REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Report on the Interim Evaluation of the Erasmus Mundus II Programme (2009-2013) /* COM/2012/0515 final */
TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Report on the Interim Evaluation of the
Erasmus Mundus II Programme (2009-2013) 1........... INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3 2........... BACKGROUND TO THE EXTERNAL
EVALUATION............................................. 3 3........... THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION................................................................................ 4 3.1........ The terms of the evaluation.............................................................................................. 4 3.2........ Methodology.................................................................................................................. 4 3.3........ The evaluator’s findings................................................................................................... 4 3.3.1..... The EM II novelties:....................................................................................................... 4 3.3.2..... Other general findings..................................................................................................... 5 3.3.3..... Relevance....................................................................................................................... 6 3.3.4..... Effectiveness................................................................................................................... 6 3.3.5..... Sustainability................................................................................................................... 7 3.3.6..... Efficiency........................................................................................................................ 7 3.3.7..... Programme management: design and
structure................................................................. 7 4........... MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
EXTERNAL EVALUATION..................... 8 4.1........ Relevance general
recommendations:............................................................................... 8 4.2........ Effectiveness general recommendations:........................................................................... 8 4.3........ Sustainability general
recommendations:........................................................................... 8 4.4........ Efficiency general
recommendations:................................................................................ 8 5........... THE COMMISSION’S CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 9 1. INTRODUCTION The interim evaluation of the Erasmus
Mundus II (EM) programme was launched by the European Commission following the
requirements of the Erasmus Mundus Decision n° 1298/2008/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008[1]. The purpose of this evaluation
was to assess the relevance, effectiveness, sustainability and efficiency of
the programme, paying particular attention to the novelties introduced in phase
II of the programme. This evaluation covered all three actions (Action 1,
Action 2 and Action 3) over the implementation period of 2009-2011. The evaluation was steered by the Steering
Group drawn from Directorate-Generals of the European Commission (Education and
Culture; Development and Cooperation - Europe Aid and Enlargement), the
European External Action Service and the Education, Audio-visual and Culture
Executive Agency, all of them involved in the EM programme. The full text of
the evaluation can be obtained via the link:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm This Report on the Interim Evaluation is
presented under Article 13 of the EM Decision. It draws on the findings of the
Interim Evaluation of EM II regarding the results achieved and on the
qualitative aspects of the implementation of the programme. It puts forward the
Commission’s position on the main conclusions and recommendations of the
Interim Evaluation.These conclusions and recommendations are based on extensive
surveys and interviews of EM participants and key stakeholders. 2. BACKGROUND
TO THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION The EM II (2009 – 2013) programme aims to
enhance the quality of European higher education, to help improve the career
prospects of students and to promote dialogue and understanding between peoples
and cultures through international cooperation and to contribute to the
sustainable development of third countries in the field of higher education, in
accordance with EU external policy objectives.. EM has a budget of over €950 million, with
around €494 million allocated to Actions 1 and 3, taken from the EU’s education
budget, and €460 million allotted to Action 2, taken from a number of different
funding instruments. Structure of the programme: EM II 2009-2013
was implemented through the following actions: –
Action 1: EM joint programmes of outstanding
quality at masters and doctoral levels, including scholarships/fellowships to
participate in these programmes; –
Action 2: EM Partnerships between European and
