[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 29.07.2005

SEC(2005) 1032 final

RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

to authorise the Commission to negotiate with the United States of America an agreement renewing the co-operation programme in the field of higher education and vocational training

1. EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

The present proposal is set against the dual background of the European Union higher education agenda and EU/US relations which call, respectively, for higher education to become a world reference for relevance and excellence and for broader education cooperation.

Education has become an essential component of the Lisbon strategy which calls for European Union education to become a world reference by 2010. Such an objective can only be achieved by keeping European education tuned to world developments and in particular by collaborating and testing approaches and standards against those in the world most developed countries like the United States of America (hereafter ‘the US’).

The relations with the US are of strategic importance for the EU and their scope is constantly widening. Leaders at the Dromoland EU-US Summit of 2004 agreed to look for cooperative means and best practices to enhance economic growth, job creation and innovation. On 18 May 2005 the Commission adopted a communication on a stronger EU-US partnership[1] which, in line with the Lisbon strategy, identified cooperation in education and training as an important tool for stimulating knowledge and innovation dynamic and called for the renewal and reinforcement of the current agreement on Higher Education and Vocational Training. On 20 June 2005 Leaders at the Washington EU-US Summit agreed on an initiative to enhance transatlantic economic integration and growth which identified education cooperation as one of the tools “to increase synergies across the Atlantic as we become more knowledge-based economies.” and committed to work to “renew and reinforce the U.S.-EU agreement on Higher Education and Vocational Training, which includes the Fulbright/European Union program, to boost education cooperation and transatlantic exchanges between our citizens”.

The current agreement was concluded in 2000 and renewed the EC/US programme for another five years ending in 2005. An external evaluation was undertaken from October 2004 to March 2005. The independent evaluation concluded that the programme is a powerful tool for establishing long lasting partnerships and synergies in higher education and vocational training over the Atlantic and that this has contributed to improving mutual understanding and the quality of human resource development. On 27 June 2005 the Commission adopted a communication on the results of this evaluation.[2]

The present recommendation concerns the authorisation for the conclusion of a new agreement renewing the EC/US cooperation programme for the period 2006-2013.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL

General objective

The general objectives of the EU/US programme are:

- to enhance mutual understanding among the peoples of the European Union and the US,

- to better prepare citizens for the knowledge society.

The EU/US programme will therefore seek to mutually enhance the quality of higher education and vocational training.

Specific Objectives

The specific objectives are as follows:

1. to enhance collaboration between the European Union and the US in the domains of higher education and vocational training;

2. to contribute to the development of higher education and vocational training institutions;

3. to contribute to individual participants’ personal development for their personal sake and as a way to achieve the general objective of the programme.

4. to contribute to transatlantic exchanges between our citizens.

Operational objectives

The operational objectives are as follows:

5. To support collaboration between higher education and vocational training institutions with a view to promoting joint study programmes and mobility;

6. To support collaboration between public and private organisations active in the field of higher education and vocational training with a view to encouraging discussion and exchange of experience on policy issues;

7. To support transatlantic mobility of professionals with a view to improving mutual understanding of issues relevant to EU/US relations;

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER POLICIES

The EU/US programme in higher education and vocational training would be fully consistent with and complementary to those of other EU instruments in these areas giving the possibility of pursuing objectives of quality education through collaboration between the EU and the US. In addition, the programme would bring in transatlantic people-to-people cooperation which is absent in other EU education and vocational training programmes.

The programme would also complement the activities of EU Centres in that it offers additional possibilities for exchanges and encourages structural cooperation between institutions and organisations on both sides of the Atlantic.

CONSULTATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS

- 2001 Study on modalities for cooperation in vocational education and vocational training

The study contracted by the Commission confirmed the value of EC/US cooperation in vocational training. Vocational training institutions are not necessarily well prepared for transatlantic cooperation yet there is great potential for mutual enrichment though this type of collaboration which offers new opportunities for transatlantic mobility to students, trainees and staff who otherwise would not have access to them. The study noted that for a vocational training strand to coexist with higher education, a significant budget increase was necessary.

- Interim external evaluation

An external evaluation was concluded in early 2005. The evaluation confirmed the effectiveness and relevance of the programme and that the programme is beneficial for the institutions, faculties and students involved. The programme is, however, considered too small to have had an impact on the mutual understanding between the people of the European Union and the US. While projects are largely sustainable, not all the activities are continued in the same way. The evaluators suggest in particular introducing a system of additional mobility grants for successful projects.

