COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(93) 30 final 
Brussels, 3 February 1993 
ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
(1 August 1991 - 31 July 1992) 
on the scheme for cooperation and mobility in higher 
education between Central/Eastern Europe and 
the European Community (Tempus) 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
Foreword 5 
I RESUME OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COUNCIL DECISIONS 
RELATING TO THE TEMPUS PROGRAMME 9 
II PROGRAMME STRUCTURES, BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT 
PROCEDURES 1991/92 10 
1 Structures 10 
2. Action 1: Joint European Projects 10 
3. Action 2: Individual Mobility Grants for Staff 10 
4. Action 3: Complementary Measures and Youth Exchange 11 
5. Budget 11 
6. Management of the TEMPUS Scheme 12 
7. Coordination with other programmes 13 
III. SELECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 13 
1. Joint European Projects 13 
2. Individual Mobility 14 
3. Complementary Measures: Selection procedures 14 
4. TEMPUS Projects approved in 1992/93 15 
5. Joint European Projects: Selection policy 16 
6. Joint European Projects: Participation of eligible countries 17 
7. Joint European Projects: Budgetary division between renewals and 
new projects 17 
8. Joint European Projects: Distribution of support between new and 
renewal National and Regional projects 18 
9. Joint European Projects: Member State coverage 18 
10. Joint European Projects: Subject area coverage 19 
11. Joint European Projects: G-24 coverage 19 
12. Joint European Projects: Qualitative indicators of positive trends 20 
- i_ - 3 -
13. Individual Mobility 22 
14. Complementary Measures 22 
15. Youth Exchange 22 
16. Information activities 23 
17. Contracts administration 23 
18. Scrutiny and follow-up of Interim Reports (1991-92) and Final 
Reports (1990-91) 24 
IV. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE TEMPUS SCHEME 24 
1. Monitoring, evaluation and general Scheme development 24 
V. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES 25 
Executive Summary 27 
ANNEX 1: Flowcharts 
ANNEX 2: Statistical Tables 
ANNEX 3: List of publications 
-4-
FOREWORD 
The TEMPUS Scheme: a tool to support the overall reform process 
1. The dramatic events of 1989 and 1990 in Eastern and Central Europe confronted the European 
Community with unprecedented political and economic challenges. Among the rapidly and effectively-
developed measures designed, within the PHARE Programme, to provide practical assistance and 
expertise to help the countries concerned restructure their economies and political systems so that they 
could maximise the benefits they could derive from the new situation, was the TEMPUS Scheme. 
2. The aim was action in the field of higher education and training to support the reform process. It 
was clear from the beginning that TEMPUS would need to be a flexible instrument able to cover 
additional countries as soon as their inclusion in the PHARE programme was decided. Between May 
1990 and March 1992, the number of countries which had become eligible for TEMPUS increased from 
two to ten: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania 
and Slovenia. By their participation in TEMPUS these countries have fully acknowledged that 
universities have a vital part to play in the process through which these countries are seeking to 
restructure their political and economic life to meet the challenges of rejoining the other half of the 
continent. 
European Community Investment in TEMPUS 
3. The European Community has made a very substantial investment in TEMPUS. To date almost 
200 million ECU of PHARE funds have been used to support TEMPUS activities. The size of the 
investment is a very clear proof of the deep concern felt at the political level by the European 
Community that the Scheme should fully achieve its objectives. 
4. The TEMPUS Programme is a concrete example of the readiness and capacity of the European 
Community to assist, in a rapid, practical and innovative fashion, to the needs of the emergent and re-
emergent Eastern and Central European democracies as they carry out the process of restructuring 
their societies and economies. 
Second TEMPUS Annual Report: The TEMPUS Scheme 1991192 
5. This is the second Annual Report published by the Commission concerning the implementation of 
the TEMPUS Scheme. The first Annual Report, covering the period May 1990-July 1991, set out in 
considerable detail the origins, structure and management of the Scheme, and referred to all the 
relevant Decision texts and Annexes related to these aspects. In order to avoid lengthy repetition of this 
explanatory framework, this second Annual Report, covering the period August 1991-July 1992, refers 
only in summary to these aspects, for the better orientation of readers. 
-5 
6. The main emphasis of the present Report is upon further development of the Scheme and in 
particular on its concrete achievements in its second year of operation 199112. TEMPUS has come a 
long way in a short time and particularly in the period under report it has had a significant impact in its 
field of action. However, the present situation of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe which are 
participating in the TEMPUS Scheme, despite all that they have already achieved, is still problematic. 
They are still in the middle of the complex and difficult process of overcoming the negative inheritance 
of their recent past. They are having to make profound changes in their political, economic and social 
structures in order to rejoin the free world. 
7. New approaches to the structures and philosophy of education can make a vital contribution to 
overcoming resistance to change, forming more relevant knowledge, technique and skills, and above all 
replacing old ways of thinking with new ones. 
Mutual Benefit of TEMPUS Participation 
8. TEMPUS is also a two-way street. By addressing the problems of change in the higher education 
systems of the eligible countries, the partner institutions and organisations in the European Community 
also change themselves. TEMPUS helps to restore communication between scholars and scientists, and 
both sides benefit from this. But also, when the partners in JEP networks work together, thinking 
through the problems of what to teach and how to teach it, and when they mobilise their resources to 
meet the problems and needs of higher education in the eligible countries, the benefits flow in both 
directions. 
Future Development of TEMPUS: paving the way for TEMPUS II 
9. It is evident that the TEMPUS Scheme must retain the specific features which give the eligible 
countries direct access to the strategic resources, knowledge and expertise, which are essential to the 
development of their higher education systems as elements in their societies which will continue to 
foster wider and deeper societal change. Nevertheless in our still changing continent TEMPUS must 
itself change if it is to continue to assist change. 
External Evaluation of TEMPUS 
10. The Commission's proposals for the future development of TEMPUS in the period 1994-1998 
draw heavily on the experience acquired to date in the implementation of the TEMPUS Scheme. In 
particular, the functioning of the TEMPUS Scheme in its first phase was the subject of an external 
evaluation carried out by the firm Coopers and Lybrand. The results of this evaluation show clearly not 
only that TEMPUS has got off to an impressive start and enjoys wide popularity in both East and West 
but also that it has already had considerable impact on institutions participating in Central and Eastern 
Europe. 
11. At the same time the evaluation report also looks at the broader picture, raising a number of 
important questions about the future direction the programme should take, in particular regarding the 
need to clarify the objectives and role of TEMPUS in each of the eligible countries and to develop in 
this context appropriate tailor-made strategies for future development. 
-6-
Commission 's proposals for TEMPUS II 
12. These concerns are reflected in the Commission s proposals for the second phase of the TEMPUS 
Scheme covering the period 1994 -1998. Over and above the conclusions reached by the external 
evaluation of the programme, the Community, through these proposals, seeks to address the 
fundamental issue of the future intellectual resources of and for a wider Europe which it is hoped will 
emerge from the new cooperation links created and activities undertaken as part of the TEMPUS 
Scheme. 
13. The Commission's proposals cover not only the continuation of activities with the ten countries 
already participating until now, countries which, it should be underlined, are in very different stages of 
the reform process, but also concern the newly-independent States of the former Soviet Union. These 
states are given the opportunity to participate in TEMPUS in accordance with their specific interests. It 
is felt that since these states find themselves in a broadly similar situation with regard to their economic 
and social reform efforts as those countries designated eligible for support until now, the experience 
acquired with TEMPUS in its first phase can be put to good use. 
TEMPUS Conference October 1992 
14. A spotlight was turned upon these and many other issues linked to the future development of 
TEMPUS at a major Conference on The role of higher education in the reform process of Central and 
Eastern Europe' organised by the Commission on 112 October 1992 in Brussels. The conference 
provided an excellent forum for an in-depth exchange of opinions and lively debate on the many diverse 
ways in which TEMPUS already contributes and can best continue to contribute to the reform process 
in the eligible countries. There was a clear consensus on the need to continue and consolidate the 
action of TEMPUS in the field of higher education cooperation in the context of an integrated approach 
to Community aid to Central and Eastern Europe and the Republics of the former Soviet Union. 