Third Country higher education institutions, including scholarships and
fellowships for mobility at all academic levels. This action replaces the
former “External Cooperation Window” scheme; –
Action 3: Promotion of European higher education
through projects to enhance the attractiveness of Europe as an educational
destination and a centre of excellence at world level. Novelties of EM II: Under Phase II the
scope of the EM programme was extended by incorporating the following key new
dimensions: –
Extending Joint Programmes to the doctoral
level; –
Offering scholarships for European students; –
Integrating the “External Cooperation Window”
scheme into the EM programme as Action 2 and widening its scope; –
Allowing third country higher education
institutions to participate in the EM Joint Programmes. 3. THE
EXTERNAL EVALUATION 3.1. The
terms of the evaluation Following a call for tenders[2], the Public Policy and
Management Institute (PPMI) was selected to carry out the evaluation. The scope
of the interim evaluation was the period 2009 – 2011, during which a number of
the call for proposals to implement the programme took place. The interim evaluation focused on providing
answers to the evaluation questions related to the relevance and utility,
efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and European Union added value of the
programme. With respect to each of the evaluation questions,
the interim evaluation has provided concrete recommendations on how the logic,
the objectives, the design, the implementation and the results can be further
improved from the perspective of the Commission, the beneficiaries and
potential applicants. 3.2. Methodology The applied methodology firstly begins with
a set of 45 evaluation questions and sub-questions/operational questions. To
answer the questions, explicit indicators and judgement criteria were defined. 3.3. The
evaluator’s findings 3.3.1. The
EM II novelties: - The EM Joint Doctoral Programmes: The Joint Masters and Doctoral programmes
funded by Action 1 had considerable added value by facilitating the success of
graduates when looking for work and / or further research positions. International
experience and intercultural competence could be regarded as the most important
assets that distinguished EM students from other graduates. Inclusion of
doctoral and post-doctoral co-operation within EM II has been one of the most
successful innovations of phase II, attracting the participation of many
prestigious higher education institutions. - The new EM Action 2 The inclusion of Action 2 with specific
objectives related to third country cooperation was made within a programme
design which addressed the potential conflict between the sustainable
development of third countries (Action 2) and the promotion of excellence
(Action 1). In this way the EM II was designed to prevent "brain
drain". This new action includes two strands: one for developing countries
(strand 1) and one for industrialised countries (strand 2). The interviews with institutional and
individual beneficiaries as well as the case studies suggest that the cooperation
and excellence objectives were more complementary than contradictory.
Beneficiaries from third countries appreciate the large positive impact of
cooperation on the capacities of HEIs in their countries. However, the
stakeholders from third countries emphasised the need for more reciprocal
relationships between HEIs from EU and third countries. - Offering scholarships for European Union
students Overall, this new phase of the EM Programme
has offered added value for EU students when looking for work or further
research positions (as it was only for third country students before).
International experience and intercultural competencies are important EM assets
now also offered to EU students. However, within Action 1, the grants to
European students can be considered the least successful of the programme
novelties (category B grants for EU students were not valuable enough to attract students). Furthermore, it is
suggested that adequate information is crucial to attract European students. Attracting European students to Action 2
mobility was also a challenge. However, interviewed representatives of partner
institutions in Action 2 strand 2 (industrialised countries) strongly believed
that mobility to and from industrialised third countries should remain in
future EM programmes because it supports excellence and offers great opportunities
to build relationships with HEIs in major economies across the world. - Allowing third country HEIs to
participate in Action 1 of the Programme as full partners This novelty offered opportunities to HEIs
in third countries to share within consortia a cross-European design of joint
programmes. Cooperation between EU and non-European
HEIs is hindered by the diversity of national higher education systems. The
participation of non-European HEIs in the EM programme is made difficult by
regulations, governance issues, limited resources and specific features
relating to various subject areas. Non-EU HEIs and EU-partners have addressed
obstacles linked to the diversity of national systems, administrative issues,
consortium coordination, award or joint diplomas and the diversity of costs of
