1. Erasmus centralised actions and the Application results 2012
DAAD-Seminar 19/07/2012
Erasmus centralised actions and the Application results 2012
Gilles GERVAIS, EACEA

2. Outline of the presentation
Introduction: the Agency in the context of the Life-Long Learning Programme (LLP)
Part 1: Erasmus centralised actions (2012)
Part 2: Erasmus centralised actions application results/trends and

3. Executive Agency – programme portfolio
About 400 EACEA staff for the management of these programmes

4. The structure of the LLP
The Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP)
Jean Monnet Programme
3 key activities –
Jean Monnet Action; European Institutions; European Associations
Transversal Programme
4 key activities
Policy Cooperation; Languages; ICT; Dissemination
results (valorisation)
Grundtvig
Adult education
Leonardo da
Vinci
Erasmus
Higher education &
advanced training
Comenius
School education
Jean Monnet Action;
Policy Cooperation; Languages; ICT; Dissemination and exploitation of
Vocational education
and training

5. The Executive Agency Partners with complementary roles
31/03/2017
The Executive Agency Partners with complementary roles
Policy
Programme implementation
Directorates A & B
Policy and Programmes
European
Commission
Policy documents
Programme definition
Priorities
Committees
Impact analysis
Management of decentralised actions via National Agencies
Management of centralised actions
Calls, selection, contracts
Monitoring, acceptance, payments
Clustering & dissemination
Results & feedback
Centre for Programme management
~400 staff
Based in Brussels
Managed by EC officials
Let me start by saying a few words about our Agency
The Commission deals with policy initiatives, definition of the programme, the priorities and its impact. It works with the Members States the LLP committee and the NAs
The Agency manages the centralised actions delegated to it: - from publishing the call and selecting the projects, monitoring them through to closure, and reporting on the results
Although a separate public institution, supervised by the Commission, with its own legal identity, the Agency works rather as a partner for the Commission with complimentary roles.
We are around 300 persons – both experts from the domain and managers from the Commission – in a dedicated building in Brussels

6. The management of the Erasmus programme
Centralised Actions and Decentralised Actions
COOPERATION PROJECTS
MOBILITY
Student mobility (incl. placements abroad)
Erasmus intensive language courses
Staff mobility (e.g. teaching assignments abroad)
Intensive Programmes
Preparatory visits and others
Erasmus Multilateral Projects:
→ 5 “Priorities”
Erasmus Academic Networks
Erasmus Accompanying Measures
Erasmus centralised actions: budget 2010: 19.8 MIO €

7. Managing the complete project cycle
The Agency’s core tasks in the framework of the implementation of the LLP
Managing the complete project cycle

8. Multilateral projects
Dissemination
of outputs
Cooperation of HE
Institutions and
relevant stakeholders
Applying
European policy
framework
Innovation 5
specific priorities
To prove their European dimension MCPs should in priority:
share experience and good practice and give rise to concrete results and outputs suitable for dissemination (methods, tools, materials, courses)
develop innovation and/or disseminate innovation and good practice with a potential for significant impact.
foresee among their outputs the organisation of in-service training courses for adult education staff.
contribute to applying, adapting and testing – in concrete adult learning situations – the relevant tools or policy approaches developed in the framework of policy cooperation at European level.

9. Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Priority Cooperation between higher education institutions (HEI) and enterprises
Priority Social dimension of higher education
Encourage trans-national cooperation between HEI or with other relevant stakeholders in strategically important fields:
Priority Mobility strategies and removal of barriers to mobility in higher education
Priority Support to the modernisation agenda of higher education
The 2011 Call for proposals of LLP includes important changes regarding the application of priorities by all sectors, including Erasmus. In essence, the proposal
articulates the new Call around a common set of E&T policy bound priorities for all sectors, allowing each sub-programme to adjust them according to the sector's character and needs as well as to define a limited number of additional specific priorities.
The following common priorities for all LLP sectors are proposed:
(1) Encourage cooperation between the worlds of education, training and work
(2) Support initial and continuous training of teachers, trainers and education and training institutions' managers
(3) Promote the acquisition of key competences throughout the E&T system
(4) Promote the social inclusion and gender equality in education and training, including the integration of migrants
(5) Develop strategies for lifelong learning and mobility
It is important to note that since 2011 these "priorities" should be understood as exclusive. In the previous calls priorities were defined per action and were not exclusive. The common priorities described above will be common for all sub-programmes (with specific adjustments reflecting their sectoral character), but will also contain a possibility of "preferences" in each of them to express non exclusive topics that the relevant E&T sector would like to be addressed .
As regards Erasmus, previously existing multilateral actions will be structured in a new way by grouping together the previous Curriculum Development action and the Modernisation of Higher Education one. On the other hand, Structural Networks will no longer be supported as networks, since most of the activities under this action used to overlap with the action Modernisation of Higher Education. In addition, two new priorities are created under Multilateral actions.
This proposal of new Erasmus priorities was welcomed by all the countries of the LLP Committee because of aligning Erasmus centralised actions to higher education policy priorities. In that meeting is was not possible to define fully the new Erasmus priorities since there are many ongoing initiatives in the area (the definition of new Bologna targets, the Youth on the Move initiative, Analysis of the consultation of the Green Paper on learning mobility, social dimension events during the Spanish Presidency, etc.). These priorities were finally approved by the LLP Committee in June 2010.
Priority Fostering the excellence and innovation in higher education

