LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PRESENT GENERATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES IN EASTERN PARTNERSHIP COUNTRIES Klaus Haupt, Head of Tempus Unit Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency Brussels

OVERVIEW Part 1: Brief introduction to existing EU-funded higher education programmes Part 2: What worked well Part 3: Areas for improvement Part 4: Success factors

BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO EXISTING EU-FUNDED HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES PART I: BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO EXISTING EU-FUNDED HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES Erasmus Mundus Tempus Jean Monnet Marie Skłodowska-Curie All four instruments have been complementary.

AIM OF THE PROGRAMMES All four programmes aim to: Adapt higher education institutions and policies to the changing environment. Enhance the quality and attractiveness of higher education. Promote dialogue and understanding between people and cultures, investing in human resources. Stimulate interest in the EU through teaching and research.

TARGET GROUPS Open to a wide range of target groups: Bachelor and Master students Ph.D. candidates and young researchers Senior management in universities University professors University administrators Staff in public administrations Other actors in society such as businesses, NGOs, trade associations, etc.

BUDGETS AND NUMBER OF PROJECTS FUNDED Erasmus Mundus Action 1 joint programmes (2004-2013): 179 Masters and 43 Doctorate programmes 695 scholarships for students, doctoral candidates and scholars from Eastern Partnership countries. Action 2 partnerships (2007-2013): EUR 150 million 31 partnerships for Eastern Partnership countries Scholarships for over 4,485 students and 702 staff

BUDGETS AND NUMBER OF PROJECTS FUNDED Tempus EUR 217.5 million allocated for 1993 - 2013 364 projects funded for 1993 - 2013 Marie Skłodowska-Curie EUR 8.2 million EU contribution (2007-2013) 231 fellows from EaP countries funded (2007-2013) Jean Monnet EUR 1.36 million granted for 2007-2013 43 projects for 2007-2013 (2 Associations, 10 Information& Research activities, 3 Centres of Excellence; 11 Chairs, 1 Learning @ School ; 16 Modules).

ACTIVITIES A wide range of activities: Mobility visits (credit and degree mobility) Training Curriculum Development Capacity building of institutional structures and management Reform of higher education policies Equipment purchase Research

APPROACH Based on the following philosophy: Bottom-up, based on open competitive Calls In line with national and regional priorities and needs Project-based Cooperation between institutions and peers Encourage sustainability and long-lasting impact after the funding ends

IMPACT We know that the programmes have had a significant impact from: Formal evaluations by external experts Field and desk monitoring results Studies carried out in EaP countries Individual feedback from participants, students, NTOs and HEREs Increasing numbers of individuals and institutions applying

PART II: WHAT WORKED WELL

WHAT WORKED WELL At individual level: Academic staff took advantage of professional development opportunities & peer-to-peer contacts Administrative staff benefitted from training Students appreciated mobility opportunities and developed valuable skills for employability Vulnerable groups targeted and recognised as a priority (Erasmus Mundus)

WHAT WORKED WELL At institutional level: Quality improved and development of curricula Necessary equipment provided for communications and laboratories University governance and management reformed Links between HE institutions and the labour market fostered. Cross-departmental/faculty working on projects helped break down barriers Internationalisation of institutions and strategies International recognition through mobility mechanisms

WHAT WORKED WELL Programmes have had impact at national/systemic level: Better links between higher education and society Higher education policies and legal frameworks developed Convergence of higher education systems and policies with EU ones Regional cooperation promoted

PART III: AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT Bureaucratic, time-consuming, administrative procedures to implement projects in certain universities (in both EU and non-EU countries) Recognition of credits, diplomas and degrees Involvement of students on projects Internal and external dissemination of results

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT National legislation to support innovation and internationalisation Availability of information on higher education systems to facilitate exchange and benchmarking Commitment of Ministries of Education as project partners Ensuring sustainability of projects after EU funding

PART IV: SUCCESS FACTORS

SUCCESS FACTORS Institutional buy-in is key element. Responsibility for engagement in activities by top-level management Local coordination of projects in non-EU countries to increase ownership and impact Involvement of non-academic stakeholders to ensure relevance of programmes to societal changes

SUCCESS FACTORS Ministry of Education take full advantage of local expertise developed through the programme (e.g. Tempus HEREs) Quality assurance and recognition bodies recognise the importance of the international dimension and be more actively involved in projects. Contact points and other bodies on the ground necessary for building trust with stakeholders and supporting projects (e.g. NCPs, NTOs, national structures, alumni associations in existing programmes)

CONCLUSION Erasmus Mundus, Tempus, Jean Monnet and Marie Skłodowska-Curie have played a very important role in promoting cooperation among and between the Southern Mediterranean countries and the EU Very useful lessons can be drawn from all four programmes These elements have been incorporated into the new programme design