education across the consortium. In general terms, the challenges were overcome
on an ad-hoc basis, but more systemic measures to address them will be needed
in the future. In EM II, institutional beneficiaries were
enthusiastic about the impact the programme had in strengthening the
international ties between European and third country institutions. Examples
have clearly demonstrated the capacity of the programme to be useful in
internationalising the higher education systems of the participating countries
(increasing the international inter-institutional cooperation opportunities). 3.3.2. Other
general findings This Interim Evaluation was useful in
learning more about the ultimate objectives of EM II beneficiaries: –
Action 1 beneficiaries argued that excellence in
teaching and research was the main objective of their selected projects. –
The beneficiaries of Action 2 – Strand 1
emphasised co-operation, mobility and capacity building. –
The stakeholders participating in Action 2 – Strand 2 suggested that academic excellence was the central motivation of the involved
institutions. The EM programme contributed to strengthen Europe's competitive advantage in higher education by helping higher education systems to
offer a more homogeneous image under the joint programmes. The objectives of EM II were in line with
EU Policy initiatives and political priorities. However in the future EM II
could further strengthen its focus on the employability of young people which
is emphasised in Europe 2020. The programme provides valuable career skills for
graduates but actual employability remained uneven across regions and subject
areas. 3.3.3. Relevance The objectives of EM II remained highly
relevant even if the needs faced by the target groups and stakeholders were
quite diverse. Both joint programmes (action 1) and mobility (Action 2)
contribute to promoting excellence, capacity building and developing
international co-operation. The beneficiaries from third countries
emphasised the potential of the programme to contribute to the capacity
building of their HEIs. The risk of “brain drain” from third countries
remained, but stakeholders from third countries also suggested that the
developmental element could be strengthened by ensuring more balanced and
reciprocal relationships between participants from the EU and third countries. EM II was closely linked with and
complemented the other EU Programmes, namely: LLP, Tempus, Alfa, Edulink and
Marie Curie Actions. 3.3.4. Effectiveness Although the programme contributed to EU
strategic policies, its impact on the Bologna process was mixed and varied
across different countries. The contribution was very significant in some third
countries, notably in Neighbourhood countries, and particularly in the field of
legislation necessary for the recognition of joint degrees and credit
recognition mechanisms. However, it is recognised that additional effort should
be made on these issues within the EU and in third countries. Overall, the programme contributes significantly
to strengthening the international orientation of participating institutions,
but the process should be seen in the context of a wider international
collaboration and should take into account different situations within HEIs.
The programme has been understood as a "soft power" initiative to
change attitudes and views of policy-makers and stakeholders. In some cases, EM
II participants already had longstanding commitments to international
cooperation. Overall, on the topic of difficulties encountered,
the evaluation identified three sets of obstacles related to mobility: 1)
obstacles relating to the diversity of national higher education systems; 2)
obstacles relating to the design of the programme; 3) obstacles relating to the
administrative burden and co-financing (EM consortia normally entrust
centralised administration and management to their coordinating institutions.
These institutions try to ensure administrative and financial effectiveness,
which includes the identification of possible co-funding sources). 3.3.5. Sustainability The participating institutions were
typically highly internationalised and had staff members responsible for
international project management, but nearly half of the beneficiaries reported
lacking human resources to cope with the joint EM project workload. The
participating institutions were generally prepared for the phasing out of EU
funding, but they hoped it would be gradual. The EM label allowed institutions, which
are outstanding in their field but not internationally prestigious, to access
external funding and gain easier recognition of their courses. Allowing
previous beneficiaries to retain the label after the end of the funding period would
increase the sustainability of their courses. Programme promotion and results
exploitation could improve the sustainability of EM projects. The EMA (EM
Alumni Association) is particularly motivated and active in promoting the
programme and developing the EM graduate identity. Their dissemination
activities mostly took the form of programme promotion rather than promoting Europe as a study destination. 3.3.6. Efficiency The programme was efficiently implemented.
The evaluation shows the following programme efficiency details: - Most of the planned outputs of the
programme are set to be achieved by 2013 with lower costs than initially
anticipated. - Outputs of the programme were being
produced with analogous or even lower costs than those of similar scholarships
schemes. Overall, the analysis suggests that achieving the same results with
less funding was not problematic because the programme was implemented
efficiently in terms of budget and outputs produced. - In the second phase of EM, relevant
administrative tools, such as the calculation of incurred costs based on lump sums,
have been put in place. Although the number of activity reports was reduced
during the programme implementation, the beneficiaries assessed their
participation in EM as burdensome. 3.3.7. Programme
management: design and structure The programme beneficiaries assessed
positively the preparation and implementation of EM projects, except for the
extensive administrative workload. Beneficiaries suggested that further
simplifications were possible (e.g. activity reports), including replacement of
the annual re-application approach. Project monitoring and evaluation was
primarily quantitative. For the future, the potential of the EM Quality
Assessment Project (EMQA) may also be applied to better assess the quality of
joint programmes with the involvement of field experts. The beneficiaries were satisfied with the
services of the Executive Agency (EACEA), and information and guidance provided
by the National Structures, the National Tempus Offices and the EU Delegations.
Although the mechanisms for project selection were efficient, low success rates
for some Actions and strands reduced the trust of the target groups in the
transparency of project selection. The division of responsibilities between
DGs in the implementation of actions 1 and 2 as well as the absence of a single
Committee in charge of the whole programme does not contribute to the
development of synergies between the Actions of the programme. However,
weaknesses in strategic coordination are to some extent offset by good
coordination at the operational level as the administration of all actions is
under the responsibility of a single unit within the Executive Agency (EACEA –
Education, Audio-visual and Culture Executive Agency). There is a need to appoint a single
committee (including representatives from DG EAC, DG DEVCO and other
Directorates-General and Services of the European Commission) for steering the
post-2013 Programme, 4. MAIN
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION General recommendations 4.1. Relevance:
general recommendations: According to the general evaluation
recommendations, relevance may be reinforced through more balanced programme
objectives and strengthened links between EM and other EU programmes in the
field of higher education. 4.2. Effectiveness:
general recommendations: In order to improve effectiveness, the
evaluation recommendations are addressed to the following main issues:
employability; programme balance between objectives for excellence, capacity
building and geographical participation; involving employers; helping the visa
process; and mapping best practices. In relation to employability, the programme
activities could be more open to international mobility and cooperation in the
field of vocational education provided by higher education institutions for
training highly qualified professionals. Retain and strengthen the balance between Programme
objectives for excellence, development of capacity and geographical
representation. Incentives should be provided to include a wider range of
institutions from candidate and potential candidate countries in the Programme
and strengthen their capacities, in order to ensure balanced mobility. Good practices for involving employers
should be fostered, and outreach activities in candidate and potential
candidate countries are needed. Since the main barriers are related to
administrative issues, it is important that DG EAC continues to support the
European Commission's action to facilitate the visa process for the
beneficiaries of European mobility programmes, currently enforced through the
issue of directives. Good practices should be mainstreamed to
applicants and beneficiaries. 4.3. Sustainability:
general recommendations: Ensuring sustainability is a big concern
shared by the EM beneficiaries. Recommendations on sustainability are related to
a better use of the limited EU funding. Sharing good practices and a more
integrated programme may be useful as well. While there is a risk of dependence on EU
funding, it is also true that applications for funding from other instruments
requires deepening and expanding academic networks and thus helps excellent
courses and partnerships to mature. It is important to share good practices to
help partners strengthen their recognition mechanisms and save resources spent
on their development. 4.4. Efficiency:
general recommendations: In accordance with the Interim Evaluation's
recommendations, programme efficiency could be enhanced by linking the
financial allocations to each action with clearly identified policy objectives,
which take into due consideration the specific needs of different world regions
in the definition of the subject priorities, level of intervention –
undergraduate, masters, PhD - degree vs. credit mobility, etc.; improving the
monitoring and evaluation of future projects; and streamlining programme
promotion. Reconsider the balance among various
actions and their strands in the post-2013 programme in line with clearly
identified policy objectives and with a view to maximise success opportunities. Improve the monitoring and evaluation of
future projects by better balancing quantitative and qualitative assessment and
by involving field experts in the monitoring visits and project evaluation.