Conclusions 
15. TEMPUS has demonstrated beyond all doubt the possibility of increasing convergence of 
principles and practice between the European Community and the eligible countries in the realm of 
higher education development. The positive results of co-decision making in TEMPUS demonstrate the 
potential for this form of practical cooperation in other fields of joint work by the Community and its 
partners in the emerging pattern of cooperation across a transformed continent The TEMPUS Scheme 
is making an important contribution to political and economic reform and restructuring in the eligible 
countries, by providing material resources at critical points, but also, and just as importantly, by 
'letting in fresh air' after half a century of closed windows. In this sense the TEMPUS Scheme has 
genuinely been a flagship for the long-term objectives of the European Community's external policies 
towards Central and Eastern Europe. It is hoped that the Commission's proposals for the second phase 
of the programme from 1994-98 demonstrate amply how the work of TEMPUS can not only be 
consolidated with regard to the countries eligible for support hitherto but also be extended to enable the 
Republics of the former Soviet Union to benefit from the experience and knowledge acquired so far. 
Brussels, October 1992 
teteteteOz 

I RESUME OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COUNCIL DECISIONS 
RELATING TO THE TEMPUS PROGRAMME 
1. As part of the overall PHARE programme of Community aid for the economic restructuring of 
the countries of Central/Eastern Europe TEMPUS has two underlying objectives. These are to 
promote the quality and support the development of the higher education systems in eligible 
countries, by encouraging their growing constructive interaction with partners in the European 
Community 1. 
2. The Council Decision establishing the TEMPUS Scheme specifies the following principal aims: 
2.1 to facilitate the coordination of the provision of assistance to the eligible countries in the field of 
exchange and mobility, particularly for university students and teachers, whether this assistance 
is provided by the Community, by its Member States or by third countries of the G-24 group 2. 
2.2 to contribute to the improvement of training in the eligible countries, particularly in subject areas 
to which they give priority, and to encourage their cooperation, including joint cooperation, with 
partners in the Community, taking into account the need to ensure the widest possible 
participation of all the regions of the Community in such actions; 
2.3 to increase opportunities for the teaching and learning in the eligible countries of those languages 
used in the Community and covered by the Lingua programme and vice-versa; 
2.4 to enable students from the eligible countries to spend a specific period of study at university or to 
undertake industry placements within the Member States, while ensuring equality of opportunity 
for male and female students as regards participation in such mobility; 
2.5 to enable students from the Community to spend a similar type of period of study or placement in 
an eligible country; 
2.6 to promote increased exchanges and mobility of teaching staff and trainers as part of the 
cooperation process. 
Since May 1990 the Commission has carried out three selections of Projects within this 
framework. In the present Report an account is given of the most recent of these, describing and 
analysing the framework of management, the stage-by-stage procedures, and the outcomes of the 
selection of Projects to be supported in the academic year 1992/93. 
The legal basis of the Programme for the period under report is provided by the Council Decision No 90/233/EEC of 
7 May 1990. OJ No L131. Please see also TEMPUS Annual Report 7 May 1990/31 July 1991 [SEC (92) 226 (final)], 
Section 1. for an historical account of the origins and original objectives of the TEMPUS Scheme. 
As part of the Community's concern to ensure the optimum coordination of PHARE actions with similar G-24 initiatives - a 
task conferred on the Commission by the G-7 World Economic Summit in July 1989, Article 9 of the Council Decision on 
TEMPUS provided for the coordination of TEMPUS actions with similar actions of third countries, including, where 
appropriate, participation in TEMPUS projects. 
-.* -9-
II PROGRAMME STRUCTURES, BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT 
PROCEDURES 1991/92 
1. Structures 
Under its remit from the Council, the TEMPUS Programme achieves its objectives by supporting the 
categories of activities within the field of training listed in the Annex to the Council Decision and 
described below. The operation of the TEMPUS Programme during the period covered by this report 
relates to the selection of projects for 1992/93 3. 
2. Action 1: Joint European Projects 
2.1 The main vehicle for cooperation consists of Joint European Projects (JEPs), involving the 
participation of at least one university from an eligible country, and of partner organisations, of 
which one must be a university, in at least two EC Member States. Provision is also made for 
participation by eligible organisations in G-24 countries. In the case of Joint European Projects of 
a regional character, universities in at least two of the eligible countries must be involved. 
2.2 Grants are awarded to JEPs for the following purposes: 
• cooperative education and training actions, such as continuing education and training 
schemes, open and distance learning, short intensive programmes 
• structural development of higher education by activities such as curriculum development and 
upgrading of facilities 
• development of universities' capacities to cooperate with industry by activities such as staff 
exchange with industry, establishment of facilitating service structures, and the provision of 
consultancy advice by universities to enterprises 
• student mobility for study and teacher mobility for teaching, study or retraining 4 
• regional activities involving cooperative/training actions and the creation/updating of 
facilities to deal with problems common to two or more eligible countries. 
3. Action 2: Individual Mobility Grants for Staff 
In parallel with support for mobility within Joint European Projects, Individual Mobility Grants 
for staff (teaching assignments, practical placements, staff retraining and updating and certain 
specified short visits) are also provided for. 
During the period covered by the report the countries eligible under the TEMPUS Scheme were as follows: Albania, Bulgaria, 
Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. 
Under new regulations adopted in 1991 in the light of experience acquired to date, TEMPUS Programme student mobility now 
takes place only within Joint European Projects; a special category of project providing for large-scale organised student 
mobility, the Mobility JEP, was introduced for the first time in 1992/93. 
-10-
4. Action 3: Complementary Measures and Youth Exchange 
4.1 Limited support is also made available for activities arising from the extension to the eligible 
countries of European associations in higher education, for publications and other information 
activities directly related to the TEMPUS Programme, and for surveys and studies intended to 
assist in its monitoring and evaluation. 
4.2 There is also provision for limited support for youth exchanges and related activities involving 
organised cultural interactions intended to provide opportunities for young people normally 
outside the higher education system to participate in a European experience. 
5. Budget 
5.1 TEMPUS is funded by the eligible countries from within the allocation they receive under the 
PHARE Programme. Once the total PHARE Budget has been divided among the countries 
eligible for support, the national authorities of the latter determine how much of their national 
share of the resource is to go to activities under the TEMPUS Scheme. The total budget available 
from the PHARE Programme for such activities for the year 1992/93 amounted to 98.3 MECU, 
an increase of some 40% over the previous year. 
5.2 The breakdown of the PHARE funds allocated, in consultation with the Commission, by the 
national authorities of the eligible countries to TEMPUS projects in approval (whether new or 
renewed) for the academic year 1992/93 was as follows: 
I'mOtoWNM:; '& :0é'mé% Î 
tmwmmmmmwiiiiiHnnniiniii 
, ; is*, „ - - M * 
'16* 
, - ' 1*5 -
î£ , 
- -4M / ' 
< iU 
' Z3 
815 
Zà 
tt& < 
fta 
5.3 The cumulative total funding provided from PHARE to the TEMPUS Scheme since the latter's 
inception in July 1990 and the completion of the selection round in 1992 amounts to 
191.96 MECU 
-11 
6. Management of the TEMPUS Scheme 
6.1 The Commission 
The TEMPUS Scheme continues to be managed within the Commission by the Task Force 
Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth, in accordance with the provisions of the 
Annex to the Council Decision and on the basis of guidelines adopted annually. The Task Force 
liaises closely with the PHARE Operational Services of the Directorate General for External 
Relations. The Commission is assisted in the operational implementation of the TEMPUS 
Programme by the EC TEMPUS Office, a non profit organisation with which appropriate 
contractual arrangements have been made. 