- The 2004 Washington seminar on the future of EU/US cooperation.

A round table discussion with prominent US and EU experts and government representatives was organised in conjunction with US Department of Education (FISPE) in Washington on 27 November 2004. The experts concluded that the EU-US programme was extremely valuable for the institutions, faculty and students involved and it was of strategic importance for EU-US people-to-people relations. They stressed that the programme allowed transatlantic multilateral partnerships to be developed with a positive impact on the faculty and participating exchange students. The latter, in particular, could dramatically increase their cross-cultural knowledge, increase their adaptability, improve their academic performance and enhance their chances of finding quality jobs in the international market place. It was also highlighted that more should be done to ensure that the programme has a wider and longer-term impact. This called for a larger scale programme and for measures helping the sustainability of individual projects. Finally it was suggested that the programme should be coupled with measures and policy dialogue on systems issues.

OPTIONS EXAMINED

Approaches and instruments : Policy dialogue and co-ordination

Policy dialogue between the European Union and the US can certainly contribute to a better understanding of education and training strategies, generate exchanges of best practices and ultimately lead to measures that have a direct impact on citizens.

However, policy dialogue alone may not induce bottom-up, people-to-people innovative collaboration, or the enhancement of high quality mobility of young people and better access for young people and organisations to transatlantic exchange experience. A programme of specific actions is needed to encourage and support such activity.

Possible alternative designs for an expenditure programme

Integration into existing or proposed frameworks

The existing education and training programmes like “ Socrates” or “ Leonardo da Vinci” are designed for and target exclusively the public of the Member States. The decision making process, typology of actions and implementation mechanisms are not well suited for EU/US bilateral cooperation in the fields of higher education and vocational training. The same applies to the future Lifelong learning programme.

“Erasmus Mundus” seeks to enhance the quality of higher education in the European Union and promote it world-wide through a scholarship scheme for third country students and scholars. Erasmus Mundus is a higher education programme which aims primarily at attracting non EU students at Masters’ level. As such it has not been designed for bilateral exchanges, international curriculum development and institutional cooperation. It does not concern vocational training and it focuses on graduate level while the proposed cooperation programme with the US focuses primarily on the activities at undergraduate level.

Other external programmes are also unsuitable to achieve the objectives of the EU/US bilateral cooperation.

Renewing the Agreement and continuing the programme in its present form

The proposed agreement and the programme it would set up does not represent a radical departure from the present structure of cooperation and it is in line with the Commission communication of 18 May 2005[3] which called for reinforcing the current cooperation and with the joint commitment made at the EU-US Summit in June 2005 to work to renew and reinforce the agreement to boost education co-operation and transatlantic exchanges between citizens of the EU and the US.

The programme would take into account the lessons drawn from past experience and from the independent, interim evaluation by differentiating between higher education and vocational training, building on excellence and enhancing exchanges of students and trainees and staff.

The evaluation found that the small budget of the present programme has limited the programme’s potential impact on higher education and prevented the development of significant cooperation in the field of vocational training. The programme to be created by the proposed agreement entails a budget increase (from 2 M€ to an average of 8 M€ per annum) to take into account the size of the EU and US higher education and vocational training systems and the potential for cooperation.

Assessment of positive and negative impacts of the options considered

In achieving its objectives, the programme would have a positive short term and long term impact on young people as well as on institutions and organisations dealing with higher education and vocational training issues. Transatlantic mobility would give participants valuable experience that will help them better integrate into today’s society and knowledge economy.

Collaboration between institutions would help them to improve their curricula and teaching methods by learning from each other best practices and by jointly developing new approaches.

In the long term, collaboration would help to maintain the very good level of people-to-people understanding that exists between the European Union and the US.

There are no conflicts between impacts at social, economic or environmental level.

Reasons for choosing the present option

There is a widespread consensus that higher education should remain a central component of the programme. At the same time, the programme would also give access to transatlantic cooperation for vocational education and training organisations that would not otherwise engage in such co-operation.

In the framework of lifelong education, and to reinforce the people-to-people dimension of the EU/US relations, the programme would be also open to young professionals, mainly outside the academic and public administration world, who want to undertake studies or training, in areas of specific relevance to the EU/US relationship, which will be identified in consultation with the US authorities.

The impact of the programme would be enhanced with the introduction of policy-oriented projects in areas of common interest for the European Union and the US. That is to say, projects with a systemic impact that can have an impact beyond the institutions/organisations/individuals directly involved in their implementation. These projects would be aimed at increasing knowledge about, and exchanging best practices on issues such as quality and compatibility of education and training systems, access to lifelong learning for all, and opening up education and training systems to the world.

