1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. PART II: WHAT WORKED WELL

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. PART III: AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

16. 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

17. 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

18. PART IV: SUCCESS FACTORS

19. 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

20. 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)

21. 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