10. Issues Are companies prepared for this?
Cooperation between higher education institutions (HEI) and enterprises (ECUE)
Issues
New approaches, new methods, new tools, mobile devices, social networks, etc.
Are companies prepared for this?
Are Universities preparing their students for this reality?
Are Universities and Enterprises working together for this purpose?

11. Cooperation between higher education institutions and enterprises (ECUE)
Examples
Deals with creating and testing crucial new teaching/training materials and curricula for a specific economical sector (automotive dealer);
Develop cooperation and knowledge exchange between enterprises (improving dealer training) and HEIs (improving teaching)s (mostly SMEs) and for HEI sales students;
Explore Marketing and its relation with Innovation.

12. Social dimension of higher education
Issue
Access to Higher education to non traditional learners
Part time, update in jhte past, handicap,

13. Social dimension of higher education
Examples
Validation of Prior Learning, to a practical strategy for social inclusion of underrepresented and non-traditional target groups in higher education (HE).
Develop a practical methodology for opening HE to any learner, regardless of background

14. Analyse and tackle barriers to mobility
Mobility strategies and removal of barriers to mobility in higher education (ESMO)
Issue
Analyse and tackle barriers to mobility

15. Mobility strategies and removal of barriers to mobility in higher education (ESMO)
Example
A Study that will help to increase understanding of information at national and regional level of Erasmus figures and on transnational mobility and employability patterns, analyse obstacles to mobility and identify which elements could be improved to enhance future opportunities.

16. Support to the modernisation agenda of higher education
Issues
Improving strategic leadership within higher education institutions
Support Curricular reform

17. Support to the modernisation agenda of higher education
Examples
Strategic Leadership
Developing strategies for connecting the three main quality spheres: teachers, students and quality managers. It will use newly developed tools and models which support reflection, discussion and innovation in quality practice at these three levels.
Curriculum reform
Bachelor/Master/Doctorate; the need for highly-qualified professionals in the field of Nuclear Security by successfully developing and implementing a full-time and part-time study programmes.

18. Accompanying Measures
Shorter action
(1 year)
Relevance to Modernisation Agenda of HE
Contribute to dissemination of projects results
Synergies between actions
Enhancing implementation of Erasmus mobility
The Acompanying Measures are a shorter action (1 year duration), but not for this reason less important. Their aim is to support activities which are not eligible under the main actions of the Erasmus programme (MP and NW), but wich may contribute to achieving its objectives, for example:
having a potential impact in the implementation of the Erasmus mobility ,
subscribing the Modernisation Agenda principles,
contributing to the dissemination of project results with an added value to what has already been done under an Multilateral or network project.
The activities supported could be (indicative list):
−organisation of conferences and seminars concerning European cooperation in HE;
−promotional and information campaigns;
−disseminating products and processes resulting from cooperation (documents, publications, teaching modules, videos, CD-ROMs, innovatory methodologies, organisational measures in institutions, educational strategies).
−publications relating to European educational cooperation in higher education;
etc

19. Accompanying Measures (EAM)
Issues:
Implement activities concerning transversal policies
Enhance the implementation of Erasmus mobility

20. Accompanying Measures (EAM)
Example
How enhance the social awareness of Erasmus students and promote cultural diversity among the local communities?