6.2 TEMPUS Management Committee 
According to the provisions of Article 5 of the Council Decision on TEMPUS the Commission is 
assisted, with particular reference to the general guidelines governing TEMPUS, including the 
financial guidelines on the assistance to be provided, questions relating to the overall balance of 
TEMPUS and arrangements for the monitoring and evaluation of TEMPUS, by a Committee 
composed of two representatives appointed by each Member State and chaired by the Commission 
representative. During the period under report the Commission convened meetings of the 
TEMPUS Management Committee, held on 12-14 December 1991, 24 February 1992 and 
29 June 1992. The first of these included a special informal meeting of the TEMPUS 
Management Committee with representatives of the higher education authorities of the eligible 
countries, held with the purpose of providing the occasion of a broad-ranging strategic discussion 
of issues relating to the future development of the TEMPUS Programme 
6.3 National TEMPUS Offices in eligible countries 
• The authorities responsible for higher education in each of the countries already eligible in the 
1990/91 continued to cooperate with the Commission, notably through the operation of 
National TEMPUS Offices in their capital cities, (including the capital of Slovakia in the case 
of Czechoslovakia) in relation to all operational aspects, particularly those concerning advice 
on the relevance to national needs of TEMPUS Programme projects, and the selection of 
individual applicants from their countries. Their other main responsibility remained in the 
field of information activities relating to development of TEMPUS in their countries. The 
integrated role of National TEMPUS Offices in the eligible countries constituted a focus for 
the external evaluation of the TEMPUS Scheme undertaken during the period under report 
(cf. Section IV). 
• The authorities in the countries becoming eligible since 1 September 1991 (Albania, Estonia, 
Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia) acted to establish comparable Offices in their own 
countries to act as the main intermediary agencies between themselves and the Commission. 
The Commission provided guidance and resources to facilitate this task, notably in the field of 
computer-assisted pre-selection procedures, communications, staff-training and information 
activities, and making use of the experience previously acquired in relation to the already 
existing National TEMPUS Offices. 
• The integration into the TEMPUS Scheme of the countries concerned was rapidly and 
efficiently completed thus making possible their full participation in the 1992/93 selection 
process, and this despite the very great material and organisational difficulties affecting them 
in the most critical period of their political and economic transformation. 
-12-
Cooperation and co-decision making with the National TEMPUS Offices involved an 
intensive sequence of absolutely necessary meetings, bringing together representatives of all 
offices concerned to coordinate management information flows, selection processes, exchange 
of information on specific projects under Actions 1 and 3, and transfer of data on applicants 
selected under Action 2. 
The computerisation of the National TEMPUS Offices in the newly eligible countries and 
their integration in a shared database and assessment procedure ensured that all TEMPUS 
Offices were able to deal in the same way with applications for whose assessment they were 
responsible. Computer hardware and software tailored to their specific situation were supplied 
by the Commission to the National TEMPUS Offices concerned and arrangements were made 
for the necessary training for their staffs. The use of common standardised assessment criteria 
allowed, by the end of the selection round, the transfer of data for the production of overall 
statistics, for contracts administration, and for grants payments. 
7. Coordination with other programmes 
7.1 The TEMPUS Decision specifies that there should be consistency and, where appropriate, 
complementarity between TEMPUS and other actions at Community level, both within the 
Community and in assistance to the eligible countries. Because of the exceptional circumstances 
in which the TEMPUS Programme was adopted and launched this interaction and coordination is 
particularly worthy of mention in respect of the COMETT and the ERASMUS programmes. 
7.2 In particular, efforts were made to monitor the content-related programme linkages between 
TEMPUS & ERASMUS and TEMPUS & COMETT. Reciprocal representation was provided for 
at the meetings of the TEMPUS, COMETT and ERASMUS Committees and during the relevant 
selection meetings, including subsequent scrutiny of TEMPUS applications to ensure an 
appropriate exchange of information and consistency of approach. 
7.3 As part of its commitment to develop a long-term strategy with regard to the future development 
of education and training systems in the eligible countries, the Commission also sought to ensure 
complementarity with other assistance in the field of training accorded to the eligible countries, 
particularly in anticipation of the operational phase of the European Training Foundation, as well 
as in relation to other education and training initiatives within the overall PHARE programme 
such as the ACE programme and the DG XII initiative for Cooperation in Science and 
Technology with Central and Eastern European Countries. 
III. SELECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 
1. Joint European Projects 
The procedure developed and refined in the course of previous selections was successfully applied 
to the selection for 1992/93. The stages were as follows: 
• Copies of all applications submitted to the EC TEMPUS Office in Brussels were sent to the 
national TEMPUS Offices in each of the eligible countries. 
• A parallel assessment procedure then followed, an overall assessment of the quality of 
applications received being carried out by the EC TEMPUS Office, the ten national TEMPUS 
Offices concentrating on the benefit of projects to their country within the overall PHARE 
context. 
13 
• Bilateral consultations were then held in order to coordinate the different assessments carried 
out with a view to arriving, as far as possible, at a common assessment of projects for 
discussion with panels of experts. This process also ensured the identification of those projects 
where opinions differed and where an expert opinion was particularly important. 
• After inputting of the data and computer production of the necessary listings and statistics, 
expert meetings chaired by the Commission were held on 22, 25 and 27 May 1992. These 
enabled advice to be given by TEMPUS Experts from both the eligible states and the Member 
States of the Community to underpin the Commission's final decisions on applications. 
• Final discussions then took place with representatives of the Ministries of Education and the 
central PHARE coordinators as a result of which a final list of projects proposed for support 
was drawn up by the Commission and agreed by the Ministers of Education in the eligible 
countries. Thus the selection procedure was completed within the period under report 
(13 July 1992). 
2. Individual Mobility 
2.1 In addition to the mobility of teaching/training and administrative staff available within Joint 
European Projects, a considerable number of individuals in these categories submitted 
applications and were proposed for support. In the following a distinction is made between 
mobility from East to West and vice-versa. 
2.2 Procedures adopted for processing applications for support received from individual 
teacher/trainers and administrators in both Member States and the eligible countries differed 
according to the category of applicant and the direction of the envisaged mobility. 
2.3 All proposals for financial support regarding individual mobility from the eligible countries to the 
European Community were put forward by the national TEMPUS Offices in the eligible countries 
themselves. 
2.4 On the other hand, proposals regarding individual staff mobility from the European Community 
to the eligible countries were prepared by the EC TEMPUS Office in Brussels. 
2.5 All TEMPUS Offices used the same selection procedures and criteria for the assessment of 
applications from staff members. 
3. Complementary Measures: Selection procedures 
3.1 For Action 3 Complementary Measures a pattern of consultation with the National TEMPUS 
Offices similar to that used in relation to Joint European Projects again underpinned the 
Commission's decisions on the award of grants. 
3.2 Proposals for support for Complementary Measures under Action 3 of TEMPUS (support to 
associations, for publications and for certain surveys and studies, as well as for youth exchange 
activities) were drawn up by the Commission following analysis of the applications received and 
in consultation with the appropriate authorities in the eligible countries. 
3.3 For Action 3 Youth Exchange activities, separate information material, guidelines and 
application forms were provided for Youth Exchange activities in the second selection round of 
1991/92, for which the deadline set was 15 September 1991, and the first selection round of 
1992/93 with a deadline at 15 March 1992, permitted full computerisation of the assessment, in 
line with the practice under the other Actions of the TEMPUS Programme. 
-14 
4. TEMPUS Projects approved in 1992/93 
Joint European Projects (JEPs): support awarded 
• For 1992/93, 234 national and regional projects were selected for their first year of support 
in academic year 1992/93. These included 30 Mobility Joint European Projects which were 
supported. Support was also given to a further 127 'renewal' projects first selected in 1990 
and now beginning their third year of activities, and 274 'renewal' projects first selected in 
1991 and now beginning their second year of activities. This makes a total of 635 Joint 
European Projects currently running. 
• A total of 1979 applications were received in the 1992 selection round for cooperation 
activities with Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovenia to meet the deadlines of 31 January 1992 
(29 February 1992 for Albania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) 5. Of all new applications 
received for projects starting in 1992, 234 (11.8%) were selected for support. 
• Although the overall budget for 1992/93 was increased to 98.3 MECU (a 39.4% increase), 
of which 91.2 MECU was available for JEPs, the necessity to continue funding the 
successful projects approved in 1990/91 and 1991/92 inevitably reduced the scope for 
supporting new projects starting in 1992/93 (11.8% of the total number of applications 
received, compared to 22.7% in 1991). The total available budget was divided between new 
projects and renewals in the following proportions: 24.9% for 1990 renewals (22.7 MECU); 
44.4% for 1991 renewals (40.5 MECU); 30.7% for 1992 new projects (28.0 MECU). 
