Although no single model of recognition is universally transferrable, successful aspects of different systems can be usefully transmitted between countries. This chapter illustrates where this can occur, describing experiences ranging from countries with established practices of recognition to those which are still in the process of establishing systems of recognition.This section spans the fields of standards and methods of assessment, the delivery of recognition practices, and quality assurance. The first field of enquiry highlights a variety of standards and methods used in different sectors (education and training sectors, employment and enterprise sectors, non-governmental organisations and community-based learning voluntary sectors, etc.) within the countries examined in this study. Consideration is also given to how assessment methods meet the given standards and the type of learning outcomes and competences used by countries as reference points for the recognition of non-formal and informal learning. The second field of inquiry concerns the delivery of recognition, particularly the role of education and training providers in recognition, as well as the professional development of trainers, assessors, advisors and counsellors. Finally, consideration is also given to the theme of quality assurance -an issue which cuts across all of the previous topics. Here, we examine the arrangements put in place by countries to support the recognition of non-formal and informal learning by way of developing policy guidelines, quality criteria, coordinating delivery, and strengthening the credibility of the recognition process. Quality is greatly influenced by how terms are defined and who sets the criteria by which each term is understood. Often those who create the policies also set the definitions and create the assessment standards (Werquin 2012). Moreover, there is a difference between standards set by stakeholders in the education sector and those in industry, and often, adult learners are not taken into account in decisions about assessment standards (Smith and Clayton 2011). There are also questions of who is given the authority to determine quality. This section deals with some of these issues.