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

Legal Basis

The proposal is based on articles 149, 150 and 300 of the Treaty.

Subsidiarity and proportionality

The programme would complement bilateral cooperation schemes between Member States and the US by proposing to continue a multilateral framework for cooperation. It would fully respect Member States’ competence leaving the initiative to particular institutions and organisations. The proposed renewal of the programme does not contemplate any regulatory approach, which would conflict with Member States’ exclusive competence in this area. Proportionality is ensured.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION

The programme would pursue its objectives through the following actions:

H igher education and vocational training programme actions:

Consortia projects

The target public of this action would be higher education and vocational training institutions and organisations, their staff, students and trainees. The action will respond to two specific objectives: contributing to the development of higher education and vocational training institutions and organisations, and increasing the mobility of staff, students and trainees.

This type of projects would largely consist of the continuation of the type of joint projects currently funded.

Consortia projects would focus on the priority fields identified as key to EU/US cooperation in consultation with US authorities.

Excellence (follow-up) mobility projects

Under this action, consortia projects that proved to be of outstanding quality could receive further financial support at the end of the initial 3 or 4-year period exclusively to fund additional opportunities for student mobility. This measure would enhance the profile of the programme, placing the emphasis on excellence. This would increase motivation of funded projects to deliver and contribute to sustainability of good quality mobility projects.

Policy-oriented measures

The target public of this action is organisations dealing with higher education and vocational training. This action would pursue the specific objective of enhancing collaboration between the EU and the US as regards the development of higher education and vocational training, focusing on priority themes. In the longer term, this action would have an impact on policy and system development.

Activities under this category could include studies, conferences, seminars, working groups, benchmarking exercises.

“Schuman-Fulbright” Individual Mobility grants

The target group of this action would be individual young professionals, mainly from outside the academia and public administration (decision makers, social partner representatives, journalists, etc.) who want to undertake studies or training, in areas of specific relevance to the EU/US relationship, which would be identified in consultation with US authorities.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION

The proposed programme would cost a maximum of 58,1 M€ over an eight year period (2006-2013), provided that matching funds are made available by the US.

The Commission will seek to introduce in the body of the agreement a mid-term revision clause allowing a reorientation of activities and the reassessment of the budget allocated to the programme within the limits of the financial perspective.

The rationale for a budget increase

As indicated under 5.2, the small budget of the present programme has limited its potential impact on higher education and prevented the development of significant cooperation in the field of vocational training.

Costing - Reference amounts for calculation purposes

Higher Education and Vocational Training measures

Consortia: 185.000 € resulting from 165.000 for mobility grants (1000 € per month + 1000 for travel per student for average study periods of 4 months for a total of 33 students) and 20.000€ in lump sumps for consortia partners. Where projects do not involve mobility the average grant would be 120.000 €.

Excellence: 120.000 € for additional mobility opportunities (1000 € per month + 1000 for travel per student for average study periods of 4 months for a total of 24 students). Support for the Alumni association could be estimated at 15.000 € per year.

Other measures

Policy-Oriented Measures: 100.000 €

“Schuman-Fulbright” Individual mobility: 32.000 (5.000 € per month + 2.000 for travel per grantee for average grant duration of 6 months)

Target outputs

The programme will support some 519 projects over an eight year period (see details under point 8 of the Financial Statement). Some 17.000 EU and US people will participate in mobility activities over the duration of the programme.

2. RECOMMENDATION

The Commission therefore recommends to the Council that:

- the Commission be authorised to negotiate, on behalf of the European Community, an agreement renewing the co-operation programme in higher education and vocational training with the United States of America to cover the period 2006-2013;

- the Commission, in accordance with Article 300 (1) of the Treaty, conduct the negotiations in consultation with the special Committee appointed by the Council and within the framework of the attached Negotiating Directives.