• For academic years 1990/91, 1991/92 and 1992/93 the Commission thus awarded funds in 
1992 as follows: 
Because of the political and military situation in former Yugoslavia, new applications could only be considered if they related to 
Croatia and Slovenia. Further developments in that situation led to the decision to freeze support proposed for Croatian 
participation in projects. 
15-
• This means an average of 120,000 ECU per new project proposed for support (68,000 ECU 
for the preparation and implementation of projects under Action 1 and 52,000 ECU to cover 
the mobility costs of participating students and teachers), 179,000 ECU per 1990/91 renewal 
project embarking on its third year of activities (88,000 ECU on average for Action 1 and 
91,000 ECU for Action 2 mobility), and 148,000 ECU per 1991/92 renewal project 
embarking on its second year of activities (80,000 ECU on average for Action 1 and 
68,000 ECU for Action 2 mobility). 
5. Joint European Projects: Selection policy 
5.1 The basis for the selection of these projects was the desire, within the budget available, to give 
sufficient financial support to 11.8% of new applications received in 1992 to be able to carry out 
their proposed activities, thus remaining in line with the overall aims of the TEMPUS Scheme to 
support the development of the higher education systems in the eligible countries, and according 
to the priorities established by the eligible countries. The table below shows the selection rate for 
each country and includes participation in regional projects. 
*' SS '/S "' " ' 
111111111 j.1.».;.11111 n » • » » 1111 > 1111111 ll 11111111 n 1111111111111MJYIIIIVI i iilliin ^<jf#œep*e4JfëPs 
fâ * t*S.rt /'// '/r s s „ r 
C«*ho^Dvakî^ •' 
Estonia ".. ' 
'dï*M'>', Z f 
Lithuania 
JPoland 
3ftdtâttitttt 16.3 
ua • 
4* 
luJ 
*—ft*————**——***&&—*——*~* • •" I '' J**MJ^I*> 
5.2 When interpreting the figures given in the table above, the high number of applications overall 
and the total budgets available for each country after funding needed for renewal support for on­
going multi-annual projects should be borne in mind. The main reason for the small share taken 
in new projects by certain countries (notably Czechoslovakia and Hungary) was the need to 
earmark sufficient funds for the large number of such projects. 
-16 
6. Joint European Projects: Participation ôf eligible countries 
The factors reviewed in § 5.2 also affected the pattern of distribution of funds from country to 
country. The large rise in Polish participation was accounted for by the decision of the Polish 
national authorities to allocate a higher proportion of their overall PHARE budget to TEMPUS. 
The effect in terms of rates of participating acts in selected projects is shown below: 
7. Joint European Projects: Budgetary division between renewals and new 
projects 
7.1 In 1992/93, 3 countries (Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia) had to apply part of their budget to 
refinance multi-annual projects approved in 1990 and 1991, 3 countries (Bulgaria, Romania and 
Slovenia) had to apply part of their budget to refinance multi-annual projects approved in 1991, 
while 4 other countries (Albania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) used their budget to finance only 
new projects. 
7.2 In renewals of 1990 projects 49.2% of the average grant was used for organisation/equipment 
costs (Action 1) and 50.8% for mobility (Action 2), in renewals of 1991 projects the equivalent 
figures were 54.3% and 45.7%, while in new projects supported in 1992, they were 56.8% and 
43.2%. Within Action 2 85% of the support is used for East-West mobility (mainly for 
retraining/updating of teaching staff and for student mobility). West-East mobility mainly takes 
the form of teaching assignments. 
7.3 The average for equipment allocations varied in relation to national subject-area priorities and the 
disciplines involved in the projects. 
7.4 The amounts requested for projects averaged 207,000 ECU while support granted averaged 
143,000 ECU. This was comparable to the amounts awarded during 1991/92 (135,000 ECU), but 
grants for renewals were generally higher than grants for new projects (157,000 ECU as against 
120,000 ECU). 
3) -17-
8. Joint European Projects: Distribution of support between new and renewal 
National and Regional projects 
8.1 The 12.5 MECU available from the PHARE regional fund were used in 1992/93 to refinance the 
third and second years respectively of projects first supported in 1990. New Regional projects had 
to be financed entirely from the national budgets of the eligible countries concerned. 
8.2 The eligible countries benefiting from regional funding were Poland, Hungary and 
Czechoslovakia, and to a lesser degree Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia, because renewals of 
1990/91 and 1991/92 projects involved only them. 
9. Joint European Projects: Member State coverage 
9.1 Even bearing in mind the considerable number of successful new projects in the 1992/93 selection 
round, it is clear that participation of the countries in the South and West of the Community still 
leaves room for improvement (Greece, Spain and Portugal, with 2.6%, 2.1%, 0.9% of coordinated 
projects respectively). This is also the case as far as Ireland is concerned, for which the 
comparable figure was also 0.9%. Equally disappointing, given the size of the higher education 
provision in the Member States concerned, are the figures for coordinating activity by 
organisations in Germany and Italy (7.3% and 5.6% respectively). It should, however, be 
assumed that these rates to some extent also reflected the fact that some one-third of all new JEPs 
are coordinated in the eligible countries. 
9.2 The levels of involvement are considerably better in all these cases (see Tables in Annex 1), but it 
must be of concern that in a number of leading Member States the willingness to be involved in 
TEMPUS projects was not fully matched by a willingness to take the initiative in establishing 
them. The comparable indicators for Belgium, France, Netherlands and United Kingdom showed, 
on the other hand, that these Member States were participating particularly well in relation to the 
size of their higher education sectors. The reasons for the variations described certainly relate to 
existing contacts and networks created in the context either of ongoing European Community 
programmes in higher education such as ERASMUS and COMETT, or built up bilaterally with 
eligible countries in pre-TEMPUS times. These undoubtedly influenced the initial distribution of 
coordinating and involved countries, and, given the multiannual basis of the funding of the vast 
majority of projects, it was inevitable that this would be repeated in the results of subsequent 
selection rounds. It may, however, be foreseen that as multiannual projects come to their end, 
there will be increasing scope for both radically revised and completely new project applications 
to succeed, particularly in the light of the stringent monitoring of outcomes and impact which 
will be instituted with the establishment of an intensive site-visiting Programme (cf. Section IV of 
this Report). 
9.3 There was a very significant positive change in the 1992/93 round, in that almost one-third of all 
supported projects were coordinated by the eligible countries themselves, with a consequent 
further decrease in the overall percentage of coordinations undertaken by the group of Member 
States which had figured largest in the earlier selection rounds. Thus the German-coordinated 
percentage of the increased number of successful projects fell to 7.3%, the comparable figures 
being 12.0% in the case of France, 9.4% in that of the Netherlands, and 15.4% in that of the 
United Kingdom. This encouraging tendency may be considered a positive gain in relation to the 
aims of TEMPUS and will certainly continue to grow stronger as universities in the eligible 
countries identify their needs and gain experience in forming effective partnerships for change 
with their European Community counterparts. 
-18 
10. Joint European Projects: Subject area coverage 
The main bulk of the 234 new JEPs proposed for support are in the priority subjects specified by 
the eligible countries, notably in engineering and applied science subjects (55, or 23.5%), in 
business management (40, or 17.1%), environmental protection (24, or 10.3%), and medical 
sciences (21, or 9.0%). Applications in business and management studies, and in social science 
subjects relevant to restructuring, were of particularly high quality. A significant and generally 
welcome trend away from applied science and engineering and towards restructuring-related 
social sciences and environmental protection studies was also noted. Some 21% of projects are in 
non-priority areas considered to be relevant by the eligible countries, particularly teacher training 
and natural sciences. 