Continue the EM Quality Assessment Project and better link it to project monitoring.
Streamline programme promotion across
different Actions under the post-2013 programme, while maintaining the current
institutional framework that involves the Executive Agency, the National
Structures and the EU Delegations. 5. THE
COMMISSION’S CONCLUSIONS The Commission shares the overall
assessment of the evaluator that the programme EM II has provided strong
support and made an important contribution to the internationalisation process
of the European Higher Education Area. The programme remains highly relevant in promoting
excellence, international cooperation support, mobility and academic capacity
building. During this first half of the EM programme (2009 – 2011), the
programme has shown effectiveness in strengthening the international orientation
strategy of participating institutions, providing as well sustainability to
strategic networking activities. The Interim Evaluation of EM reveals a
programme which has been efficiently implemented with a very good cost/benefit
ratio. The 3 programme Actions have provided
outstanding outcomes for HEIs, students and scholars from EU MS and third
countries. Action 1 has contributed to improving excellence in teaching and
learning and to supporting institutional networking. The EM II Action 2 Partnerships have been
relevant in supporting international cooperation in the field of higher
education and quite efficient in including third country institutions as
members of international partnerships supporting academic mobility. EM II Action 3 has been effective in giving
coherence and sustainability to the whole programme. EM II was designed to include 4 novelties
to overcome several deficiencies, shortcomings and weakness observed in the
previous phase (2004 – 2008). Even if the novelties need further improvements,
the overall result is highly positive, notably in the integration of the new
Action 2, the more active participation of third country partners in consortia and
in the scholarships offered for European Union students. The Commission notes the findings of this
evaluation in favour of further improvements which could be made in the second
half of the programme and beyond. In particular, the Commission welcomes
recommendation 4.1 to reinforce relevance by strengthening links between EM and
other EU programmes in the field of higher education. This recommendation very
much reflects the preferred option identified in the Impact Assessment on the
International Dimension of the Higher Education Actions of the future
Integrated Programme for the period 2014-2020. That option (based on which the
Commission drafted its proposal for the future integrated Erasmus for All programme
for Education, Youth and Sport)
aims to strengthening objectives and impact through concentration and
streamlined architecture. The use of this option in the design of the future
integrated programme should create the necessary links within internal
programmes (between Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus) and between external and
internal policies and programmes in the higher education field (Erasmus Mundus,
Tempus, EDULINK, Alfa, Atlantis, etc.). It is also expected to reinforce links
between mobility and partnerships (including capacity building and policy
support measures) and provide support to increase the overall quality and
relevance of higher education, enhancing the links between policies and
programmes, accompanying universities in their internationalisation strategy
and the modernisation of higher education in non-EU countries together with the
development of their human capital. The Commission also agrees on
recommendation 4.2 to improve the effectiveness of the programme by allowing
for a better balance between excellence and capacity building (notably linking
the financial allocations to each action with clearly identified policy objectives,
reflecting different world regions' needs); further involving employers; and
helping to improve – as far as possible – the visa process. On recommendation 4.3, the Commission has
already been supporting (and will continue to do so) sustainability through
different initiatives, such as the establishment of the Erasmus Mundus brand
name and the implementation of a cluster regrouping all the best sustainability
practices under Erasmus Mundus. Regarding recommendation 4.4, the
Commission agrees on the need to improve the monitoring and evaluation of
projects and streamline the programme's promotion (with a view to enhancing the
current institutional framework that involves the Executive Agency, National
Structures and the EU Delegations). This will be done in the framework of the
future integrated programme, using the tools produced in its current phase,
notably under the EM Quality Assessment Project. [1] OJ 340 19.12.2008 p.83 [2] Restricted call for tender under the Multiple
Framework Contract EAC/50/2009 for evaluation, evaluation related support and
impact assessment.