ANNEX 1

Negotiating Directives

1) The objective of the negotiation is to conclude an agreement between the European Community and the United States of America in the fields of higher education and vocational training. The agreement will set-up a cooperation programme in these fields;

2) The programme would be jointly managed by the Commission and by the competent US authorities; they would jointly determine the implementation, monitoring and evaluation modalities;

3) There would be four main actions: Consortia projects, Excellence mobility projects, Policy oriented Measures and “Schuman-Fulbright” Individual Mobility Grants;

4) Consortia projects would normally involve a minimum of three higher education or training institutions from the European Union and three such from the US and would focus mainly on curriculum development and student exchanges. Projects would focus on priority fields which are key to EU/US cooperation, to be identified in consultation with US authorities;

5) Excellence mobility projects would be consortia projects that proved to be of outstanding quality and would receive additional financial support to be exclusively allocated to student mobility;

6) Policy-oriented measures would include studies, conferences, seminars, working groups, benchmarking exercises and address horizontal higher education and vocational training issues;

7) “Schuman-Fulbright” Individual Mobility Grants would target professionals mainly from outside the academia and public administration such as decision makers, social partner representatives, journalists etc. who want to undertake studies or training, in areas of specific relevance to the EU/US relationship to be identified in consultation with US authorities;

8) The actions would be implemented via calls for proposals;

9) Equivalent co-funding would be provided by the parties for the projects selected;

10) Each party would contribute to the programme with an overall budget of some 58 M€;

11) A joint committee would be established in order to review the cooperative activities implemented under the agreement.

12) The agreement would include a revision clause allowing a reorientation of activities and the reassessment of the budget allocated to the programme within the limits of the financial perspective.

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL:

Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising the Commission to negotiate with the United States of America (hereafter ‘the US’) an agreement renewing the co-operation programme in the field of higher education and vocational training.

2. ABM / ABB FRAMEWORK

Policy area: EDUCATION AND CULTURE

Objective: "Mutually improve the quality of education through cooperation with third countries".

Activity: EDUCATION

3. BUDGET LINES

3.1. Budget lines (operational lines and related technical and administrative assistance lines (ex- B.A lines) including headings :

15.02.03 Co-operation with non-member countries on education and vocational training

15.01.04.21 Co-operation with non-member countries on education and vocational training – Expenditure on administrative management

3.2. Duration of the action and of the financial impact: 2006-2013

The final duration of the action will be determined in the course of the negotiation and will be subject to a mid-term review clause.

3.3. Budgetary characteristics ( add rows if necessary ) :

Budget line | Type of expenditure | New | EFTA contribution | Contributions from applicant countries | Heading in financial perspective |

15.02.03 | Non-comp | Diff | NO | NO | NO | No 4 |

15.01.04.21 | Non-comp | Diff | NO | NO | NO | No 4 |

4. SUMMARY OF RESOURCES

4.1. Financial Resources

4.1.1. Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA)

UR million (to 3 decimal places)

Annual requirements | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011-2013 on an annual basis and later |

Total number of human resources | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,5 |

5. CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES

5.1. Need to be met in the short or long term

The bilateral cooperation agreement in the field of higher education and vocational training will seek to enhance mutual understanding among the peoples of the EU and The US, to better prepare citizens for the knowledge society and to mutually enhance the quality of higher education, training and non-formal education for young people in the EU and in The US.

The bilateral cooperation agreement responds to a political desire by the parties at the highest level.

5.2. Value-added of Community involvement and coherence of the proposal with other financial instruments and possible synergy

The relations with the US are of strategic importance for the EU and their scope is constantly widening. Leaders at the Dromoland EU-US Summit of 2004 agreed to look for cooperative means and best practices to enhance economic growth, job creation and innovation. On 18 May 2005 the Commission adopted a communication on a stronger EU-US partnership which, in line with the Lisbon objective, identified cooperation in education and training as an important tool for stimulating knowledge and innovation dynamic and called for renewing and reinforcing the current agreement on Higher Education and Vocational Training.

The EU-US programme would provide added value at a number of levels: building institutional Transatlantic bridges, provide individuals, academic and administrative staff and students with their own transatlantic networks, develop specific subjects and disciplines. Also the renewal of EU-US cooperation programme in higher education and vocational training would preserve and develop the multilateral approach involving in each action institutions and people from different Member States. This multilateral approach has so far proved to be effective to purse the objective of the programme in terms of increasing mutual understanding and improving the quality of education and training in the EU in The US. It has also proved to bear certain economies of scope, scale and quality enhancement with respect to bilateral programmes.

The objectives of the EU/US programme in higher education and vocational training would be fully consistent with those of other EU instruments in these areas. The agreement would set up a framework that would complement other programmes giving the possibility of pursuing objectives of quality education though collaboration between the EU and The US. In addition, the programme would bring in a transatlantic people-to-people cooperation which is absent in other EU education and training programmes.

In particular, the bilateral cooperation programme will complement the Erasmus Mundus programme in that it will focus on undergraduate mobility and include transatlantic exchanges in the field of vocational training.