All applications Supported projects 
HUtttiHt % I !*art*&rfff'' 
IMMIMMHWHHHHHIII 
/ H*3 I 
'- 'Uv 
tttt\ 
1.4 : I 
3,3- : 
i 
ZU \ si*/,m <\ 
t'tt' t/ •/ 't ' • 
t, '4JLt£iP't • 
'/' /tt' / < 
?'&,«$&" i 
t/C'fr,V 
tj""^i-;\ m -
552 t 
'm ' 
146 
*i 
'43 
$Z4 'Is — 
'tt 9't't't 
, ' /t 
'"14 V 
'49 £/•/, A,''"<'# *t% 
\;t Mf'S, 
dV y*Sv * **** **>**? •> ' * * * * 
§§Wf?W*7'7*'t -'"t 
t /,t t '/£££BBaljlilleÉ££aBe£gle!ssjajajls W9 10A m -100.0 
11. Joint European Projects: G-24 coverage 
11.1 As part of its continuing commitment to the Western countries of the G-24 group to coordinate 
assistance to the eligible countries, the Commission is responsible for ensuring the coordination 
with actions in the same field as TEMPUS which are developed by countries which are not 
members of the Community. Article 9 of the Council of Ministers Decision on the TEMPUS 
Programme provides for the coordination of such actions, including where appropriate 
participation in TEMPUS projects. The countries concerned are seven EFTA countries (Austria, 
Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland), the USA, Canada, Japan, 
Australia, Turkey and New Zealand. A special information meeting with representatives of the 
G-24 countries was held in Brussels on 1-2 October 1991. 
19-
11.2 In 1992/93 a little more than 17% of all applications received, and an equal percentage of those 
supported, involved organisations in the G-24 countries. The main countries participating are 
Austria, Norway, Sweden, the USA and Finland, although institutions in Canada, Turkey and 
Switzerland are also present in a small number of projects. Moreover, at the completion of the 
1992/93 selection round, 4 of the 234 projects supported (2 submitted from Sweden, 1 from 
Austria and 1 from Finland), were coordinated by such organisations in these countries. It is 
important to underline that the Austrian, Swedish and Finnish governments supported financially 
the involvement of their institutions in TEMPUS projects, thus underlining the importance of 
organised counterpart funding at national level in order to truly operationalise G-24 participation 
in TEMPUS. 
12. Joint European Projects: Qualitative indicators of positive trends 
12.1 As specified above, Joint European Projects cover a wide range of subject areas. The positive 
outcomes of Joint European Projects are related to the restructuring of the higher education 
system as such, but also, depending on the discipline involved, may have broader effects as well. 
In this respect, projects may provide a direct response to human resources development needs in 
the field of industry, environmental protection, internationalisation of commercial contacts etc. 
12.2 One of the most salient indicators of the impact of TEMPUS concerns the upgrading of facilities, 
at both departmental and institutional level. This upgrading, covers a wide spectrum of outcomes 
and has shown a clear evolution during the running of the programme, depending on the physical 
state of the higher education institutions involved. Two main types of equipment may be 
provided: administrative and communication equipment on the one hand and scientific 
equipment on the other. 
Administrative and communication equipment has an immediate effect and covers facilities such 
as fax machines, photocopiers, PC's, text processing software, etc. In the first year of participation 
of any eligible country, a considerable investment is made for this purpose. Although not directly 
linked to project activities, this equipment may prove to be vital for the success of a project, 
because communication between the partners and the management of the project on the ground 
largely depends on the availability of these facilities. 
Scientific equipment mainly concerns modern information processing systems (such as 
computers, computer assisted equipment, etc.) and is directly related to the project activities 
themselves. This type of equipment also supports other actions within the TEMPUS framework, 
particularly curriculum development. 
12.3 A characteristic of the long period of isolation experienced by many of the higher education 
institutions in Central/Eastern Europe was the lack of up to date specialist literature in many 
disciplines. Given the especially difficult position of social sciences under the previous regime in 
many of the countries, the opportunity provided by TEMPUS to catch up with the latest 
developments abroad was felt as particularly valuable. Thus, in many disciplines, upgrading of 
libraries and provision of access to specific periodicals brought a very concrete improvement in 
the situation. A practical example of this can be found at the Technical University of Gdansk, 
where thanks to TEMPUS support, substantial library upgrading could be achieved in the field of 
environmental protection. This upgrading forms part of the establishment of a multi-disciplinary 
environmental studies centre. 
20 
12.4 The technical upgrading of existing language laboratories, or purchase of new ones, was also an 
integrated part of many projects in different subject areas. Although in many eligible countries 
specialised language studies already existed at a high level, professionals and students in other 
disciplines such as engineering, medicine, agriculture etc. often lacked sufficient knowledge of 
foreign languages for international cooperation to be effective. Much effort was therefore invested 
in the updating of participants' knowledge of foreign languages, both of staff and students. 
12.5 The major contribution of TEMPUS to the restructuring of higher education in the eligible 
countries falls within curriculum development and teaching materials development. The reason 
for this is that it leads to a change in the approach to higher education, which was felt to be too 
theoretical and over-specialised in the past, and left its graduates unable to respond flexibly to 
changes taking place in society. The development of curricula and teaching materials based on 
EC experience has led to the creation of new courses and the upgrading of existing courses. 
A good example of this can be found in the development in Poland (Gdansk) of an MSc 
programme in environmental protection on the basis of three series of environmental courses, 
which will not only be integrated in a local engineering degree but will also become a cross-
faculty interdisciplinary course. Another project in Hungary (Budapest) concerns the training and 
education of librarians according to European standards, which involves the development of new 
curricular packages for both under- and postgraduate studies in library and information science 
and applications. A project in modern languages concerns multipurpose curriculum development 
and development of teaching materials in English and German for industrial training, teacher 
training and for undergraduate students in technical universities in Czechoslovakia. Other 
excellent examples are the creation in Czechoslovakia of common curricula in social work studies 
and the first degree course in animal production recognised by the Hungarian local authorities. 
12.6 Very important in the light of démocratisation of civil society are activities in the field of social 
and economic sciences, law and European Studies, humanities etc. Although not all of these areas 
are considered to have top priority for all of the eligible countries, it is clear that their impact will 
be felt more and more since future decision makers are often graduates from such disciplines. 
Medicine and social work projects offer, on the other hand, an opportunity to specialise in 
underdeveloped but necessary fields. In Romania, for example, the need for more well-educated 
social workers led to a request by the authorities themselves to set up curricula in subjects which 
had never previously been taught in higher education. In some cases, this has led to collaboration 
between higher education institutions and humanitarian aid organisations. 
12.7 Although not yet developed sufficiently, university/industry cooperation links, involving industry 
from both the European Community and the eligible countries, are beginning to appear. The 
intention of TEMPUS is to contribute to increase the capability of Central/Eastern European 
universities to provide the indispensable human resources to respond to the needs of a society in 
transition. In this respect, education in the field of management and business administration is 
particularly important in the context of market economy oriented management. 
An example of this is a project in Hungary which is working on a European accreditation of an 
MBA programme which is being developed for agro-business managers. One of the features 
typical of this project is the field-work approach, in the shape of a sandwich programme where 
Hungarian agro-business managers spend alternately one month in university and one month in 
their firm in order not to lose contact with, and support from their own enterprise, and where in 
the last year of the three-year MBA practical placements in EC enterprises are planned. In the 
field of telecommunications one project is strongly supported by the local (Slovak) PTT, in 
another aeronautics project the Polish aircraft industry is heavily involved. 
-21 
12.8 Transnational networking, some of it including EC Member States as well as G24 countries, and 
student and staff mobility also clearly represent an important benefit to the departments and 
institutions concerned, and are particularly important for attitudinal change. In this respect it may 
be interesting to note that in the new 1992/93 selection round within the framework of Joint 
European Projects a total of more than 6000 teachers from Central/Eastern Europe were awarded 
a grant to spend a period in the European Community in order to be retrained/updated, to carry 
out a practical placement or a teaching assignment. From West to East the corresponding figure 
for staff mobility is close to 4000 people, while a total of almost 6000 students from the eligible 
countries and 900 from the European Community were awarded a grant for a period of study or 
practical placement. The value of the personal contacts which are built up during the periods 
abroad cannot be overestimated as a means for improving mutual understanding. 
12.9 Additional information on specific projects can be found in the 1992/93 Compendium. 
13. Individual Mobility 
13.1 Alongside the mobility of teachers within Joint European Projects, a considerable number of 
individual teachers were awarded Individual Mobility Grants in the first selection round (of two) 
for 1992/93. It is estimated that altogether a total 467 staff members from the eligible countries 
will undertake updating, teaching and exploratory visits, in the Community in the academic year 
1992/93. The total funds required to finance this mobility for individual teachers amounts to 
1,861,275 ECU. 