21. Academic Networks Exchange of information/
Common platform for sharing knowledge
Exchange of information/
methodologies and disseminating good practices
Producing and promoting creativity and innovation
The first part of the presentation has reviewed the political priorities within the multilateral projects. Now we are moving to the academia networks. What the Erasmus networks are about? As we all know , they are designed to promote European cooperation and innovation in specific subject areas, that they are also an excellent platform for sharing knowledge BUT they also contribute to connect academic communities in different areas of study and have e a significant impact in teaching and research.
This is a list of indicative activities that each network should seek to :
Provide an overview of a field (through comparative studies and analyses) within a European context
Have a further debate on European strategies (improving the use of ECTS, governance models, for instance)
Identify present, emergent and future needs, where European co-operation could be especially beneficial
Promote the dissemination of findings and recommendations and their implementation in relevant fields and or course
Establish better links between teaching and research

22. Erasmus Academic Networks (ENW)
Issues
Sharing knowledge
Discussing methodologies
Disseminating good practice

23. Erasmus Academic Networks (ENW)
Example
Look at the role of Higher education in response to a professional body with changing demands in sector of humanitarian action.

24. Basic features and requirements for applications
Erasmus
Centralised Actions
Maximum EU Grant
(75% of total project costs)
Minimum/ Maximum project duration
Minimum number of partner organisations
Multilateral projects €
Min: 2 years
Max: 3 years
3 institutions from at least 3 LLP countries (of which at least one must be an EU member state) Knowledge alliance = 2 years
Multilateral networks €
Min and max: 3 years
Minimum 25 partners from 25 countries
Accompanying Measures €
Min and max:
1 year
One or several institutions from LLP countries

25. Type of applicant organisations
Who can apply ?
 Action
Type of applicant organisations
Erasmus multilateral projects
- Higher education institutions holding a full duration Erasmus University Charter
- Enterprises (in particular SMEs), professional organisations, chambers of commerce, social partners and local/regional/national bodies
- Associations and other relevant organisations active in relation to higher education
Erasmus multilateral networks
-Higher education institutions holding a full duration Erasmus University Charter
-Public bodies, enterprises, associations and other relevant organisations active in relation to higher education
Erasmus accompanying measures
-Associations, networks or consortia of higher education institutions and other relevant organisations active in relation to higher education

26. How to apply ? Submission deadline: e-application Form 2013
Identification of the applicant and other organisations participating in the project
Description of the project
B.1 Summary of the project
B.2 Lifelong Learning Programme Objectives and Priorities addressed
B.3 Dates and languages
B.4 Summary budget
Attachments
Detailed descriptions:
C. Organisations and activities
D. Description of the project
E. Impact, dissemination and exploitation, sustainability
F. Action or programme specific information
G. Workplan and workpackages
Third country participation (optional)
List of Associated Partners (optional)
Declaration of Honour
Budget tables
Legal Entity Form

27. LLP award criteria
1. Relevance 2. Quality of the work programme 3. Innovative character 4. Quality of the Consortium 5. European added value 6. The cost-benefit ratio 7. Impact 8. Quality of the Valorisation plan (dissemination and exploitation of results) 9. Participation of organisations from third countries
2 experts (data base)

28. Relevance Your needs analysis must be robust:
thorough, clear and up-to-date
You must show how your proposal builds on previous EU-funded work in the field 28 28

29. Innovation A proposal can present: Innovative products
Innovative processes (including project
management)
In both cases, you must clearly demonstrate that there is real added value for the project 29 29

30. Quality of the consortium
You must show that you have put together an effective consortium:
All partners should make an active and identifiable contribution to the project
You must demonstrate what each partner brings to the project (e.g. in terms of expertise, complementarity, etc.) 30 30

31. Success Factors A strong proposal is:
Coherent (issues, solutions, target groups, activities, budget)
Evidence-based (needs analysis, state of the art)
Clear (objectives, solutions, outputs)
Rigorous in its planning (what activities, when, for how long, and with what resources)
Explicit (no information should be taken for granted, if it is not in your proposal it cannot be taken into account)
Circumscribed (your proposal should focus on a specific issue) 31 31 31 31

32. a coordinator’s experience
Preparing a proposal:
a coordinator’s experience
What were the main steps in putting together your Erasmus proposal?
What challenges did you encounter?
How did you ensure that the award criteria were properly addressed?
How much time did you need?
What’s your top tip for submitting an application?
1 - What were the main steps in putting together your Erasmus proposal?
The main steps were
to articulate the common focus and intention of the network as it relates to the call and to the existing political situation in Europe
How has been done? How is the idea for the network (focus and intention) generated? Is this a negotiated process? How long did it take? How did you ensure there is a good fit with the call?
to confirm with each individual (not only each partner institution) their contribution and compliance with the agreed upon framework
Who has defined the contribution of all partners? "The agreed upon framework?" It seems that it is a top-down management approach? How is the framework agreed?
c)to complete the application form (this can be a big challenge as the electronic forms were/are not well suited to large networks), have it signed and sent on time.
Is it the sole responsibility of the coordinator? What advice can you give for networks faced with the form? What were the challenges?
2-What challenges did you encounter?
administrating the preparation with no or few funds for coordination
How come? It has to be presented as: "some funds need to be dedicated to the coordination ex; assistant, logistics staff  etc?? It could be that you had to prepare the proposal on a pro bono basis. If so, it would be interesting to know how did you manage this. Who absorbed the costs? How did you share resources to prepare the proposal?
balancing the wishes of some partners with the expertise and ability to cooperate which was required for each workpackage
How did you overcome this? How did you match partners and workpackages? How did you manage expectations?
bringing experts from different disciplines together (diverging vocabulary and approaches)
Moreover, details should be provided on the challenge of working in multicultural context and to face different institution culture. How did you identify these experts and motivate them to contribute?
d)bringing partners from different areas of Europe together (language problems and different understanding of rules and intentions)
How to deal with this at the very first steps of the design of the project. How did you resolve possible tensions?
d)keeping the interest and commitment of the partners during the proposal processing period (when institutions often require that staff make binding commitments for the coming academic year already in the spring)
            How? Video conference, e-platform, etc?
3.-How did you ensure that the award criteria were properly addressed?
By describing precisely and concretely  how the project reflected each theme.It was also important to follow closely the developments within each theme in Europe so as to understand how the project related to them.
4-How much time did you need?
It is essential to start early gathering the opinions and ideas of the partners. That we usually did about 12 months in advance. The concrete proposal writing work began at least 6 months in advance so that drafts could circulate among the partners for comment and adjustment. The final writing and budget work was done at least 2 months before the deadline because the final institutional approval and submission always takes more time than expected. In total we used a bit more than ca. one total month of staff time (100%)
Who was involved? All partners in all work packages?
5-What’s your top tip for submitting an application?
Be concrete, specific and check all your details more than once or twice. There are often things which are overlooked in such comprehensive applications.
Give practical examples. 32 32

33. Erasmus Call for proposal results and Trends
Part 2
Erasmus Call for proposal results and Trends

34. Erasmus proposals selection
Selection of projects for the Call 2012
250 applications have been submitted from 33 participating countries
Call 2013 will be launched by September2012
EACEA - Lifelong Learning Programme

35. Call 2012: Received vs Selected applications
Priorities
Received
Selected
MULTILATERAL
201 43
Cooperation HE-Enterprises 67 12
Mobility strategies 19 7
Social dimension 20 5
Excellence and innovation 32 4
Curriculum reform 55 10
Funding reform 1
Governance reform
ENW 26 8
EAM
2 »
Total
250 56

36. DE Coordinators : 15 Proposals
Priorities N°
Support to Modernisation: Curriculum Reform (EMCR) 4
Cooperation University-Enterprise (ECUE)
Fostering Excellence and Innovation (FEXI)
Mobility strategies and removal of barriers to mobility (ESMO) 3
Academic Networks (ENW)
Accompaniyng Measures (EAM) 1
4 selectionnées

37. Call 2012 Received applications
Small countries, high participation: FI,LT,NLPT,SI

38. Call 2012 Selected applications
BE higher, but association head office BE

39. DE Participation /proposals Call 2012/Coord + Part
PRIORITIES
Received
Support to Modernisation Agenda
4+18
Cooperation University-Enterprise (ECUE)
4+21
Fostering Excellence and Innovation in Higher Education (FEXI)
0+8
Mobility strategies and removal of barriers to mobility (ESMO)
3+9
Social Dimension of Higher Education (ESIN)
Academic Networks (ENW)
3+26
Accompaniyng Measures (EAM)
1+7
Selected
1+5
0+3
0+4
1+4
2+8
Numero de HEI DE=

40. Call 2012 DE Partners Major participations
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
Freie Universität Berlin
Hannover Medical School
Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg
Technical University of Berlin
Technische Universität Dresden
University of Applied Sciences Hamburg
University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde
University of Applied Sciences Mainz
Universität Duisburg-Essen
University of Cologne
Melleiures participation de ceux sélectionnée.

41. Erasmus selection results 2007-2012

43. CDs – Trends Subject areas 2007-2011

44. Networks – Trends Subject areas 2007-2011

45. Further information on LLP / Erasmus centralised programme
Life-Long Learning Programme (LLP) of the EU
Erasmus centralised programme and multilateral actions
Compendia of funded Erasmus projects
Public reports of funded Erasmus projects
Erasmus/Jean Monnet InfoKits
LLP Info Days 2012
(presentations and recordings)

46. Thank you for your attention !
Gilles GERVAIS
Project Adviser
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
Unit Erasmus/Jean Monnet Contacts for further questions: