Following the positive results of the assessment carried out by the Commission in accordance with article 11 of Council Decision 90/233/EEC, to continue the programme beyond the pilot phase, amending it to take account of experience gained.

Council Decision 93/246/EEC of 29 April 1993 adopting the second phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education (TEMPUS II) (1994 - 1998).

Amended by Council Decision 96/663/EC of 21 November 1996, extending Tempus II until the year 2000.

The Commission evaluation has clearly shown that the objectives must focus either on long-term reform of higher education or on the short-term need for economic restructuring.

The Republics of the former Soviet Union are added to the countries already eligible for Tempus. As of 1 December 1992, these are Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.

Definition of the term "university": all kinds of post-secondary education and training establishments.

To promote the development of higher education systems through cooperation with the partners in all the Member States. More specifically, to aid eligible countries to:

The Commission, in agreement with the eligible countries, defines the priorities and detailed objectives on the basis of the detailed objectives of the programme.

The Commission is to implement TEMPUS II with the assistance of a committee comprising two representatives from each eligible country and chaired by a Commission representative.

The Commission is to cooperate with the relevant institutions nominated by the Member States by coordinating the relations and structures required for implementing TEMPUS II, including the allocation of funds made available by the eligible countries.

The Commission is to ensure coordination and complementarity between TEMPUS II and other measures at Community level (for example ERASMUS, COMETT or LINGUA), or other measures by non-member countries.

The Commission is to develop procedures for the regular monitoring and assessment of the experience gained in implementing TEMPUS II. Furthermore, an annual report is to be transmitted to Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

Decision 96/663/EC extends the Tempus programme until 30 June 2000. A final report will be submitted no later than 30 June 2004.

7) follow-up work

On 8 May 1996 the Commission presented its interim report on the evaluation of Tempus achievements to date and views on partner countries' remaining needs [COM(96) 197 final, not published in the Official Journal].

On 30 October 1996 the Commission adopted its Tempus Annual Report (01.08.1994 - 31.12.1995) [COM(96) 531 final - not published in the Official Journal].

On 19 November 1997 the Commission adopted its Tempus Annual Report for 1996 [COM(97) 502 final - not published in the Official Journal].

In 1996 the Council extended the programme for two years until 30 June 2000. Tempus activities will be redirected for the Phare associated countries which are due to start participating in the Socrates programme, in order to ensure that their participation is a success.

Implementation of the TOP (Tempus Output Programme) project began in 1996 for the Phare countries. The analyses led to the publication of a series of recommendations at the beginning of 1997. The second phase of the project, which began at the end of 1996, is focused on the development of mechanisms for disseminating the output of the Tempus programme. The TOP Tacis project was launched in 1996 on the basis of the experience gained with TOP Phare.

Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia became eligible for Tempus support in 1996 and have already received support for a number of immediate special measures.

In 1996 Bulgaria was added to the list of countries whose partner institutions can act as contractors for Joint European Projects (JEPs).

As regards Tempus Tacis, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan fulfilled the necessary conditions for support in 1996. The Commission adopted separate lists of priorities for each TACIS country. Compact Projects (CPs), with a maximum duration of 18 months, were set up to fund self-contained and targeted actions responding to precisely defined short-term needs.

In 1996 the Commission adopted a new approach to ensure field monitoring of current JEPs, with visits now being carried out by the TACIS Monitoring and Evaluation Team. 22 visits to JEPs that started in 1994 were carried out in 1996.

The total amount allocated to Tempus activities in 1996 in the Phare countries was ECU 83.5 million. 183 new JEPs were accepted (out of 611 applications received) and 455 projects were renewed. It should be noted that there was a drop of 30% in the number of applications received, which was probably due to the narrow priorities defined for each country and to the expectations arising from the prospect of taking part in other European Union programmes. The activities of the Joint European Networks (JENs) were discontinued in 1996 with only 46 projects approved in 1995 completing their second and final year of operation. The new Compact Measures have now taken on part of the role of the JENs.

In 1996 all of the TACIS countries apart from Russia and Ukraine began to receive their funding for Tempus activities on a biennial basis. The total actual budget allocation for Tempus activities in 1996 was ECU 19.4 million. Of the 241 pre-JEP applications received in 1996, 59 received funding. The number of applications fell by 45% compared to 1995 because of the narrowing of priorities and the introduction of Compact Projects. 83 of the 87 consortia carrying out a pre-JEP project in 1995 submitted a project proposal for 1996 and 26 were awarded a grant. Finally, with regard to the new Compact Projects, 22 proposals out of the 65 applications received were awarded a Tempus grant.

On 24 July 1998 the Commission adopted its interim report on the Tempus II programme (March 1998) [COM(1998) 379 final, not published in the Official Journal].

The report examines the impact of the Tempus II programme in the participating countries and sets out the future prospects for the programme. A proposal for a Council Decision on Tempus III is annexed to the report.

The report identifies three groups of beneficiary countries:

the associated Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC), which are preparing for accession to the European Community, are benefiting from Tempus in the context of Phare (Tempus (P)): i.e. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia;
the non-associated CEEC benefit from the same Tempus programme in the context of Phare (Tempus (PnA)): Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM);
twelve of the fifteen countries of the former USSR (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) and Mongolia benefit from Tempus in the context of Tacis (Tempus (T)).

For various reasons, Tempus has evolved in different ways in these three groups of countries.

A key characteristic of Tempus (P) is its bottom-up approach within the universities and the allocation of substantial financial resources, disbursed mainly through Joint European Projects (JEPs). These factors have made it possible to generate the critical mass of Tempus activities required and have helped to make Tempus (P) an effective programme with a significant project success rate. Defining specific national priorities has made it possible to respond to differing national needs, while continuing to place overall emphasis on "institution-building" in preparation for accession.

For Tempus (PnA), the key is to profit from experience with Tempus (P), taking into account clear differences such as the size of the budget, the number of priorities and the size of the university sector. The "traditional", subject-based JEP is no longer a suitable mechanism, and it is advisable to change to a more institution-based approach in order to make the best use of investment. This is not an easy approach to implement, given the situations in the three countries involved:

in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the main aim is national reconstruction, avoiding division at all costs;
in FYROM, the difficulty lies in the size and structure of higher education: there are only two eligible universities, but many faculties enjoying legal independence with a limited number of students;
the situation in Albania is more advanced, but, given the number of universities (11), it would seem more appropriate to adopt an approach based on consortia of universities.

Tempus (T) is set in a radically different context in terms of geographic and demographic scale, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity and political situation. The volume of funding for Tempus (T) is insufficient in view of the extent of the tasks ahead; it is therefore illusory to seek to cover a wide range of priorities (except for Russia), and the potential impact on the university system as a whole is slight (with the exception of Mongolia). However, a distinction must be made between two sub-groups:

Russia and Ukraine have partnership and cooperation agreements with the Community and the Member States containing a clause on education and training: for these countries, the main thing now is to take the priorities one by one in order to have a significant impact in a particular area before moving on to the next, and to improve the dissemination of results, given the impossibility of involving all the universities in the projects;
the ten other countries and Mongolia have concluded cooperation agreements which have not yet been ratified. Given the deep cultural differences between these countries and Europe, the aim of Tempus (T) should therefore be to help the universities to meet the demands of the world economy. For these countries, future Tempus (T) activities should relate as much as possible to infrastructure and improved dissemination of results.

Overall, the achievements of the Tempus programme, in all its operational areas, are considerable and should be recognised as such.

On 24 June 1999 the Commission adopted its Tempus Annual Report for 1997 [COM(1999) 282 final - not published in the Official Journal].

1997 saw the strengthening of "top-down" actions, as opposed to the "bottom-up" strategy initially developed in the Tempus programme. In the course of the year, the national governments of Central and Eastern Europe allocated a total amount of ECU 57.05 million to Tempus Phare activities. For the countries participating in Tempus Tacis, the amount was ECU 16.07 million (not including the amount for Belarus and Turkmenistan).

The monitoring procedures adopted in 1995 and implemented in 1996 have been maintained. These procedures are based on preventive monitoring which should ensure greater transparency of procedures and better dissemination of information, a documentary check which enables the implementation of the projects to be evaluated (progress, organisation and financial management), and field monitoring carried out by means of visits. This monitoring policy is, however, to undergo changes in 1998.

In 1997 the Commission presented a new approach for Phare, which puts the focus on institution-building. In the applicant countries, Tempus II bis will pursue this approach by favouring activities which support preparations for accession. The JEPs should therefore enable capacity building in higher education in order to prepare national staff for adopting the acquis communautaire.

In Tempus Tacis, the pre-JEPs will disappear altogether. The JEPs will be the main type of project in Russia, Belarus and possibly in Uzbekistan. In the other countries, a new type of Compact Project will be introduced, which will be longer and wider in scope. Furthermore, the OES (Output Evaluation Schemes) project has been launched by the Commission with a view to analysing the potential for disseminating the results of a number of JEP Tacis projects in the field of economics, and preparing a compendium of the best results.

A Tempus conference was also organised in Portoroz in Slovenia on 14 and 15 November 1997, under the TOP (Tempus Output Programme) project, where topics for discussion concerned the main achievements of Tempus, the key subjects of Tempus II bis, the role of higher education in the development of a well-balanced society, and institution-building.

Finally, as of 1997, the partner universities in all the associated countries have been able to be JEP contractors, as this possibility has been extended to the Baltic States.

On 20 July 2000, the Commission adopted the Report on the implementation of the TEMPUS (Phare and Tacis) Programme - Annual Report 1998.

1998 saw the strengthening and continuation of various elements introduced in 1997, in particular the strengthening of top-down actions and focusing on institution building. The national priorities identified jointly by the Commission and the national authorities and used as selection criteria guide candidates in their efforts and, together with the compact measures introduced in 1997, demonstrate clearly the increasing importance of the top-down approach.

In 1998, the national governments of central and eastern Europe allocated a total of 39.95 million ecus to Tempus Phare activities, a slight fall compared to 1997. For the countries in Tempus Tacis, the amount was 21.06 million ecus, representing a rise compared to the previous year.

For the associated countries of central and eastern Europe, 1998 saw a continuation of work from 1997, in particular activities to prepare for their possible accession to the European Union, in accordance with the general thrust of the Phare programme.

Being eligible for the Socrates-Erasmus programme, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania were no longer eligible for individual mobility grants (IMGs) in 1998. The same applied to Slovakia, but only for the second selection round in 1998. For the non-associated Phare countries and the Tacis countries, the focus was still on drawing up study programmes and managing universities. There were several changes in the implementation of the programme for these countries in 1998: the pre-CEC formula (preparatory measures) was discontinued, as planned; individual mobility projects were introduced for the Russian Federation; the possibility of playing the role of coordinator was extended to the Russian Federation, and a new type of compact project for drawing up study programmes was introduced (this type of project is usually reserved for university management, being intended for well defined short-term needs).

The national priorities for the Tacis countries, used in the selection and implementation of projects, placed more emphasis on law and the environment and less on areas such as languages and European studies.

Following the 1995 initiative to maximise the value of the programme by analysing and disseminating its results, the "Tempus at Work" series was strengthened in 1998 with additional tools such as individual factsheets for each country. Moreover, the OES project launched in 1997 ended, and a compendium of the best results of the CEC Tacis from particular countries was drawn up. A project design and management manual based on the objectives was also produced.

In 1998, the Commission requested an intermediate audit of the implementation and results of the Tempus II programme and then presented a proposal for a Council decision adopting the third phase of the Tempus III programme (2000-2006). The proposal was adopted on 29 April 1999, and the programme began on 1 July 2000.

Report from the Commission to the Council - Final report on the second phase of the Tempus programme (1994-2000) [COM(2004) 109 - Not published in the Official Journal].