13.2 The Commission also awarded support to 101 staff members from European Community 
countries wishing to visit the eligible countries for various approved purposes, including teaching 
assignments, during academic year 1992/93 at a total cost of 104,090 ECU 
14. Complementary Measures 
14.1 A total of 246,000 ECU was awarded in the first selection round (of two) for 1992/93 for 24 
Complementary Measures projects under Action 3 of TEMPUS to enable the completion of a 
limited number of specific projects submitted by associations of universities, for publications and 
for studies and surveys which fulfil the aims of TEMPUS. The projects which attracted grants 
under Action 3 were very precisely targeted upon extension of priority area associational 
networks or overcoming specific information deficits which it was thought might have negative 
effects for the extension and strengthening of the Programme as a whole. 
14.2 It must be noted with regret that in some cases the unavoidable limitation of funds available for 
Action 3, due to the need to earmark available resources for renewal funding of JEPs, led to the 
absence of certain eligible countries from Action 3 projects in which their presence would clearly 
have been desirable from the point of view of the building of a pan-European dimension. 
15. Youth Exchange 
Under Action 3 of the Programme, 34 youth exchange activities (20 reciprocal youth exchange 
projects, 10 short preparatory visits and 4 training courses for youth workers) received TEMPUS 
support for the second half of the year September 1991/September 1992, at a total cost of 
291,760 ECU. A first selection round (of two) for youth projects to be supported during 1992/93 
has yielded 31 projects (16 reciprocal exchanges, 8 short visits, and 7 training courses), with 
funding amounting to 292,162 ECU. 
22 
16. Information activities 
16.1 The principal objective of the TEMPUS Scheme, that of assisting effectively in the development 
of human resources in the higher education sector of the eligible countries, was reflected in the 
information policy adopted and the information materials provided. The underlying approach was 
to keep all the products uncomplicated, ensuring that they address the essential concerns of users. 
16.2 During the period under report two editions of the Vademecum and the application forms were 
prepared and the first was distributed in all nine Community languages (the deadline for the 
second, now renamed Guide for Applicants/Vademecum, which was completed and sent for 
translation in all nine Community languages, fell after the period ended). The small leaflet 
summarising the key facts on TEMPUS in nine languages was updated and again given wide 
distribution. This was supplemented by updates on newly-admitted eligible countries as required. 
Separate guidelines, application forms and information sheets for Youth Exchange activities were 
distributed in the nine languages. 
16.3 A Compendium of 1991/92 projects was published in October 1991 in English, but with 
introduction and instructions for use in English, French and German, and given wide distribution 
during the period under report, as was the Directory of Higher Education Institutions in Central 
and Eastern Europe, first published in December 1991 and the Annual Report on the Scheme, 
covering the period 7 May 1990 until 31 July 1991, prepared for the Commission by the EC 
TEMPUS Office and published officially on 12 February 1992 (cf. Annex 3). The Directory of 
Higher Education Institutions in Central and Eastern Europe is the only such guide currently 
available. 
16.4 The documentation mentioned was given wide distribution both within the Community and in the 
eligible countries. In the eligible countries in particular the previous high level of interest in the 
TEMPUS Programme continued so that supplies of the Vademecum had again to be repeated 
more than once. The Compendium and the Annual Report were distributed to meet the needs of a 
more specialised institutional readership, the former being of particular interest to partners in 
existing or planned Joint European Projects, while the latter was best fitted to the information 
needs of the Institutions of the European Community, the Member State Contact Points, National 
TEMPUS Offices and the media. 
16.5 In quantitative terms the following items were sent out by the Commission during the period 
under report: 
* 40,000 Vademecums in 9 languages 
* 3,000 Compendiums 
* 25,000 leaflets, in 9 languages 
* 8,000 lists of accepted projects. 
* 20,000 Directories of higher education institutions in Central and Eastern Europe 
* 30,000 copies of the Annual Report for 1990/91 
17. Contracts administration 
All contract texts for 1992-93 were revised in the light of the experience from previous years and 
by the end of the period under report, the Commission was ready to proceed, on completion of 
selection procedures in the various TEMPUS actions, with the issue of contracts to successful 
applicants and notification of unsuccessful applicants. The main problems encountered in 
contracts administration hitherto were those associated with making direct payments to eligible 
countries, and those connected with bank transfer to countries whose currencies were not 
convertible. 
23 
18. Scrutiny and follow-up of Interim Reports (1991-92) and Final Reports (1990-91) 
18.1 During the period under report it was possible to analyse the first year's Final Reports of Joint 
European Projects supported in 1990. The analyses of the reports provided valuable feedback 
concerning organisational and operational questions, the professional benefits for those involved, 
and possible improvements to the administration of grants, especially with regard to how 
reporting procedures could be modified to better serve as a resource for comparative information 
on experiences and recommendations. 
18.2 The scrutiny of the Final Reports covering the first year of operation of the JEPs supported in 
1990, revealed that the contractors had succeeded in utilising almost the totality of the funds 
allocated to them despite the delayed start of operations due to the exceptionally short period 
available for the selection process in the first year of operation of the TEMPUS Scheme. 
18.3 For the same reason, the contractors experienced some difficulty in relation to the organisation of 
mobility. The difficulty lay mostly in the shorter period available for academic placements within 
the ongoing academic year. Nevertheless, a greater number of teaching staff than projected 
moved to universities in the Member States of the European Community (855 as against 699), 
more than compensating for the shortfall (140) of teachers projected to move to the eligible 
countries. Because of the shortened period for placements, there was also a relative shortfall of 
students moving in both directions. In the circumstances, it was a considerable achievement by 
the coordinators to have made a period of study abroad possible for almost 80% of the initial 
projected number of students wishing to participate within the JEPs supported. 
18.4 The main findings from these analyses were largely confirmatory of those reached by the Coopers 
and Lybrand Report and summarised in Section IV of this report. 
IV. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE TEMPUS SCHEME 
1. Monitoring, evaluation and general Scheme development 
1.1 The evaluation strategy for TEMPUS was developed by the Commission with the advice of the 
TEMPUS Committee in March 1991 to meet the need to prepare the continuation or the 
adaptation of the Decision of the Council of Ministers, due according to Article 11 of the Council 
Decision, by 31 December 1992. A call for tender was launched in mid-1991 for evaluation of the 
results of the programme in 1990/91, to be carried out between 1 October 1991 and 
30 April 1992. The contract was awarded to Messrs Coopers and Lybrand. 
1.2 It was decided that the evaluation should concentrate on the functioning of the 153 JEPs selected 
for support in 1990/91. Neither individual mobility of staff and students under Action 2 of the 
programme nor Complementary Measures or Youth Exchange activities under Action 3 were the 
objects of analysis. 
1.3 The evaluation consisted of interviews with governmental officials and local TEMPUS Offices in 
the eligible countries, review of one third of the final reports from first year grantholders as well 
as an in-depth case study analysis of 17 JEPs. 
24-
1.4 Coopers and Lybrand's investigations revealed that TEMPUS enjoyed wide popularity both in 
East and West. Projects had on the whole managed to attain their objectives without facing any 
major obstacles and had spent the funds allocated to them. The programme had had considerable 
impact on the participating institutions, above all at departmental level, through access to updated 
equipment and materials and increased motivation. Western partners had also derived 
considerable benefit from the scheme through a widening of curricula and staff horizons and the 
expansion of academic contacts. 
1.5 The report also addressed the issue of the future direction of the TEMPUS Scheme and the need 
to clarify its objectives and role, in particular whether the emphasis should be on support to the 
long-term reform of higher education or on meeting manpower and skill shortages during 
economic reform. 
1.6 The Coopers and Lybrand Report recommended that an effort should be made to develop 
individual strategies adapted to the needs of the situation in each of the eligible countries. 
1.7 The Commission's proposals for the second phase of the programme to be presented to Council in 
September 1992 will draw heavily on these conclusions and recommendations. They will also be 
incorporated, where appropriate, into the TEMPUS Guide for Applicants. 
