1. Accreditation of Joint Programmes (JP) is high on the agenda! I want to highlight one specific reason: -In the Bologna Process ministers asked the HEI several times to develop JP as a feature of the European Dimension -The Commission seems to push HEI to turn Erasmus Mundus Masters into JP But: Although national legislation allows JP in many countries now, there are lots of detailed regulations for the (national) recognition of programmes which makes it difficult for JP to fit into the various national frameworks. HEI seem to become reluctant towards JP as far as large numbers are concerned (not in case of few international projects with additional funding).

2. The message from Team 2 seems to be very clear: It is important to refine our processes, and there are practical ways for lowering the burden for HEI. But the main problems dont lie with the methodology: The agencies are all working on basis of ESG and in case of JP with ECA methodology. Mutual trust among agencies is not that difficult to reach nowadays. Because of shared values and shared principles its not so difficult any more to accept decisions from other agencies.

3. Thus: In addition to refining our processes we must ask the political decision makers/the ministries: What is relevant for the quality of a JP? Qualification level? Consistent study programme? Adequate resources? Adequate student assessment processes? … Yes, of course! But are the national formal regulations relevant for the quality of JDP? We have the QF and ESG etc. Couldnt that almost be enough?

4. Conclusion: Although it is important to find ways of lowering the burden of accreditation of JP we should not forget to tackle the political dimension of the case. JP could be seen as the proof of the pudding of the development of a real European dimension in the EHEA: Ministers signed all the communiqués, support all the Bologna tools (B/M, QF, LO, ECTS, DS, ESG, etc), implemented them (more or less). And now? They want to go even further and have programmes with a real European dimension But: They want these European programmes in accordance with their national nitty-gritty formal regulations.

5. ENQA will bring this issue to the next Bologna ministerial meeting. A true European Dimension cannot be developed by at the same time complying with 47 national regulations.

6. The recommendations show the right way. Go for only one QA process! Eliminate national specificities as much as possible! Perhaps concentrate more on this issue than putting too much efforts in multilateral recognition agreements which may be time consuming to reach. Perhaps even a joint stakeholder effort within the Bologna Process to develop widely acceptable core-standards for JP? Most components are already there: EUA report, ECA principles, ESG

7. The recommendations show the right way. Go for only one QA process! Eliminate national specificities as much as possible! Perhaps concentrate more on this issue (rather than on multilateral recognition agreements) Perhaps even a joint stakeholder effort within the Bologna Process to develop widely acceptable core-standards for JP? Most components are already there: EUA report, ECA principles, ESG