The programme would also complement the activities of EU Centres supported by the European Union in that it offers additional possibilities for exchanges and encourages structural cooperation between institutions and organisations from both sides of the Atlantic.

5.3. Objectives, expected results and related indicators of the proposal in the context of the ABM framework

Objective | Non exhaustive list of indicators |

General objectives |

To enhance mutual understanding among the peoples of the European Union and the US; To better prepare citizens for the knowledge society; To mutually enhance the quality of education. | Quantitative data on perception among programme users and stakeholders obtained through surveys carried out during interim and ex-post evaluation |

Specific objectives |

to enhance collaboration between the European Union and the US in the domains of higher education and training; to contribute to the development of higher education and training institutions; to contribute to individual participants’ personal development for their personal sake and as a way to achieve the general objective of the programme. | Quantitative data on perception of officials and administrators obtained through direct interviews; Quantitative data on perception of individuals responsible for institutions and organisations involved in the programme obtained through surveys; Quantitative data on participants’ perceptions obtained through surveys. |

Results can be defined as an advantage or disadvantage which direct addressees obtain at the end of their participation in a public intervention. They should therefore be identified in relation with the operational objectives of the intervention.

Operational objectives | Results obtained by participants |

To support collaboration between higher education and vocational training institutions with a view to promoting joint study programmes and mobility; | Institutions: improved curricula and teaching methodologies; greater transparency and understanding of respective credit system; improved preparedness for transatlantic cooperation; Students: enriching transatlantic experience; better education and cultural understanding. |

To support collaboration between public and private organisations active in the field of higher education and vocational training with a view to encouraging discussion and exchange of experience on policy issues; | Organisations, institutions: better understating of policy issues; |

To support transatlantic mobility of professionals with a view to improving mutual understanding of issues relevant to EU/US relations. | Individuals: better understanding of key issues in EU/US relations. |

5.4. Method of Implementation (indicative)

Show below the method(s)[8] chosen for the implementation of the action.

X Centralised Management

X Directly by the Commission

X Indirectly by delegation to:

X Executive Agency

ٱ Bodies set up by the Communities as referred to in art. 185 of the Financial Regulation

ٱ National public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service mission

ٱ Shared or decentralised management

ٱ With Member states

ٱ With Third countries

ٱ Joint management with international organisations (please specify)

The proposed programme is based on the principle of joint funding from the European Union and from the US. Call for proposals are administered by the European Commission on the basis of joint guidelines agreed beforehand with US authorities.

The legal basis will include the possibility of having recourse to an Executive Agency. If the proposed financial envelope of the EU/US programme is maintained the recourse to an Executive Agency will be justified. The recourse to an Executive agency will also be justified in the case the financial envelope of the EU/US programme is reduced but a very similar agreement be concluded with Canada increasing economies of scale and providing a rationale for implementation of some actions through an Executive Agency.

6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

6.1. Monitoring system

Monitoring of the joint EU/US projects will be implemented through a combination of desk monitoring (based on regular reporting from grant holders), and on site monitoring carried out by the Commission and by the appropriate structure designated by the US.

6.2. Evaluation

6.2.1. Ex-ante evaluation

The ex-ante evaluation is based on experience acquired implementing the current phase of the programme, direct feedback from programme users, a study on the vocational training strand within the programme, expert consultations and an interim evaluation of the current phase of the programme.

The explanatory memorandum covers the main aspects of ex-ante evaluation and impact assessment.

The main findings of the ex-ante evaluation as regards higher education and vocational training are the following:

- the programme is beneficial for the institutions, faculties and students involved. In particular the programme is effective in improving students and staff cross-cultural understanding.

- the programme also contributed to curriculum development and especially to consolidating transatlantic networks of universities and vocational training institutions.

- the programme is, however, considered too small to have had an impact on the mutual understanding between the people of the European Union and the US.

- sustainability of mobility projects was put into question due to lack of follow-up funding.

- for a vocational training strand to coexist with higher education, a significant budget increase is necessary;

- a specific approach was necessary for vocational education and training adapting certain implementation criteria to the specific reality of this field;

- the interim evaluation suggest some operational changes: a) increase the duration of consortia projects; b) put emphasis on identification and exchange of best practices; c) introduce a system of additional mobility grants for successful projects.

6.2.2. Measures taken following an intermediate/ex-post evaluation (lessons learned from similar experiences in the past)

The proposed programme will be designed taking into account the conclusions from the ex-ante evaluation, namely, it would

- maintain the well tested and proven components of the programme;

- develop a specific approach for vocational training;

- build on projects of proven excellence;

- reinforce mobility;

- increase the financial envelope of the programme.

6.2.3. Terms and frequency of future evaluation

In principle, an interim evaluation will be undertaken after the first three years of implementation and an ex-post final evaluation will be launched at the end of the intervention.

7. ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES

Funding decisions and contracts between the Commission and the beneficiaries provide for in situ checks to be carried out on the premises of beneficiaries of a European Community grant by the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and bestow the power to require evidence of any expenditure made under such contracts, agreements and legal undertakings within five years following the end of the contractual period.

Beneficiaries are subject to reporting and financial accounting obligations, and these are analysed from the point of view of content and eligibility of expenditure, bearing in mind the purpose of the European Community funding, and taking account of contractual obligations and of the principles of economy and sound financial management.

Appended to the financial agreements is information of an administrative and financial nature, designed to specify the kind of expenditure which is eligible under such agreements. Where appropriate, European Community coverage of certain cost elements will be limited to items which are real, identifiable and verifiable in the beneficiary's book-keeping arrangements, so as to facilitate checking and auditing (and evaluation for selection purposes) of projects in receipt of funding.

8. DETAILS OF RESOURCES

8.1. Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

8.2.2. escription of tasks deriving from the action

A*/AD: Policy development, programme manager, relations with partner countries:

B*/AST Financial assistant

C*/AST Secretarial and financial support

8.2.3. Sources of human resources (statutory)

(When more than one source is stated, please indicate the number of posts originating from each of the sources)

2,5 Posts currently allocated to the management of the programme to be replaced or extended.

( Posts pre-allocated within the APS/PDB exercise for year n

1 Posts to be requested in the next APS/PDB procedure

( Posts to be redeployed using existing resources within the managing service (internal redeployment)

( Posts required for year n although not foreseen in the APS/PDB exercise of the year in question

8.2.4. Other Administrative expenditure included in reference amount (XX 01 04/05 – Expenditure on administrative management)

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Officials and temporary staff (XX 01 01) | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 1,134 |

Staff financed by Art XX 01 02 (auxiliary, END, contract staff, etc.) (specify budget line) |

Total cost of Human Resources and associated costs (NOT in reference amount) | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 1,134 |

Calculation– Officials and Temporary agents:

3,5 staff x 8 years x108.000 EUR = EUR 3.024.000

This calculation is based on the assumption that the Executive Agency Education, Audiovisual and Culture will be involved in the implementation of the programme. If this is not the case, 2 additional Commission staff would be required.

Calculation– Staff financed under art. XX 01 02

N.A.

8.2.6. Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011- 2013 | TOTAL |

XX 01 02 11 01 – Missions | 0,010 | 0,010 | 0,010 | 0,010 | 0,010 | 0,030 | 0,080 |

XX 01 02 11 02 – Meetings & Conferences |

XX 01 02 11 03 – Committees[13] Joint EU/US committee set up by the agreement | 0,018 | 0,018 | 0,035 | 0,070 |

XX 01 02 11 04 – Studies & consultations |

XX 01 02 11 05 - Information systems |

2 Total Other Management Expenditure (XX 01 02 11) |

3 Other expenditure of an administrative nature (specify including reference to budget line) |

Total Administrative expenditure, other than human resources and associated costs (NOT included in reference amount) | 0,010 | 0,028 | 0,010 | 0,028 | 0,010 | 0,065 | 0,150 |

Calculation - Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount

Missions: 2 x 3000 (to the US) + 6 x 700 (to Member States) = EUR 10.200

Joint Committee meeting with Member States every other year: 25 x 700 x 4 = EUR 70.000

[1] COM(2005) 196

[2] COM(2005) 274

[3] COM(2005) 196

[4] Expenditure that does not fall under Chapter xx 01 of the Title xx concerned.

[5] Expenditure within article xx 01 04 of Title xx.

[6] Expenditure within chapter xx 01 other than articles xx 01 04 or xx 01 05.

[7] See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional agreement.

[8] If more than one method is indicated please provide additional details in the "Relevant comments" section of this point

[9] Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount

[10] Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount

[11] Cost of which is included within the reference amount

[12] The possibility of having recourse to the existing Executive Agency Education, Audiovisual and Culture will be examined in the context of the evaluation of the Agency. The evaluation will be carried out in 2006 in view of the implementation of the new education programmes 2007-2013.

[13] Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.