given that the links between demand and supply are complex, the wording “achieving a closer match between” skill demand and supply would be more appropriate than “matching”. (e) Yes, but nothing prevents different countries from agreeing on common objectives and promoting cooperation in a particular area on a voluntary basis. In any case, the exchange of good practices and establishment of international collaborative networks should be encouraged. (g) Yes, governments also have responsibilities in the areas of continuous education and training, since these contribute to employment promotion and the fight against exclusion. (h) Yes, HRDT policies should be an integral component of policies that create jobs, maintain workers’ employability, fight poverty and promote decent and quality work. However, these policies must also pursue other objectives: social cohesion, personal development, democracy and citizenship. This multitude of objectives is the principal reason why governments should assume a central role in HRDT and in overseeing the creation of an environment conducive to the development of a lifelong learning culture.

Germany. (a) The phrase “education and training are a right for all” should be replaced by “everyone has unimpeded access to education, including training”. A phrase along the lines of “access to education and training should be ensured for disadvantaged youth” should also be added. (f) Yes, but only as concerns initial education in school. The responsibility of business for initial training should be mentioned. (g) The wording should be: “support innovation in training and further training”.
BDA: (a) Yes, but individuals’ responsibility for their own training should be mentioned. (d) Yes, but employers must be allowed the freedom to identify demand-driven and flexible solutions in the provision of further training for their employees. (g) More emphasis should be placed on individual responsibility and a practical, demand-driven approach.

India. EAR: (g) No.
Employers’ Federation of India (EFI): (a) to (i) Yes.
FKCCI: (j) Multiskills training, learn-while-you-earn and self-development will enhance the life of employees and lead to higher productivity in enterprises.
IMC: (b) No. (e) No. (g) No.

Iraq. (j) Encourage continuous education and training by creating opportunities and encouraging individuals to seize these opportunities.

Ireland. (j) Stress the importance of education and training in addressing the impact of globalization.

Israel. (b) Yes, including dissemination of knowledge and experience. (j) Establish job classification and upgrading scales.

Italy. (h) For example, by promulgating laws that provide for individuals’ entitlement to training leave and tax incentives for enterprises to engage in training. Low-skilled and older workers should be given economic incentives for retraining.

Japan. (f) The term “primary responsibility” of governments should be clarified.

Kenya. (a) Only basic education and initial training should be recognized as a right. (f) Government should assume a major, not primary, responsibility.

Lebanon. (a) to (e) The phrase “encourage governments to” should be replaced by “recommend that governments” in this Question and all the others. (a) The phrase “ensure universal access” should be qualified by the phrase “endeavour to ...”. Mention the concept of distance learning and other learning technology applications, and the benefit that can be derived from these. (b) It is proposed that a public organization for training be established in which all the social partners participate. (d) Vocational guidance should start with the school curriculum. The national qualifications framework should incorporate job classifications and descriptions. Specialized committees should undertake the recognition of prior learning, according to specific standards. (e) Yes, with the participation of the social partners. (f) It might be difficult for some States to assume alone the primary responsibility for investing in basic education and initial training, given their economic and financial situation, but their responsibility in this regard could be defined with reference to the most disadvantaged and poorest groups. In many countries specialized institutions play an important role in basic education and initial training. (g) The social partners also have a role. (h) Yes, but subject to the conditions in individual States. It is important to assess the outcomes of such investment. (j) The State should establish and periodically review unified public curricula for training at all levels, and all concerned parties should abide by this. It should also establish a supervisory body to follow up on changing training needs and conduct labour market surveys in order to match training with labour market needs.

Mauritius. Federation of Public Service Trade Unions (FSCC): (j) Eradication of poverty through training and basic education.

Mexico. (j) Enterprises and private employment agencies can contribute to designing and developing HRDT programmes.

Republic of Moldova. (j) Ensure access and equality of opportunity for all citizens in respect of education and training.

Morocco. FCCIS: Yes.

Netherlands. (e) It is unclear what is meant by “national training delivery system”.
VNO-NCW: (a) The right to education and training for all could be a general principle, but top-down central legislation, particularly regarding recurrent education, should be avoided. Proposals should not be based on a narrow legislative interpretation, in the direction of centrally determined individual rights, to be forced on companies. (b) and (e) This sounds as if the national government is the architect of all training and learning. A decentralized approach is preferred, in which decisions are made at the company level and through collective agreements which governments support by creating incentives and conditions. (d) Yes. However, the labour market has become very dynamic and even the concept of profession is eroding. People are hired for their competencies. These competencies are developed continuously during working life, and, on average, employees will change jobs at least seven times. In addition, even within a job profile, considerable change may take place owing to technological and organizational developments. These factors call for a framework based on broad (competency-based) descriptions of qualifications which are transparent but leave room for more precise definition by schools and companies at the local level. It would enhance employability and mobility if countries from the same region would cooperate to make national frameworks compatible.
Unie mhp: (e) Not necessarily, as this depends on national strategy. Governments should be responsible for initial training, but training for lifelong learning for working people is more the responsibility of the social partners. (g) Yes, especially tax relief for investment in training. (j) Provide good public information about training facilities and responsibilities.

New Zealand. (g) Yes, but all parties, not just government, should be urged to consider investing in forms of training that contribute to the achievement of their social and economic objectives.
Business NZ: (c) The wording suggests that it is central or local government that will create job opportunities. However, most productive job opportunities are generated in and by the private sector. The subparagraph should therefore be rephrased as follows: “align human resources and training policies aimed at generating private sector employment”.

Nigeria. (f) The government should assume primary responsibility for investing in basic education, but employers should take responsibility for initial and subsequent training. (g) The instrument should encourage both governments and employers to invest in other forms of training. (i) Create an enabling environment that will strengthen social dialogue on training at different levels.

Norway. Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO) and Confederation of Trade Unions in Norway (LO): (a) to (i) Yes. The instrument should encourage governments to promote social dialogue concerning the issues in all subparagraphs, not only those in (i). (f) Emphasis should be placed on basic education, as it is an essential element of lifelong learning. Basic education of girls, in particular, has a powerful effect on their future employability as well as their economic and social emancipation. Basic education should also be viewed in relation to child labour, particularly in the light of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182).

Oman. (b) Yes, but this should not be too specific. (j) Ensure basic education and training for all until they receive the minimum wage.

Pakistan. EFP: (b) Yes, but taking socio-economic conditions into consideration. (d) Yes, focusing on private-public partnerships and training that meets the needs of employers.

Panama. (j) The instrument should encourage governments to consider the issue of vocational training in its social agenda, with greater budgetary resources aimed at dealing with the growing demand for training in those sectors of society most in need of national development.

Philippines. (j) Develop and promote equivalency of educational programmes between institutions and between countries.

Poland. (j) Governments should encourage the building of institutions that support the development of education and training systems. Such institutions include teacher-training organizations, and those involved in education and training standard setting, curricular development and research in the field of HRD.

Portugal. (d) Emphasize the need to promote social dialogue and partnerships at different levels, a more structured training system adapted to the needs of individuals and organizations, involving the social partners and civil society, and an enabling framework for innovation and entrepreneurial initiative. (e) Dialogue and collaboration with the social partners are important in this area.
CCP: (a) Yes, with respect to the right to education, which must be provided by governments/public authorities. Training should not be regarded as a right for all, if that implies responsibilities of the social partners, especially concerning financing, to ensure the full exercise of the right. (d) Yes, although given the diversity of education and training systems throughout the world it is questionable whether a specific recommendation in this area would have any impact. (h) The question of incentives is especially important both for firms and for individuals, particularly tax incentives. Such incentives promote the idea that education and training should not be seen as a cost but as an investment, and encourage the sharing of responsibilities between the company and the individual.
CIP: (a) It is unrealistic to expect the instrument to encourage governments to recognize that education and training are a right for all, since many countries cannot fulfil the obligations arising from this right.
CGTP-IN: (d) Recognition of knowledge should include both that acquired formally and that acquired informally. (j) The instrument should encourage governments to organize education and training systems that complement each other, to take steps that ensure that vocational training has an educational component, allows for the transfer of knowledge between the two systems and introduces systems of certification of training to guarantee its quality.
UGT: (a) The role of governments should be clearly stated – i.e. ensuring that all citizens have the right to education and continuous training – as well as the sharing of some responsibilities with enterprises and workers/citizens.

Romania. (d) Yes, in partnership between training providers and employers. (f) Yes, provided the social partners also assume responsibility. (j) Governments should encourage the social partners, in particular employers, to anticipate new skill needs.

Russian Federation. FNPR: (a) to (i) Yes.

Slovakia. KOZ SR: (j) Encourage governments to strengthen the cyclical form of education/training for the social partners.

South Africa. (a) This should be formulated to take account of the reality that universal access to training will only be achieved over time, whilst access to basic education is a more immediate right. (b) Yes. Governments should also be encouraged to take due account of the voices of those outside the formal economy and the unemployed when such strategies and institutional frameworks are designed and implemented. (c) Yes. But add “strategies” after the word “policies”. (d) A national qualifications framework (NQF) is only one part of an overall learning system and, on its own, it cannot achieve the outcomes listed. It may be better to encourage governments to establish responsive training systems consisting of: partnerships between labour market actors and those that design and deliver training programmes; a national qualifications framework that facilitates the translation of labour market and social development needs into statements of learning outcomes, makes the labour market currency of skill more transparent, enhances access to learning, facilitates mobility across different sites of learning and gives quality assurance to all labour market actors; national delivery systems based on high-quality education and training provision that is responsive to the needs of the labour market and social development; and employment agencies that make labour market information more readily available to labour market actors. (e) Yes, but it is suggested that this be subsumed under a more generic statement – see under (d) above. There is a need to create linkages to the policy debates under way in UNESCO on technical and vocational education and training. The value that the ILO adds is its emphasis on the role of the social partners and the importance of participation in securing responsiveness. There should also be a link to higher education. The ultimate outcome might even be the joint adoption of a Recommendation. (f) It may be better to give “primary responsibility for investing in basic education and adult basic education” to government, but require governments to create incentives and provide resources and support for expanding access to initial training, whilst at the same time encouraging investments of time and resources by other social partners. Nevertheless, investment in initial training for those unable to secure work experience in the formal sector should be publicly funded, but even here, mechanisms need to be found to secure responsiveness to social needs. (g) Yes, there is a need to put in place special incentives and support measures for those who fall outside the reach of the formal economy, and for those who, for cultural or historical reasons, are traditionally excluded (e.g. women, certain racial groups and people with disabilities). Public investment in training for poor communities within the context of social development initiatives is also important. (h) Yes, see comments under (f) and (g) above. (i) Yes, but