1.8 As part of the creation of the preconditions necessary to the further development of the 
programme, the Commission also maintained a full programme of internal monitoring 
procedures for all TEMPUS actions, carrying out detailed surveys and analyses of a number of 
relevant aspects (situation of the different eligible countries, of the different priority areas, of 
Community involvement, G-24 involvement etc.) of applications from the two selection rounds 
prior to the period covered by this Report. The analysis of each aspect was reflected in a separate 
detailed profile report and also in a global profile for internal use. 
1.9 It was also decided that a further monitoring resource should be created by the establishment of 
an intensive programme of Site Visits to ongoing JEPs in the coming academic year. 
V. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES 
The TEMPUS Programme, during the period under report, continued to demonstrate the capacity 
of the European Community to develop a flexible and practical response to the needs of the 
growing number of emergent and re-emergent Eastern and Central European democracies for 
assistance to enable the critical higher education sector to contribute to the process of 
restructuring their societies and economies. In turn, university staff, trainers and students in the 
eligible countries and their counterparts in the Member States of the European Community 
continued to respond to the initiative with an enthusiasm which can be measured by the 
exponential increase in the number and quality of project applications. 
Equally gratifying has been the evidence over the period of increasing convergence of principles 
and practice between the European Community and the eligible countries in the realm of higher 
education development. It may not be unrealistic to suppose that the positive results of 
co-decision making in TEMPUS demonstrate the potential for this form of practical cooperation 
in other fields of joint work by the Community and its partners in the emerging tapestry of a 
transformed continent. In this sense the TEMPUS Scheme has genuinely been a flagship for the 
long-term objectives of the European Community's external policies, particularly as expressed in 
the PHARE Programme. 
25 
In every respect, the period under report has been far from tranquil. It was inevitable that the 
disintegration of old hegemonies and the rise of new forms of aggregation in the eastern part of 
the European continent would affect the functioning of the Scheme. Nevertheless the Commission 
and its partners at national and institutional level have not only succeeded in keeping up the 
momentum of the Scheme but have articulated and refined its modus operandi and extended its 
benefits to four additional eligible countries. They have also done all in their power to limit the 
damage inflicted by the situation in former Yugoslavia. 
The TEMPUS Scheme thus continues to make an important contribution to political and 
economic reform and restructuring in the eligible countries, not only by providing material 
resources at critical points, but also by 'letting in fresh air' after half a century of closed windows. 
Its success to date in assisting change in the eligible countries augurs well for its capacity to meet 
even greater demands in the future. 
26 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Structure, budget and management of the Programme 
TEMPUS (Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University Studies) forms part of the overall 
programme of Community aid for the economic restructuring of the countries of Central/Eastern Europe, 
known as PHARE, within which training is one of the priority areas for cooperation. 
To implement this objective TEMPUS was adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European 
Community on 7 May 1990, for an initial 'pilot phase' of three years beginning on 1 July 1990, within a 
perspective of five years. 
Targeted to meet the specific needs of Central and Eastern Europe, the double objective of TEMPUS is 
to promote the quality and support the development of the higher education systems in the countries 
designated as eligible for economic aid, by encouraging their growing interaction with partners in the 
European Community. 
The main vehicle for ensuring this cooperation consists of Joint European Projects, which involve the 
participation of at least one university from an eligible country, and of partner organisations, of which 
one must be a university, in at least two EC Member States. In the case of Joint European Projects of a 
regional character to be supported from the PHARE regional facility universities in at least two of the 
eligible countries must be involved. 
In parallel with this project-based support (Action 1), individual mobility grants for staff (teaching 
assignments, practical placements, staff retraining and updating and visits) were also provided for 
(Action 2). 
Thirdly, limited support was also available for the extension to the eligible countries of European 
associations in higher education, for publications and other information activities related to the 
TEMPUS Programme, and for surveys and studies intended to assist in its monitoring and evaluation. 
There was also provision for limited support for youth exchanges and related activities intended to 
catalyse the acquisition by young people of a better awareness of the European dimension. 
The total budget available for 1992/93 was 98.3 MECU, including both measures to be supported from 
the national budgets allocated to TEMPUS by each of the eligible countries for 1992/93 and to Joint 
European Projects of a regional character to be supported from the PHARE regional facility. 
The total funds allocated to projects under the TEMPUS Programme between its inception in July 1990 
and the completion of the selection round in 1992 totalled 191.96 MECU. 
The Programme is implemented on behalf of the Commission by the Task Force Human Resources, with 
the technical assistance of the EC TEMPUS Office, which is an autonomous body of the European 
Cooperation Fund. 
Selection procedures for Joint European Projects 
All applications for support for Joint European Projects are submitted to the EC TEMPUS Office in 
Brussels. Copies of applications concerning their institutions are then sent to the national TEMPUS 
Offices in each of the eligible countries. 
-27-
An overall assessment of the quality of applications received is carried out by the EC TEMPUS Office, 
with a parallel assessment procedure by the ten national TEMPUS Offices in terms of the benefit of 
projects to their country within the overall PHARE context. 
Bilateral consultations are then held in order to coordinate the different assessments carried out with a 
view to arriving, as far as possible, at a common assessment of projects for discussion with panels of 
experts and the early identification of those projects where opinions differ and where an expert opinion 
is particularly important. 
Following this internal consultation procedure, external experts representing the main TEMPUS priority 
areas from both Community Member States and the eligible countries are consulted. 
Discussions then take place with representatives of the Ministries of Education and the central PHARE 
coordinators in the ten eligible countries. As a result of these consultations a final list of projects 
proposed by the Commission for support is drawn up. This list is then formally approved by the 
Ministers of Education in the eligible countries concerned. 
Results so far 
Joint European Projects 
In 1992 the TEMPUS Scheme received 1979 applications for support for Joint European Projects 
of which a total of 234 were supported. In addition 127 'renewal' projects already approved in 1990 
and now going into their third TEMPUS year of activities, and 274 'renewal' projects already 
approved in 1991, and now going into their second TEMPUS year of activities. 
The Joint European Projects approved in 1992 involved cooperation activities and mobility 
between organisations in the European Community and partners in Albania, Bulgaria, 
Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. 
Individual Mobility Grants 
In the same 12-month period the European Community, through the TEMPUS Programme, 
awarded in addition individual mobility grants to 467 staff members travelling from the eligible 
countries to the Member States, and to 101 teachers from the Community wishing to teach in, or 
visit, one of the eligible countries. 
Complementary Measures and Youth Exchange 
A total of 24 Complementary Measures projects (in the first of two selection rounds), and 65 
Youth Exchange activities (in two selection rounds) were supported in the period covered in the 
present report. 
-28-
ANNEX 1 
Flowcharts 
-M\ -
ANNEX 1/3 
The flowchart below shows the three main stages of the TEMPUS Programme: 
Eliffbk Countries 
Education Ministers 
Enable countries 
PHARE Coordinators 
^SWIWHWHI*'?*'****'! 
•HHHHI 
PHARE Management ; 
Committee 
(Member States) 
TEMPUS Budget 
Elifffelc countries 
% education Ministers Task Force Human 
Resources, Education» 
Training and Youth 
E€ TEMPUS Office 
National TEMPUS 
Offices 
(Eligible Countries) 
EU#ble countries 
Authorities SELECTION TEMPOS Management 
Committee 
(Member States) 
Task Force 
Human Resources 
Project Management 
and Coordination 
-!>t> -
ANNEXE 1/5 
Flowchart showing the stages of the selection process for Joint European Projects: 
Receipt and acknowledgement 
of applications by the 
EC TEMPUS Office 
Mtial^u^ty-i^lidingof 
amplications by the Assessment of applications 
m terms of national need» 
and priorities by the 
National TEMPUS Offices 
Consultations between the 
Task Forte Human Resources and 
the National TEMPUS Offices 
Consultations between Task Force 
Human Resources and TEMPUS 
Experts from Member States and 
Central and Eastern Europe 
Selection meeting of Task Force 
Human Resources, 
représentatives of eligible countries 
Ministries of Education and 
National PHARE Coordinators 
Final approval of proposed projects 
by Commission and National 
Ministers of Education 
Notification of results 
to applicants 
Despatch of contracts to 
successful applicants 
Despatch of financial assistance 
to contractors 
(upon receipt of signed contracts) 
_^\-
ANNEX 2 
Statistical Tables 
~^>3 -
ANNEX 2/3 
Table 1: JEP distribution by coordinating country and country involvement 
All applications 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
GR 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
AL 
BG 
CS 
EST 
H 
LAT 
LIT 
PL 
RO 
SLO 
A 
AUS 
CDN 
CH 
IS 
J 
N 
NZ 
S 
SF 
TR 
USA 
Non 
eligible 
Total 
projects Coordinating country 
88 
196 
51 
37 
211 
93 
131 
23 
1 
120 
8 
364 
0 
41 
147 
7 
127 
16 
7 
82 
91 
35 
8 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
2 
0 
12 
12 
0 
0 
67 
1979 4.4 
9.9 
2.6 
1.9 
10.7 
4.7 
6.6 
1.2 
0.1 
6.1 
0.4 
18.4 
0.0 
2.1 
7.4 
0.4 
6.4 
0.8 
0.4 
4.1 
4.6 
1.8 
0.4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0.0 
0.6 
0.6 
0.0 
0.0 
2.0 
100.0 Country involvement 
417 
834 
212 
348 
684 
300 
531 
178 
6 
511 
190 
1039 
49 
258 
584 
101 
523 
79 
101 
571 
316 
91 
77 
3 
21 
41 
1 
5 
23 
0 
67 
56 
4 
52 21.1 
42.1 
10.7 
17.6 
34.6 
15.2 
26.8 
9.0 
0.3 
25.8 
9.6 
52.5 
2.5 
13.0 
29.5 
5.1 
26.4 
4.0 
5.1 
28.9 
16.0 
4.6 
3.9 
0.2 
1.1 
2.1 
0.1 
0.3 
1.2 
0.0 
3.4 
2.8 
0.2 
2.6 Supported applications 
Coordinating country 
14 
17 
12 
5 
28 
6 
13 
2 
0 
22 
2 
36 
0 
6 
10 
0 
9 
1 
0 
25 
10 
12 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 
0 
0 
234 6.0 
7.3 
5.1 
2.1 
12.0 
2.6 
5.6 
0.9 
0.0 
9.4 
0.9 
15.4 
0.0 
2.6 
4.3 
0.0 
3.7 
0.4 
0.0 
10.7 
4.3 
5.1 
0.4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.8 
0.4 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 Country involvement 
61 
97 
29 
50 
83 
31 
62 
25 
1 
70 
25 
122 
8 
34 
31 
8 
24 
11 
11 
100 
31 
20 
6 
0 
3 
2 
0 
0 
4 
0 
9 
7 
1 
4 26.1 
41.5 
12.4 
21.4 
35.5 
13.2 
26.5 
10.7 
0.4 
29.9 
10.7 
52.1 
3.4 
14.5 
13.2 
3.4 
10.3 
4.7 
4.7 
42.7 
13.2 
8.5 
2.6 
0.0 
1.3 
0.9 
0.0 
0.0 
1.7 
0.0 
3.8 
3.0 
0.4 
1.7 
0.0 
S 
ANNEX 2/4 
Table 2: JEP distribution by subject area 
Subject area 
10: management/business 
administration 
20: medical science 
30: appl. sci., engineering, 
technologies 
40: modem European languages 
50: agriculture/agrobusiness 
60: environmental protection 
70: social/economic sciences (priority) 
80: priority areas (general) 
91: architecture, urban/regional 
planning 
92: art/design 
93: education/teacher-training 
94: humanities/philological sciences 
95: law 
97: natural sciences, mathematics 
98: social sciences (non-priority) 
1 99: non-priority areas (general) 
Totals All applications 
Number 
283 
176 
552 
84 
106 
146 
65 
43 
39 
35 
114 
49 
28 
192 
50 
17 
1979 % 
14.3 
8.9 
27.9 
4.2 
5.4 
7.4 
3.3 
2.2 
2.0 
1.8 
5.8 
2.5 
1.4 
9.7 
2.5 
0.9 
100.0 Supported projects 
Number 
40 
21 
55 
9 
14 
24 
15 
7 
6 
4 
12 
4 
3 
14 
5 
1 
234 % 
17.1 
9.0 
23.5 
3.8 
6.0 
10.3 
6.4 
3.0 
2.6 
1.7 
5.1 
1.7 
1.3 
6.0 
2.1 
0.4 
100.0 
•fctl-
ANNEX 2/5 
Table 3a: East-West Individual Mobility under Action 2 
To/from 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
GR 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
To*. BG 
7 
10 
3 
2 
3 
0 
2 
2 
0 
5 
0 
26 
60 cs 
8 
22 
2 
1 
11 
0 
7 
4 
0 
10 
0 
45 
110 H 
5 
6 
1 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
0 
12 
30 PL 
12 
36 
1 
1 
19 
1 
7 
0 
0 
21 
1 
35 
134 RO 
13 
12 
2 
2 
37 
2 
6 
2 
1 
5 
1 
28 
111 SLO 
1 
8 
0 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
9 
22 Total 
46 
94 
9 
9 
74 
3 
22 
8 
1 
44 
2 
155 
467 
Table 3b: West-East Individual Mobility under Action 2 
From/to 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
GR 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
Total BG 
2 
1 
0 
0 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
10 cs 
2 
1 
1 
3 
7 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
5 
23 H 
1 
2 
0 
4 
5 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
7 
25 PL 
4 
0 
1 
4 
6 
4 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
27 RO 
0 
2 
2 
1 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
4 
16 SLO 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 Total 
9 
6 
4 
12 
28 
12 
4 
2 
0 
1 
0 
23 
101 
w -
ANNEX 2/6 
Table 4a: Number of participants per country and per activity in Youth 
Exchange activities in second selection round 1991 
1 Country 
B 
BG 
CS 
D 
DK 
F 
GR 
H 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
PL 
RO 
UK 
Former YU 
Total Short preparatory 
visit 
10 
12 
29 
2 
13 
21 
7 
1 
20 
17 
12 
1 
0 
1 
1 
20 
1 
3 
171 Reciprocal 
exchange 
75 
35 
142 
83 
58 
3 
75 
15 
34 
3 
28 
0 
15 
0 
128 
132 
46 
0 
872 Training 
course 
9 
4 
32 
4 
4 
4 
0 
0 
13 
0 
0 
0 
10 
0 
17 
0 
16 
0 
113 " " " | 
Total 
94 1 
51 
203 
89 
75 
28 
82 
16 
67 
20 
40 
1 
25 
1 
146 
152 
63 
3 
1156 | 
Table 4b: Number of participants per country and per activity in Youth 
Exchange activities in first selection round 1992 
Country 
B 
BG 
CS 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
GR 
H 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
PL 
RO 
SLO 
UK 
Total Short preparatory 
visit 
0 
5 
9 
4 
2 
0 
21 
0 
19 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
27 
4 
0 
19 
110 Reciprocal 
exchange 
71 
14 
60 
40 
35 
3 
60 
6 
21 
16 
3 
0 
26 
0 
131 
98 
9 
44 
637 Training 
course 
12 
30 
19 
11 
6 
3 
3 
3 
33 
3 
3 
2 
3 
9 
15 
0 
60 
9 
224 Total 
83 
49 
88 
55 
43 
6 
84 
9 
73 
19 
6 
2 
29 
9 
173 
102 
69 
72 
971 
- ~*>G -
ANNEX 3 
List of Publications 
-M--
ANNEX 3/3 
TEMPUS Publications issued during the period under report: 
TEMPUS Vademecum (in 9 languages) 
TEMPUS Youth Exchange Activities - Guidelines (in 9 languages) 
TEMPUS Leaflet (3 editions, in 9 languages) 
Annual Report - 7 May 1990 / 31 July 1991 (in 9 languages) 
Directory of Higher Education Institutions in Central and Eastern Europe (in English) 
List of accepted Joint European Projects (in English) 
TEMPUS Compendium (in English) 1 
Future editions will carry the Introduction and Instructions for use in English, French and German. 
- *>?> 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 30 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 16 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-033-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-52446-4 
m 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg