M 
\-iirt- • 
Ik--"'. 
Mi COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMVIUNITIES 
C0M(94) 142 final 
Brussels, 20.04.1994 
ANNUAL REPORT 
1 AUGUST 1992 - 31 JULY 1993 
Te mp u s(^PHARE 
Trans-European cooperation scheme for 
higher education between Central and Eastern Europe 
and the European Community 
S' ' - • 
"«1 
AT*»' 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
FOREWORD 7 
1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1989-1992 9 
1.1. The origins of the TEMPUS Scheme 9 
1.2. Development of TEMPUS 1990-1992 10 
2. EDUCATION AND SOCIETY: REVIEW OF THE ISSUES IN CENTRAL AND 
EASTERN EUROPE AS REVEALED BY THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF THE 
TEMPUS SCHEME 12 
2.1. Factors favouring reform of the higher education systems in the eligible 
countries 12 
2.2. Structural obstacles to reform the legacy 13 
2.3. Practical obstacles to reform 14 
2.3.1. Resource constraints 14 
2.3.2. Administrative and legal constraints 14 
2.4. TEMPUS as a collaborative response to the problems of higher education in 
the eligible countries 14 
3. RECORD OF DEVELOPMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT IN THE ACADEMIC 
YEAR 1992/93 15 
3.1. The TEMPUS budget for 1993/94: the co-decision-making process 15 
3.2. JEP grant activities: results of the 1993 selection round 18 
3.2.1. Analysis by subject-area 21 
3.2.2. Analysis by eligible country, Member State, and G-24 participant 
country 21 
3.2.3. Special action structural JEP: the establishment of a Eurofaculty in 
Riga 22 
* -J -? 5 
3.3. Individual Mobility and Complementary Measures, results of the 1993 
selection round 23 
3.3.1. Complementary Measures: Grants to Associations, for publications, 
studies and surveys 23 
3.3.2. Joint European Networks (JENs) 23 
3.3.3. Youth Activities 24 
3.3.4. Individual Mobility Grants 24 
3.4. Liaison activities 26 
3.5. Information activities 26 
3.6. Monitoring 27 
4. OUTCOMES: MEASURING THE IMPACT OF TEMPUS 27 
4.1. Joint European Projects 28 
4.1.1. Departmental/faculty level 28 
4.1.2. Institutional level 29 
4.1.3. Higher education system level ... 30 
4.1.4. Factors contributing to the impact of TEMPUS projects 31 
4.1.5. Individual Mobility.. .31 
5. PREPARATIONS FOR TEMPUS II 33 
5.1. TEMPUS Conference October 1992 33 
5.2. Council Decision of 29 April 1993 33 
5.3. TEMPUS TACIS: the pre-JEP strategy 34 
5.4. TEMPUS PHARE new modes of cooperation (JEP+, CME+ and JEN) 35 
5.4.1. JEP+Projects , 35 
5.4.2. CME+ Projects 35 
5.4.3. Joint European Networks (JENs) 36 
ANNEX 1 - TEMPUS PUBLICATIONS 
ANNEX 2 - STATISTICAL TABLES 
FOREWORD 
As part of the overall PHARE Programme of Community aid for the economic and social 
restructuring of the countries 0f Central and Eastern Europe the TEMPUS Scheme, 
designed to support the reform process through action in the field of higher education, has 
come to represent one of the Commission's most successful operations in human resource 
development with regard to these countries. On the basis of the successful operation of the 
Scheme so far, the Council of the European Communities decided in April 1993 to renew the 
programme for a further four years from 1994 (TEMPUS II) and extend it to include the 
Republics of the former Soviet Union, referred to hereafter as the Newly Independent 
States (MS). 
Now that this decision relating to TEMPUS II has been taken, and plans must be made for 
the period 1994-1998, it seems a particularly important moment to take stock of the 
experience acquired in order to improve the functioning and the impact of the Programme in 
the future. 
In this perspective the Annual Report on the implementation of the TEMPUS Scheme during 
the period 1 August 1992 - 31 July 1993 is intended to serve several purposes.1 
Introducing and contextualising the account of the year's work, the first two sections of the 
Report briefly describe the progress of TEMPUS since 1990, and review the obstacles to 
reform which educationalists and national authorities in the eligible countries have 
confronted, as well as the social and economic factors which can be harnessed to promote 
such reform. It is hoped in this way to give increased depth to the record and thus to 
facilitate analysis of both the progress made and the difficulties encountered in the period 
concerned 
Sections 3 and 4 of the Report are, respectively, descriptive and analytical and are intended 
to provide a broad general picture of the TEMPUS Scheme's structures and modus operandi, 
and of what was accomplished within them in the period under report. 
Sections sets out to describe in some detail the way in which the Scheme has operated 
during the period under report with reference to the budget, structures and procedures 
involved in its various activities, ana to the on-going monitoring of their progress. Relevant 
statistics are provided in annex. %•"' 5 
*: 
The Annual Report is complemented by ofeér TEMPUS publications which deal with specific aspects of TEMPUS activities, 
such as the forthcoming Report on th* Sitje jmk Programme for TEMPUS carried out in the academic year 1992/93, and the 
TEMPUS Compendium giving details o^^^ÉPs and Complementary Measures projects currently running, together with 
indices. i-'f"'"'&*•'•*. "' '''•'• 
•••• ••&) ;? '• 
7-
Section 4 provides a summary analysis of the progress made in the enactment of crucial 
structural and attitudinal changes within the higher education systems of the eligible 
countries, particularly those which have participated longest in the TEMPUS Scheme 
(Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics). 
A further measure of the European achievement represented by the success of TEMPUS is 
the fact that during the period under report, as mentioned above, the Council Decision on 
the second phase of TEMPUS, covering the period from 1994 to 1998 was adopted, 
involving in particular an extension of TEMPUS to include the Republics of the former 
Soviet Union. Within the framework of the TACIS Programme of Community assistance to 
economic reform and recovery in the independent states of the former Soviet Union, 
TEMPUS activities in this area will begin in academic year 1993/94 in relation to higher 
education in the Russian Federation, Belarus and the Ukraine. The progressive extension of 
the Scheme to other countries of the NIS is envisaged at a later stage. This development is 
dealt with in Section 5.3 of the Report. Finally, Section 6 sketches the broad outline of the 
expected future development of the programme. 
It is hoped that this approach will commend itself to users of the Report as an information 
source and as a decision-making tool. 
1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1989 -1992 
1.1. THE ORIGINS OF THE TEMPUS SCHEME 
The events of 1989 and 1990 in Central and Eastern Europe had a dramatic impact on the European 
Community. The Member States individually and collectively found themselves facing 
unprecedented political and economic challenges to the established philosophy and procedures in 
external relations. At the same time there was no doubting the urgency of making an appropriately 
rapid and effective response to these challenges, not only in terms of emergency assistance but also 
by providing concrete ways for the countries concerned to develop new perspectives and new goals 
linked to a meaningful concept of Europe. 
Aiming for an integrated global response, the Community quickly sought to provide a comprehensive 
framework for the provision of practical assistance and expertise to help the countries concerned 
restructure their economies and political systems so that they could maximise the benefits they might 
derive from the new situation. An overall programme of assistance was agreed by the Council of 
Ministers in December 1989. Known as PHARE2, it provided the framework for Community 
assistance in order to support the economic and social reform processes in the countries of Central 
and Eastern Europe. 
Higher education and training had already been identified by the eligible countries themselves as one 
of the priorities for cooperation, not because they believed that action to ameliorate higher education 
could have any immediate and dramatic impact upon their political and economic situation, but 
rather because it represented a highly salient joint investment in the future of the whole continent's 
intellectual resources. Thus from a very early stage a number of specialised programmes of assistance 
in the education field were embedded within PHARE, the largest being TEMPUS — the Trans-European 
Mobility Scheme for University Studies. 
It was in this perspective that the Council of Ministers asked the European Commission in 
December 1989 to present detailed proposals urgently, to be effected within the PHARE framework, 
for appropriate measures in the field of higher education and training to support the reform process 
in Central and Eastern Europe. In January 1990 the Commission submitted to the Council and the 
European Parliament its plans to create a new programme specifically designed to identify and meet 
the distinctive needs of the area concerned. 
Underlying the Decision to establish the TEMPUS Scheme as an operation separate from existing 
intra-Community higher education programmes (such as ERASMUS and COMETT) was the 
perception that it was essential, in managing the reform process, to intervene in the social dimension 
specific to the countries concerned, because it was perceived that profound changes in the outlook 
and attitudes of those engaged as teachers or students in higher education would be a critical factor 
in enhancing the availability of the human resources needed to forward the reform process itself. 
At that time PHARE stood for "Pologne, Hongrie: Assistance à la Restructuration Economique". The current full name is 
"PHARE-Community programme for assistance for economic restructuring in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe". 
9-
It was not solely a question of improving the professional and technical training of future managers, 
scientists and engineers, desirable as this would be, but it was also recognised that through the 
critical revision of the structures and philosophy of education a vital contribution could be made to 
overcoming the resistance to necessary change throughout society, shaping more relevant knowledge, 
techniques and skills, and above all replacing old ways of thinking and decision-making with new 
ones. 
1.2. DEVELOPMENT OF TEMPUS 1990 -1992 
TEMPUS was adopted by the Council on 7 May 1990, for an initial 'pilot phase' of three years 
beginning on 1 July 1990, within a perspective of five years. A later Council Decision extended the 
pilot phase for one year, until the end of June 1994.3 Responsibility for the implementation of the 
Scheme was assigned to the Task Force Human Resources. In accordance with Article 5 of the 
Council Decision establishing the TEMPUS Scheme, the Commission is assisted by a Committee 
composed of two representatives appointed by each Member State and chaired by a Commission 
representative. 
From the start the main vehicle for the inter-university cooperation envisaged under the TEMPUS 
Scheme was the Joint European Project (JEP), supported for a maximum period of three years and 
involving the participation of at least one university from an eligible country, and of partner 
organisations, of which one had to be a university, in at least two EC Member States. Strategically 
speaking, the approach in this initial period was to pursue the restructuring objectives of the 
TEMPUS Scheme by supporting initiatives 'from below' which addressed the fundamental issues of 
reform through curriculum development, organised mobility of staff (particularly for retraining and 
updating periods) and students, and purchase and support of essential learning and communications 
equipment 
Support for various activities intended to build up effective networks was also available; Individual 
Mobility Grants for staff for teaching assignments, practical placements, staff retraining and 
updating and visits, as well as Complementary Measures grants for the extension to the eligible 
countries of European associations in higher education and other activities. 
Provision was also made for limited support for Youth Activities and related activities intended to 
improve young people's awareness of the European dimension. 
Between May 1990 and July 1993 the Task Force Human Resources, with the support of the 
EC TEMPUS Office4, working in close cooperation with the national authorities of a continually 
increasing number of eligible countries, carried out four selections of projects targeted to meet the 
latter's specific priorities within the framework outlined above5. 
See Section 5 of this Report for subsequent development of the Scheme. 
The EC TEMPUS Office is an autonomous office of the European Cooperation Fund, which is contracted to assist the 
Commission of the European Communities in the implementation of the TEMPUS Scheme. 
The eligible countries benefiting from the Scheme increased from the initial two of May 1990 (Poland and Hungary) to a total 
of eleven by February 1992. In July 1993, these were Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Estonia, 
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. 
- 10 
The national authorities concerned established a National TEMPUS Office in each of the eligible 
countries involved full-time in carrying out its country's contribution to the implementation of the 
Scheme. By the end of this period the achievements can be summarised as follows: 
TEMPUS achievements 1990/91-1993/94 
Budget cumulative global allocation in MECU 320.81 (PHARE) 
average annual project grant in ECU 155,000 
Projects total n° of projects supported 1990/91 -1993/94 750 
number of JEPs in progress in 1993/94 504 
Mobility total staff periods abroad within JEPs 25,894 
total student periods abroad within JEPs 16,890 
individual staff visits East-West 3,887 
individual staff visits West-East 1,538 
individual student visits (1990+1991)6 1,439 
CME Complementary Measures projects 138 
(Grants to Associations, for publications, etc.) 
Youth Activities projects 351 
One indicator of the success of the Scheme in the period concerned was the fact that in all three years 
virtually 100% of the budgets allocated for grants were expended. 
In relation to subject-area trends .by the end of 1992/93, there was a relative decline in the initial 
strong emphasis by the eligible countries on projects in applied science and technology (down from 
30% to 24%), while those involving business/management studies stayed at the same level (17%), 
and those in applied social sciences, medicine and environmental studies all increased. These 
changes over the last few years can be explained partly by the fact that existing pre-TEMPUS links 
between the European Community and the countries in question had tended to be in the applied 
sciences or technology-based subjects. Thus, from the start there was no shortage of good 
applications in these areas. In other areas either there was no strong tradition of cooperation, as in 
the social sciences, or the subjects themselves are relatively new ones, such as environmental studies, 
which are now being introduced gradually into the curricula of the eligible countries. The stable 
percentage of business management projects reflects the continuing considerable interest in mis area. 
From 1992/93, all student mobility was carried out within the framework of JEPs. 
- 11 -
2) 
2. EDUCATION AND SOCIETY: REVIEW OF THE ISSUES IN 
CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE AS REVEALED BY 
THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF THE TEMPUS SCHEME 
In parallel with the implementation of TEMPUS in operational terms considerable effort has gone 
into ensuring systematic feedback to the Commission regarding action taken both from the higher 
education systems in the eligible countries and from Member State participants in TEMPUS projects. 
In particular, the Commission, with the support of academic experts and in collaboration with the 
National TEMPUS Offices, has undertaken the monitoring of a significant sample of Joint European 
Projects, and encouraged structured consultation through conferences and workshops of individuals 
and institutions participating in the Programme. These are discussed at a later stage (Section 3.6). 
The Commission has, in addition, received constant feedback through the informal contacts made on 
a daily basis with a wide range of interlocutors, particularly academics, from both Member State 
institutions and those in the eligible countries, who have been involved in TEMPUS activities of 
various kinds. It has thus been possible to build up a detailed picture of the main structural and 
practical obstacles that stood in the way of reform of higher education in the eligible countries, and to 
identify some of the principal factors which were and are likely to promote it. It is against this 
background that the operation and impact of the TEMPUS Scheme in the period under report can 
best be described. Section 2 of the TEMPUS Annual Report therefore summarises the main 
long-term issues of the higher education reform process in the social context of Central and Eastern 
Europe in the light of the experience acquired hitherto. 
2.1. FACTORS FAVOURING REFORM OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN THE 
ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES 
First of all it is important to highlight the^ considerable potential for renewal which exists and which 
has explained the success of the TEMPUS programme in its first three years of operation. 
The generally high level of teaching and research, and in particular the high level of theoretical 
knowledge students are required to attain, should be underlined and is indeed borne out by the 
reports of many TEMPUS participants from the European Community. 
The fact that many academics and students played a substantial role in the breakdown of the old 
regimes should not be forgotten either. As far as the student body is concerned, an increased demand 
for qualification and requalification through various types of participation in higher education and 
training, linked to an impatience to obtain qualifications relevant to a new economic environment, is 
an important factor. TEMPUS projects focusing upon curriculum development and mobility have 
evident relevance to the satisfaction of these demands. 
At the level of university staff members, one of the main reasons for the success of individual projects 
is the strong personal commitment of the individual staff members pushing for reform within their 
institutions. 
In this context the role of the internationalisation of higher education as a factor working in favour of 
change becomes apparent as a means of introducing needed innovations and harnessing the energies 
of staff members working for the reform of their own situations but at the same time badly in need of 
financial support, and also perhaps guidance due to a lack of project management experience. 
- 12 
The unique opportunity for change offered by the TEMPUS Scheme lies not only in the emphasis on 
aid via cooperation but also in the transfer of concepts of good practice in project management which 
had already been absorbed into academic cultures and administrative procedures in the Community, 
and from the first could be adapted and applied to TEMPUS Joint European Projects. It should be 
noted that higher education institutions in the Member States had gained their relevant experience to 
a large extent via participation in inter-university cooperation projects within European Community 
schemes such as ERASMUS and COMETT. 
2.2. STRUCTURAL OBSTACLES TO REFORM THE LEGACY 
At the same time the massive problems faced by the higher education systems in Central and Eastern 
Europe cannot be overlooked. 
One of the greatest challenges which the TEMPUS programme has had to face is the heritage of the 
past 40 or 50 years in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. 
Although dealing systematically with problems such as the more or less rigid separation of teaching 
and research between academies of sciences and the universities, the lack of diversification of higher 
education in the majority of the countries covered, control of access and student numbers and the 
extent and nature of state intervention, was not the direct concern of individual TEMPUS projects, 
debate in the eligible countries on these structural issues clearly determined the environment in 
which the TEMPUS Scheme has been implemented. 
While an attempt has been made over the last three years to tackle some of these shortcomings by 
means of decree or new legislation, others cannot be dealt with in this way. There is, for example, no 
rapid and easy solution to the problem of resistance to change among those responsible for the 
functioning of higher education. 
Moreover, the impact of new laws may not be immediately apparent. For example, while in many of 
the eligible countries new laws gave full or a substantial degree of autonomy to universities, it has 
become clear that for many academics and administrators learning to cope with that autonomy will 
take time. A certain tendency to reject any central authority or decision-making power could be 
detected in many instances in Central and Eastern Europe, thus weakening university leaderships 
and rendering the definition of policy at institutional level extremely difficult, and consequently 
complicating prioritisation of issues and resource allocation. The opposition to change of 
considerable numbers of tenured staff mentioned above posed particular problems in this context 
Similarly, a further consequence of increased university autonomy and the consequent weakening of 
the role of university leaderships was to constrain the possibility of introducing strategic reform not 
just at the level of the individual institution but also of the system as a whole. The very concept of 
planning or strategy was often, not surprisingly in the light of past experience, strongly resisted. 
Further stresses upon the higher education system and the adaptation of staff to new conditions 
derived from the conditions of political uncertainty which, in various forms, continued to prevail in 
the eligible countries. 
13 
2.3. PRACTICAL OBSTACLES TO REFORM 
23.1. Resource constraints 
Over and above the more general factors mentioned above, there are a number of practical obstacles 
to the reform process and hence to the implementation of the TEMPUS programme. The most 
obvious one, in all cases, has been the limitation of the financial support available from national and 
external sources. Serious budgetary difficulties could be observed everywhere, the state budgets 
available to higher education institutions being constantly reduced and in many cases barely covering 
the minimum basic salary and infrastructure costs. 
Furthermore, as a result of the low salary levels paid to university staff as public employees, it has 
become a common feature for staff members, often the most able of them, to take on alongside their 
commitment to the university second and even third jobs in order to survive. This clearly constitutes 
a serious constraint to rapid progress and change. Moreover, in some eligible countries one 
side-effect of the provision of retraining for academic staff, not only within the framework of 
TEMPUS, but also more generally, is an internal brain-drain, notably in relation to management or 
computing, as specialists trained in these new and popular subject areas find jobs in the private sector 
where their salaries increase significantly in comparison with academic ones. 
2.3.2. Administrative and legal constraints 
The factors of resistance to change were not confined to higher education and its institutions but 
could also be found throughout the administrative systems in the eligible countries thus affecting 
decision-making at central level, e.g. with regard to recognition of study courses, the status of new 
institutions, and the range and patterns of participation in higher education. Thus, even where there 
was a commitment to change, the administrative mechanisms needed to supervise and shape it were 
often deficient or even non-existent 
The juridical framework for reform was also often a problem, with insufficient or even contradictory 
legislation, both directly related to the higher education > sector (regarding the recognition of new 
courses/institutions, or the financing of institutions) and in such intensely practical matters as, for 
example, the ability of universities or their subdivisions to have bank accounts, and in other fields of 
indirect importance for TEMPUS, such as the possibility of money transfers, and exemption of 
grants made under assistance schemes from VAT regulations. 
There were also technical problems with COCOM (Coordinating COMmittee for export controls) 
regulations concerning the acquisition of equipment bad communication and/or telecommunication 
facilities in certain countries, and visa problems affecting the free movement of persons whose 
mobility was supported under TEMPUS. 
2.4. TEMPUS AS A COLLABORATIVE RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEMS OF HIGHER 
EDUCATION IN THE ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES 
The TEMPUS Scheme was not in any sense established as a pre-set panacea for these problems. On 
the contrary, by common consent of all concerned, it was designed, within PHARE, to provide 
assistance to the restructuring of the higher education sector with the maximum amount of flexibility 
consistent with accountability for the use of the Community's resources. Its fundamental 
starting-point was the common purpose, shared by academics everywhere, to re-establish a true 
commonwealth of science and scholarship which had been disrupted for more than half a century. 
- 14-
The immediate task was to enable trans-national teams of academics to be formed which could 
discern the most pressing needs at that point in time, and to take the first steps to meet them. 
From the start a co-decisional modus operandi was adopted by the Commission and the national 
authorities concerned, and this was steadily refined and improved until it became a smoothly-running 
model of trans-national cooperation (as set out in flow-chart 1 on p. 17). Prioritisation with reference 
to the specific, developing needs of the individual eligible countries was achieved by a continuous 
process of consultation and discussion, and selection of high-quality projects was ensured by the 
procedures outlined in flow-chart 2 (cf. p. 19). 
Because of the real historical conjuncture in which the TEMPUS Scheme took shape, its aim has 
necessarily been directed at a constantly moving target. The measure of the success achieved jointly 
by the participating institutions and consortia, the authorities of the eligible countries, and the 
Commission, has been precisely its capacity to achieve a series of beneficial outcomes, for example 
with regard to the development of new curricula and teaching materials which now demand and 
permit effective multiplication and dissemination throughout the systems concerned. 
3. RECORD OF DEVELOPMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT IN 
THE ACADEMIC YEAR 1992/93 
Within its overall objective of assisting the eligible countries to transform their higher education 
systems in such a way as to maximise the latter's contribution to the general economic and social 
restructuring envisaged under the PHARE Programme, the TEMPUS Scheme has, in its third year of 
implementation, addressed the following main issues: 
• consolidation of Joint European Projects by means of intensive monitoring based upon an 
intensive Site-Visit Programme involving approximately 10% of projects currently running; 
• further development of mobility JEPs for those eligible countries wishing to commit resources 
in this way; 
• preparations for the promotion in the academic year 1993/94 of participation in TEMPUS by 
southern European Member States and Ireland through a special action involving intensive 
network-building contacts between these countries and universities in the eligible countries; 
• jointly working with the national authorities concerned to ascertain more precisely the eligible 
countries' current and future priorities for reform. 
3.1. THE TEMPUS BUDGET FOR 1993/94: THE CO-DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 
The overriding factor with regard to the budgetary mechanisms governing the TEMPUS programme 
is that TEMPUS forms part of PHARE (cf. flow-chart 1). The critical factors are: 
• the PHARE budget for each of the eligible countries is settled annually in negotiations between 
the Commission on the one hand, and the national authorities of those countries on the other; 
• within that national budget, the disposition of the funds is at the discretion of the authorities 
concerned, and the proportion of that budget allocated to TEMPUS activities is set by them in 
consultation with the Commission; 
15-
• within the TEMPUS allocation provided from its PHARE budget by each of the eligible 
countries, projects are selected for support within a co-decision making process whereby both 
the Commission and the national authorities assess the quality of the projects, the Commission 
concentrating on the extent to which projects conform to the objectives and criteria of the 
TEMPUS Scheme, and the national authorities judging first and foremost their relevance to the 
priority needs of their country as they perceive them in the developing situation of the 
restructuring of their higher education systems; 
• the final decision by the Commission and the Ministers of Education in the eligible countries on 
any given project is the outcome of a series of in-depth discussions of these convergent 
assessments, (cf. flow-chart 1). 
By following this procedure all parties seek to achieve, within the constraints on financial resources, 
the best possible balance of judgements, with reference to both quality factors and respect for the 
priorities established by the countries to which the assistance is directed. Inevitably, although a high 
proportion of applications conform to the various desiderata mentioned in the Guide for Applicants, 
it is only possible at the end of the selection process to support a relatively low percentage of them 
(averaging only 12% in the four selections to date). 
The budget-forming process for TEMPUS activities in 1993/94 had to take into consideration two 
new elements, agreed on by the Commission and the PHARE coordinators of each of the eligible 
countries in November 1992, in order to start TEMPUS II in 1994/95 (cf. section 5, p. 33 ff.) with a 
clean slate: 
• the funds allocated to TEMPUS in 1993 for activities in 1993/94 would have to be used 
primarily to pay off the remaining financial liabilities of national and regional Joint European 
Projects already running in their second and third years of funding (financial 'overhang'); 
• the need to make provision for the full three-year costs of the Joint European Projects to be 
selected to commence in 1993/94. 
As a result a total budget of over 134.65 MECU (including the cost of technical assistance to the 
Commission for the implementation of TEMPUS) was allocated for the year (an increase of almost 
one third compared with 1992/93). However, given the need to provide first and foremost for the 
remaining costs of projects which began in 1991/92 and in 1992/93, this implied that the number of 
new projects starting in academic year 1993/94 would be very limited, and in the case of some 
eligible countries it meant that no new projects at all could be considered. Thus, with the full 
agreement of the eligible countries concerned, the 1993/94 call for applications was cancelled with 
regard to Joint European Projects involving Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and 
Romania. The call remained open for Albania, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia, but 
even for these countries only a very limited number of new proposals could be accepted because the 
bulk of the available budget would still have to be used for re-funding existing Joint European 
Projects. 
- 16 
Flow-chart no 1 - The co-decision making process in TEMPUS 
B 
U 
D 
G 
E 
T 
s 
E 
L 
E 
C 
T 
I 
O 
N i Eligible countries -
Education Ministers' 
Eligible countries PHARE 
',."" Goordûators' ' • 
-, :<: .DGIPHOS 
• •• IHARE Management • 
;Comrittee (Member States), 
TEMPUS Budget 
';j!l.iH,iij„ "i V.,, \ ' 
i-1|^|EduaitianMUstets% "\ ;i'; iTaskEoroe-jV" 
.jHuman Resources' ' -y TEMPUS Management |4 '! 
Committee (Member States)' < 
'i.;•,-• j'i • i -' , i s i "• i'fi 
j ï EC TEMPUS Office1 • '• 
i National TEMPUS Offices j 
'?"' (digHe countries) |||| 
! Eligible country Auth>ritks; 
i, i 11 j , 1.1 • SELECTION 
IMPLEMENTATION iTask Force Human Resources!; 
Project Management and 
Coordination 
17 
3.2. JEP GRANT ACTIVITIES: RESULTS OF THE 1993 SELECTION ROUND 
The total budget allocated for Joint European Projects, including renewals of multiannual projects 
currently running and approved for re-funding, amounted to over 117 MECU. This total included a 
sum of 10.25 MECU from the PHARE Regional Facility for the continued support of regional 
projects currently running. The new regional projects accepted for the academic year 1993/94 will be 
funded from the national budgets of the countries concerned. 
From the global total, over 106 MECU were allocated to the financing of the 'overhang' from 
previous years (i.e. the costs of current renewals), while 11.41 MECU was used to support a total of 
39 new projects (37 national and 2 regional) starting in academic year 1993/94 (including provision 
for renewal of funding for a further two years). 
Number of JEPs supported in 1993/94 504 
Number of new JEPs in 1993/94 39 
Number of JEPs renewed in 1993/94 465 
Number of new JEP proposals received in 1993 308 
Total amounts available for TEMPUS in 1993/94 from the PHARE budget: MECU 
National 118.9 
Regional 10.25 
Technical assistance to the Commission 5.50 
Total 134.65 
Selection procedures for Joint European Projects are summarised in flow-chart 2. The main features 
were as follows: 
18-
Flow-chart no 2 - The stages of the selection process for TEMPUS projects 
i , • j • i • 11 'j r " ; i • i J i J. . ! 
j j j Initial quality assessment of j 
j^J * H j'H applications by |W ^ ; j 
• )\ i^Éc'rai^us'ofnoc'ïfi • 
lii 111 - I-. i •,>:(,> , -, , ; i i, i ! •-• i • i , ; Receipt and acknowledgement of ".. 
applications by EC TEMPUS Office 
± 
Assessment of applications in terms 
' of national needs by Eligible i ' ' 
• Country Academic Experts ; 
; Consultations between the Task Force 
'," '; | •. Human Resources and • • '" 
.i\Y, National TEMPUS Offices , , M-
1 
I EC Academic Experts' opinion 
- 'sought where appropriate! ' ' 
Final approval of proposed projects by 
the Commission and National 
Ministers of Education 
1 
• Notification of results to applicants 
x 
' Despatch of contracts to ; ; 
', successful applicants ' 
t 
Return of signed contracts to ; 
EC TEMPUS Officelili 
1 
Despatch of financial assistance to 
Contractors 
19 
(3) 
Thus under the overall supervision of the Commission: 
• all applications for support for Joint European Projects were submitted to the EC TEMPUS 
Office in Brussels. Copies of applications concerning their institutions were then sent to the 
National TEMPUS Offices in each of the eligible countries; 
• the EC TEMPUS Office and the National TEMPUS Offices jointiy determined which 
applications corresponded to the priority areas established by the eligible countries; 
• an overall assessment of the quality of applications received was carried out by the 
EC TEMPUS Office, with a parallel assessment procedure by the six National TEMPUS Offices 
in terms of the benefit of projects to their country within the overall PHARE context; 
• 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 and the early identification of those projects where opinions differed and 
where an expert opinion would be particularly important; 
• following this internal consultation procedure, the Commission consulted external academic 
experts representing the main TEMPUS priority areas from both Community Member States 
and the eligible countries; 
• as a result of these consultations a final list of projects proposed for support was drawn up by 
the Commission. Following the agreement of the Ministers of Education in the eligible 
countries concerned, the Commission decided the award of TEMPUS grants to the applicants 
figuring on the final list. 
New JEP applications for activities commencing in 1993/94 for cooperation activities with Albania, 
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania: 
JEP type 
Mobility 
Structural 
Total Received 
40 
268 
308 Accepted 
9 
30 
39 % 
22.5 
11.2 
12.6 
Additionally, the Commission continued to support 465 projects first accepted in the academic years 
1991/92 and 1992/93 and which submitted renewal applications in 1993: 
Year Received Renewed 
1991/92 274 244 
1992/93 240 221 
Total 514 465 
-20 
Taken with the 39 new projects starting in 1993, this gives a total of 504 Joint European Projects 
running in 1993/94. The average grant per project is as follows: 
new JEPs 
1992/93 JEPs 
1991/92 JEPs 
Total Organisation 
(in ECU) 
58,500 
71,500 
75,500 Mobility 
(in ECU) 
58,500 
78,500 
84,000 Total 
(in ECU) 
117,000 
150,000 
159,500 Number 
39 
221 
244 
504 
3.2.1. Analysis by subject-area 
Most of the 39 new JEPs supported are in engineering and applied science subjects (8 or 20.5%), in 
agriculture and agro-business (6 or 15.4%), and in business, management and applied economics 
(5 or 12.8%). Although only one environmental protection project was supported, there were three in 
medical sciences and 5 in natural sciences and mathematics (7.7% and 12.8% respectively). 
Looking at the cumulative picture, TEMPUS projects are running in 16 different subject areas 
ranging from engineering and agriculture to humanities and art and design. The two biggest subject 
areas (management and engineering) still account for almost half of all projects currently running. 
Equipment purchase is much more extensive in the technology related subject areas than in those 
related to humanities. For example, in engineering projects an average grant allocated to equipment 
is more than double that allocated to a project in the subject area of modem languages. On the other 
hand, of all subjectareas, management studies registered the highest personnel costs. 
3.2.2. Analysis by eligible country, Member State, and G-24 participant 
country 
It should be borne in mind that the 1993/94 selection round was anomalous in the sense that very few 
projects could be supported and the Call for Applications was cancelled in the case of five of the 
eligible countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Romania), (cf. Section 3.1). 
Of the six eligible countries which participated in the Call for Applications, five were represented in 
the 39 new projects selected. No projects from Slovenia could be supported.7 In addition, Poland and 
Slovakia are involved in 1 and 2 projects respectively. The participation of the countries having 
participated in the Call for Applications is detailed in the following table: 
Slovenia had no projects supported as there proved to be no funds available for new projects from that country's PHARE 
budget, all available moneys having to be used to cover the overhang. 
21 
Eligible state Country involvement Coordinating country 
participation (other than EC) 
Albania 5 — 
Estonia 6 3 
Hungary 18 16 
Latvia 6 — 
Lithuania 5 1 
Total 408 
In terms of contractors, of the 39 projects supported the largest proportion by far was taken by 
Hungary (14 or 35.9%). All other projects had contractors in the European Community. 
With regard to Member State participation in general there was a reasonably even distribution, only 
Luxembourg not being represented, while in terms of contractual responsibility Germany and the UK 
provided contractor institutions in over a quarter of the total cases. 
Also noteworthy were the 16 involvements of G-24 countries in the 39 projects supported, including 
5 each in Sweden and Finland, 2 in Norway and 4 in the USA. 
3.2.3. Special Action structural JEP: the establishment of a Eurofaculty in 
Riga 
A Special Action initiated in the period under report was the preparatory work undertaken prior to 
the establishment of a 'Eurofaculty' in the Baltic States designed to support, develop and restructure 
higher education in the three Baltic States in the fields of law, economics and public and business 
administration and more generally to promote cooperation between the countries involved. 
The proposal for the establishment of a 'Eurofaculty' in the Baltic States was adopted by the Council 
of the Baltic Sea States on 6th March, 1992. 
The Commission was invited by the Council of the Baltic Sea States to coordinate the 
implementation of the "Eurofaculty' in the framework of the TEMPUS programme and the decision 
was taken to base the Centre in Riga with the initial participation of universities in Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Poland, Germany, and Sweden. It is planned to extend the 
network in due course to universities in Russia. 
The total of 40 participants in 39 projects can be explained by the fact that one of the projects is a regional project involving 
Hungary and Latvia. 
22 
The Centre will be a legally autonomous foundation financed by national donations, and by the 
Commission through the TEMPUS programme. The total budget for the first two years of operation 
amounts to an estimated 3.5 MECU including for the academic year 1993/94 a total budget of 
320,000 ECU allocated from the national TEMPUS budgets of the four eligible countries involved 
(Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) within the framework of a regional JEP to fund the 
preparatory work necessary and the activities of the first phase. 
The first phase of activities under the umbrella of the Eurofaculty Centre will begin in 
September 1993 with the training/updating (including language preparation in English and German) 
of academic staff and postgraduate students (approximately 150), together with the upgrading of 
existing libraries in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. 
During the second phase starting in September 1994 regular undergraduate and postgraduate courses 
are envisaged for approximately 250 students per year in subjects selected by the Baltic universities. 
3 J. INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY AND COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES, RESULTS OF THE 
1993 SELECTION ROUND 
A total of 11.45 MECU was allocated in the 1993 budget to support activities other than Joint 
European Projects in 1993/94. The activities concerned comprised Individual Mobility Grants, 
Complementary Measures projects, and Youth Activities. Additionally, approximately 10% of this 
total was allocated to financial support for contracts covering expenses essential to the running of the 
National TEMPUS Offices in the eligible countries. 
3.3.1. Complementary Measures: Grants to Associations, for publications, 
studies and surveys 
In the case of support for Complementary Measures the procedures followed a pattern analogous to 
that used for the selection of Joint European. Projects, streamlined to allow two selection rounds per 
year. 
A total of 1.2 MECU was budgeted to cover the cost of supporting a limited number of specific 
Complementary Measures projects submitted by associations of universities in relation to the 
extension of academic networks intended as springboards and multipliers for cooperation initiatives, 
and for publications and for studies and surveys serving a similar purpose and strictly related to the 
aims of TEMPUS. In the first selection round (of two) for activities to be undertaken in 1993/94, 
nine such projects were supported.9 
3.3.2. Joint European Networks (JENs) 
Preliminary work was also carried out in the period under report to prepare for the introduction in 
1993/94 of a further type of Complementary Measure, the Joint European Network, intended to 
enable the most successful already-completed Joint European Projects in the eligible countries which 
had been involved longest in the TEMPUS Scheme to maintain their networks and disseminate their 
results as examples of good practice. Support awarded for these activities will be regarded as part of 
the Complementary Measures budget. (See also 5.4.3.). 
To complete the picture of Complementary Measures activities supported in 1992/93, the results of the second selection round 
(deadline for applications, June 1992) should be added to those given: 17 projects supported at a total cost of 162,000 ECU, 
giving a grand total for the period under Report of 26 projects at a cost of 250,000 ECU. 
23 
3.3.3. Youth Activities 
A further budgetary provision was made for support for Youth Activities and related activities 
intended to improve young people's awareness of the European dimension. A total of 2.4 MECU was 
allocated for this purpose for activities in 1993/94, in two selection rounds, in the first of which 
49 projects, involving exchange experience based on organised cultural interaction involving 
1,116 young people, were supported, while 406 youth leaders were to undertake short preparatory 
visits or training courses. The selection procedures used followed the same pattern as that for Joint 
European Projects. 
Among the eligible countries, Poland has put particular stress upon Youth Activities, including a 
series of Youth Pilot Projects and regional training courses for youth leaders intended to lead to 
long-term cooperation in this field, allocating 1 MECU for 1992/93, and a further 2 MECU for 
1993/94 for these purposes.10 
The Pilot Projects, aimed at young people between 15 and 25 who would not be otherwise be in a 
position to take part in an inter-cultural event, are intended to develop from the experience acquired 
to date in Youth Activities within the programmes of the European Community in this field. After 
discussions with the Polish national authorities, the Commission drew up special guidelines and 
application forms for Pilot Projects to promote cooperation between young people and/or bodies 
responsible for youth affairs in Poland and the EC Member States. The aim is to select projects 
which are innovative and beneficial at local level, and respond to the needs and interests of young 
people in relevant fields (e.g. combating racism, youth criminality, ecology, cultural and artistic 
activities, youth journalism etc.), and are managed by the young people themselves. Particular 
attention will be given to projects which could be used as a model in other communities/countries, 
and which could lead to forms of cooperation or networking. Particular attention will be given to 
projects involving disadvantaged young people. 
3.3.4. Individual Mobility Grants 
The structures and procedures for the selection of Individual Mobility Grants, also involving two 
selection rounds per year, continued to reflect the devolution of the responsibility for staff mobility 
from the eligible countries to the Member States of the European Community to the respective 
National TEMPUS Offices. Each of the latter, with the assistance of local academic expert advisers, 
received the applications from its own country and then assessed them, in consultation with the 
EC TEMPUS Office, according to criteria agreed with the Commission. Both the National TEMPUS 
Offices and the EC TEMPUS Office used the same specially-developed interchangeable computer 
software to input the data and generate the necessary statistics. The use of the common standardised 
assessment criteria allowed the efficient transfer of data for the production of overall statistics, for 
contracts administration, and for preparation of grants payments awarded in the final selection by the 
Commission. The selection process is illustrated in flow-chart 3. 
0 To complete the picture of Youth Activities supported in 1992/93, the results of the second selection round (deadline for 
applications, September 1992) should be added to those given: 75 projects involving 1,561 participants, giving a grand total for 
the period under report of 124 projects involving 3,083 participants; additionally, 18 applications within the special Pilot 
Projects to be carried out between 1 May and 31 December 1993 with Poland were supported at a cost of 242300 ECU. 
-24 
Some 977 staff members from the eligible countries who will undertake updating, teaching and 
exploratory visits in the Community were awarded Individual Mobility Grants in the first selection 
round (of two) for activities in 1993/94, while 404 staff members from European Community 
countries will visit the eligible countries for various approved purposes, including teaching 
assignments.11 
Additionally, a total of 103 Individual Mobility Grants were made within the framework of a Special 
Action designed to promote the formation of networks leading to Joint European Projects between 
the eligible countries and certain European Community Member States (Spain, Italy, Portugal and 
Ireland), whose participation in TEMPUS had hitherto not been proportionate to the capacity of their 
national higher education systems. 
The total funds budgeted to finance these types of mobility amounted to 4.7 MECU for both normal 
1993/94 selection rounds and the Special Action combined. 
Flow-chart no 3 - Stages of selection of Individual Mobility Grants 
NTQs receive and assess 
applications from 
eligible countries ECTO receives and 
assesses applications from 
Member States 
ECTO coordinates submission for 
Commission approval of 
applications proposed for support 
1 
Contracts issued by ECTO; those for 
eligible country contractors 
sent to NTOs for distribution 
' To complete the picture of Individual Mobility activities supported in 1992/93, the results of the second selection round 
(deadline for applications, June 1992) should be added to those given: 638 staff moved from the eligible countries to Member 
States and 213 in the opposite direction at a total cost of 2,072,760 ECU (giving grand totals for the period under report of 
1,615 and 617, at a cost of 4,515,236 ECU). 
-25 
3.4. LIAISON ACTIVITIES 
Cooperation between the Commission and the National TEMPUS Offices established in the capital 
cities of the eligible countries continued and was strengthened during the period under report. A key 
feature was the regular consultation with the Commission and the EC TEMPUS Office through 
bilateral and joint discussions on operational matters such as preparation of selection procedures and 
information activities. 
Of particular importance has been the pivotal role of the National TEMPUS Offices in ensuring 
smooth liaison between the Commission and their national authorities in relation to the definition of 
national TEMPUS priorities and also with their PHARE coordinators in the preparation of the 
budget discussions with the Commission. 
A new dimension was added to the role of the National TEMPUS Offices by their responsibilities in 
relation to the organisation of site-visits to JEPs in their countries. Their organisational role and the 
participation of their staff in these made an important contribution to this aspect of monitoring 
(cf. Section 3.6). 
Cooperation between the National TEMPUS Offices and the EC TEMPUS Office became 
increasingly reciprocal in its function, with experienced staff from two of the National TEMPUS 
Offices being seconded to the EC TEMPUS Office for limited periods, while plans were in 
preparation for the secondment of a member of EC TEMPUS Office staff to the National TEMPUS 
Office in Warsaw to assist with the Youth Activities Pilot Projects scheme. 
3.5. INFORMATION ACTIVITIES 
To assist effectively in the development of human resources in the higher education sector of the 
eligible countries, information materials were kept as uncomplicated as possible, with the intention 
of addressing the essential concerns of users. 
A new edition of the Guide for Applicants and the application forms for TEMPUS (jPHARE^ was 
prepared and distributed in all nine Community languages. A separate Guide for Applicants relating 
(cf. section 5.3 for further details) was also prepared and to the pre-JEP phase of TEMPUS TACIS 
distributed. The separate Guidelines, Application Forms and information sheets for Youth Activities 
were revised and distributed in the nine languages. A special Guide for Applicants for support under 
the Polish Pilot Project scheme was also prepared and sent out to the National TEMPUS Office 
concerned for distribution. The small leaflet summarising the key facts on TEMPUS in nine 
languages was updated and distributed. 
A Compendium of all projects running in 1992/93 was published in October 1992, and given wide 
distribution, as was the Directory of Higher Education Institutions in. Central and Eastern Europe, 
first published in December 1991. This Directory is the only such guidé currently available. 
The Annual Report on the scheme, covering the period 1 August 1991 to 31 July 1992, was 
published early in 1993. 
26 
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, the National TEMPUS Offices and the 
media. 
An exceptional publication was the Report of the TEMPUS Conference held in October 1992, 
including summaries of the papers and workshop discussions, (cf. Section 5 of this report). 
(A full list of TEMPUS publications is given in annex). 
3.6. MONITORING 
The Commission 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 in the 
different eligible countries, the different priority areas, Community involvement, G-24 involvement 
etc.) of projects supported in the previous selection round. 
A particularly important new component of this activity was the organisation and implementation of 
an intensive programme of site-visits carried out during the period under report which involved a 
total of 39 visits to ongoing Joint European Projects and covered all the eligible countries. The 
monitoring of projects included two different visits, one to the eligible country institution involved, 
concentrating on the progress made towards the realisation of the objectives set, and a financial audit 
carried out at the contracting institution. A report setting out the main results of the Site-Visit 
Programme carried out in the academic year 1992/93 will be published concurrently with this report. 
The findings and experience acquired from these visits, which were led by the Commission, assisted 
by the National TEMPUS Offices of the countries concerned, and involved teams of academic experts 
from both the ^Member States and* Central: .and Eastern Europe, will clearly be of the highest 
relevance to the next stage of the TEMPUS Scheme. They will provide a platform for the 
development of future policies for evaluation of the scheme as a whole, as required by the relevant 
Council Decision, and with particular reference to the observations made in the Court of Auditors 
report on the operation of the TEMPUS Scheme published in December 1992, and in the 
Commission's response thereto.12 
4. OUTCOMES: MEASURING THE IMPACT OF TEMPUS 
This section of the report attempts to measure the results of the TEMPUS Scheme hitherto and is 
based mainly on an assessment of the written material submitted by projects, primarily in the form of 
final reports from contractors. Another valuable source of information has been discussions with 
programme participants, in particular in the course of the extensive Site-Visit Programme mentioned 
above. 
12 Cf. OJ C 330 Vol. 35 of 15 December 1992 for the Court of Auditors' Report on TEMPUS and the Commission's response. 
-27-
(4) 
4.1. JOINT EUROPEAN PROJECTS 
This section sets out to illustrate the main conclusions reached so far about the characteristics of 
successful and less successful projects implemented within TEMPUS. 
An attempt has been made to measure the impact of the programme at the following three levels: 
• departmental/faculty level, within a particular higher education institution; 
• institutional level; 
• the higher education system as a whole. 
4.1.1. Departmental/faculty level 
Information available so far from grantholders' reports and site-visits suggests that the impact of 
TEMPUS projects in bringing about reform at departmental and faculty level has been significant 
and, indeed, that the programme's greatest impact hitherto is at this level. The main activities 
implemented within TEMPUS projects and considered to have a significant impact at this level are 
as follows: 
• Curriculum development and the related development of teaching materials 
The overall aim is to update curricula in the eligible countries to European Community 
standards. Taken together, the revision of existing curricula and the development of new courses 
represent the most important activities to take place within TEMPUS projects, given their potential 
long-term impact at both departmental and faculty level in the eligible institutions concerned. 
Curriculum development is often the main project objective, other activities being carried out to 
achieve this goal. 
In most cases curriculum* development involves* me*introduction of new aspects to already 
existing courses or the establishment of new courses within already existing degrees. Only in a very 
few cases have new degree courses been established. Curriculum development activities also include 
the introduction of new teaching methods such as case studies, practical stages, open and distance 
learning and action- and problem based learning. 
Substantial success has been achieved in this area within TEMPUS to date, despite the fact that 
it is considered by project participants to represent a particularly demanding challenge. First of all, it 
requires careful targeting and planning with regard to the needs of the eligible country concerned 
and the particular local situation. Secondly, it involves coordinated planning with the other activities 
through which the curriculum development will take place, such as staff retraining, equipment 
purchase and the preparation of teaching materials. Finally, institutional support is absolutely 
necessary to ensure success with regard to the recognition of new/revised courses and degrees. 
Curriculum development projects which have been successfully implemented within TEMPUS 
taking into consideration the aspects mentioned above clearly produce concrete results which have a 
beneficial and long lasting impact on the departments and faculties concerned. 
-28 
• Acquisition of equipment 
The installation of new and up to date equipment including the provision of relevant books, 
periodicals and software generally available to all staff and students at departmental and faculty level 
is one of the most visible impacts of TEMPUS. The character of the equipment bought varies from 
one subject area to another, e.g. in management projects the majority of the equipment grant is 
usually spent on PCs while in modern European languages projects it is spent on language 
laboratories and books. On average, half of the project organisational grant is spent on equipment. In 
general however, expenditure on equipment is much more significant in the technology related 
subject areas than in the humanities related ones. For example, in engineering the average grant 
allocated to equipment was more than double that allocated to a project in the subject area of modern 
languages (ECU 59,000 and 28,000 per project respectively).With proper maintenance and service 
the equipment installed should be of long lasting benefit to the departments concerned. 
• Staff mobility to the EC 
Staff mobility has both personal and institutional impacts at departmental and faculty level 
when carried out in a coordinated way within a project In personal terms staff not only gain new 
skills and knowledge but benefit from exposure to different cultures, teaching and research 
environments and acquire additional language skills. Retrained teachers who continue their teaching 
career at the same institutions are able to implement this new knowledge within their departments 
using teaching and research materials brought from their partner institutions in their own courses. 
On the other hand, retrained teachers are more attractive to the job market and often have the 
possibility of more lucrative positions in private enterprise. This is especially true in subjects such as 
management and computing. Some institutions require teachers to sign a 'declaration of intent' to 
return before agreeing to their study periods abroad. 
• Student mobility 
While extremely beneficial to the individual students concerned, student mobility appears to 
have limited immediate impact at departmental or faculty level. However, in the medium term, the 
role of returnees inanfluencirrgmttitudes within departments, both among fellow students and staff 
members, often obliging the latter to consider changes to curriculum and teaching methods, may 
become substantial. Where student mobility is directly linked to curriculum development the 
structured involvement of students, whether full-time or post-studies, plays an important role in 
ensuring necessary feedback regarding the new courses developed. Student mobility, where this 
concerns directly the training of future university teachers, may also prove beneficial in the medium 
and long term, although it is difficult to guarantee that students will remain in university life: skilled 
young professionals with EC experience and a command of foreign languages are often tempted by 
more attractive offers from private enterprise. 
4.1.2. Institutional level 
The creation of new institutions or of new faculties in already existing institutions has only been 
attempted in a few cases within the framework of TEMPUS JEPs. This is due in particular to the 
high costs involved and the overall complexity entailed in creating completely new curricula, 
employing staff, building teaching and research facilities etc. Most cases of newly established 
institutions or faculties occur in subject areas new to the eligible countries' higher education systems, 
such as business management or environmental studies, and often tend to be linked to continuing 
education. 
-29 
If one considers JEP outputs to be cumulative, then it is easier to talk of possible institutional impacts 
with regard to institutions involved in several projects. The creation of new courses or the 
introduction of changes into existing courses in several different departments has the potential to 
create the synergy which can influence the entire institution as does teaching updated to European 
standards. New teaching methods introduced often spread across institutions and may lead to 
interdisciplinary cooperation. Equipment purchased is often available to more than one department; 
this is particularly true for library facilities and materials. The experience acquired at project 
management level is also an asset at institutional level. As projects develop these factors will 
combine to increase the effectiveness and competitivity of the institution as a whole. The institutional 
visits planned within the Site-Visit Programme for 1993/94 will be particularly important in 
analysing this aspect. 
4.1.3. Higher education system level 
The impact of TEMPUS projects at this level is very difficult to assess, and it is important to bear in 
mind that it is also too early to expect results at this level after three years. Furthermore, the 
following aspects should be considered: 
• The scale of Joint European Projects: an average project lasts for three years and spends on 
average 121,000 ECU in its first year, 148,000 ECU in its second year and 179,000 ECU in its 
third year. 
<• The objectives of TEMPUS: while TEMPUS will concentrate in its second phase (cf. section 5, 
p. 35) on acting in a more targeted way within the framework of national strategies for the 
development of higher education, in particular via the joint definition with each country of 
priorities for support within TEMPUS, TEMPUS projects have hitherto been designed primarily 
to fulfil the needs of particular departments in particular institutions in respect of the concrete 
activities described above. 
Thus, any contribution to the development of higher education systems as such must be seen in a 
more long-term perspective and certainly* derives; at present from the implementation of a critical 
mass of projects running successfully rather than from any direct impact on the system. 
At the same time, one important impact of TEMPUS is the experience it has allowed individual 
academics to acquire in learning the business of international cooperation with colleagues from the 
European Community and beyond. The joint identification of problems leading to the preparation of 
projects targeted to solve these problems as well as the elaboration and implementation of work 
programmes, participation in an open competition for funds and participation in meetings and joint 
decision-making procedures are all aspects of this phenomenon. 
At the level of the higher education system, the creation of National TEMPUS Offices in each 
country to take responsibility for the implementation of the programme in their country has led over 
the past three years to the setting up at central level of groups of highly qualified persons with 
invaluable experience of running international cooperation programmes in each of the 11 beneficiary 
countries, experience which, it is to be hoped, will be put to good use in a context much wider than 
TEMPUS. 
30 
4.1.4. Factors contributing to the impact of TEMPUS projects 
A number of different factors govern the success of individual TEMPUS projects. On the basis of 
experience gained hitherto, the main factors conditioning the outcome may be categorised as follows: 
• involvement and cooperation of all project partners on an equal basis; 
• strong personal commitment of all partners, in particular a high degree of initiative of 
eligible country partners along with sustained support by the institutional management 
both in the Community and in the eligible countries, i.e. the success of a project often 
depends on it being supported strongly by individuals pushing for reform; 
• realistic project aims understood by all and leading to a clear, structured work programme; 
• adequate financial resources to realise the objectives defined; 
• support for curriculum development as part of a coherent institutional development 
strategy; 
• careful selection of staff to be retrained with regard to age, position, language ability and 
attitude to change; 
• adaptation of Western materials to meet the needs of the target institution in the eligible 
country. 
4.1.5. Individual Mobility 
A synoptic view of the impact of TEMPUS in this field can be derived from a survey carried out in 
1992/93 on teaching staff who had received Individual Mobility Grants in previous years. Short visit 
grants may be awarded to carry out a variety of activities: to prepare an application for a Joint 
European Project; to contribute to the preparation of new teaching materials and/or to take part in a 
teaching programme; to collect and disseminate information and to give advice. 
More short visibgrants to prepare a Joint European Project were awarded than any other type. During 
this type of visit information omteaching methodsiancUprogrammes was exchanged, possible areas 
for cooperation were defined, practical aspects of the project were discussed, meetings took place 
between staff and students (if students were to be involved in the project) and a draft Joint European 
Project was either written there and then, or soon after the visit Many grantholders visited more 
institutions than planned. Analysis showed that a large proportion of such visits actually led to a JEP 
application being submitted, and a much smaller number to the preparation of a Complementary 
Measures project 
Visits to prepare teaching materials often revealed that a new course was being designed from 
scratch. Sometimes, existing course material was reviewed, in others new technology was introduced. 
During visits to collect and disseminate information, to exchange advice and/or to increase mutual 
understanding of respective higher education and training systems, information was sometimes 
exchanged beforehand, so that during the visit structured information sessions involving staff from 
different departments rather than informal discussions could ensue. 
-31 
In some cases, a JEP application was the unexpected outcome of a visit which had another activity as 
its main aim. In a few cases student and/or staff exchanges took place immediately after the IMG 
visit, funded by the universities themselves, before the partners knew whether a JEP application 
would be successful. 
On the whole, it may be said that teaching visits, like JEP-preparation visits, produce very concrete 
results. Sometimes teaching/training assignments led to the production of new materials as well as 
the subsequent exchange of up-to-date teaching materials and, more frequently, to curriculum 
development Some European Community academics reported that they adapted curricula in their 
home universities as a result of what they had learned during their IMG visits. 
Grantholders who went on teaching .assignments, often-reported that the original programmes of 
lectures planned had widened considerably during the visit, or had been extended to include 
information seminars on the TEMPUS Scheme itself. The follow-up to a teaching visit was often 
limited in scope. Following enthusiastic reception of their lectures, many lecturers wished simply to 
repeat the exercise, without foreseeing any variants or widening of cooperation. 
The teaching staff from the eligible countries were usually interested in the integration of a practical 
university/industry element in many European Community university courses and some reported the 
immediate introduction of a practical element into their own courses. Many also expressed interest in 
the relatively informal student/teacher relationship common in certain Member States. The level of 
commitment of teaching staff in the eligible countries was often praised although at the same time 
difficulties faced by staff committed to implement change were also noted. 
Common to all grantholders was an increase in their knowledge of the host country and an 
impression of the climate of intellectual curiosity in the eligible countries. Almost all participants 
mentioned that they acquired comprehensive information on educational policy-making in the 
country(ies) visited. 
European Community^visitors^often^referredito.the;poor*level of equipment, particularly in the 
laboratories, of thenniversities visited, also drawing-attention to the need for textbooks. While some 
subject area specialists found that their fields were under-developed in some of the eligible countries, 
favourable comments were also made on the high-level of teaching there and the impressively solid 
theoretical knowledge that students of hard sciences were required to obtain. 
Most reports said that communication was satisfactory either because the hosts in the eligible country 
spoke one (or more) foreign language(s) (usually English, German or French) or good interpreters 
were present, but users of Spanish and the Portuguese found that communication was a barrier to 
future cooperation. 
Valuable spin-off from Individual Mobility Grants included attendance by eligible country 
grantholders at conferences and symposia while carrying out their missions and increased reciprocal 
understanding of other countries and systems of education and training. Publications, subject area 
networks and cooperation in other areas such as distance learning and research were also planned as 
a result of these contacts. 
It thus seems clear that Individual Mobility plays a relatively low-cost but important part in the 
process of promoting the transnational cooperation which is the primary objective of TEMPUS. 
-32 
5. PREPARATIONS FOR TEMPUS II 
This section of the Report addresses the main principles of the Council Decision of 29 April 1993 
establishing the second phase of the TEMPUS Scheme and the particular modifications to it in 
and for the continuation of TEMPUS (PHARE relation to the strategy for TEMPUS TACIS 
5.1. TEMPUS CONFERENCE OCTOBER 1992 
The Commission's proposals for TEMPUS II were submitted to the Council of Ministers of the 
European Communities and the European Parliament at the beginning of October 1992. 
Simultaneously the main issues linked to the future development of TEMPUS were discussed at a 
major conference on The role of higher education in the reform process of Central and Eastern 
Europe' organised by the Commission on 1-2 October 1992 in Brussels. 
The Conference was able to reflect on the role of Central and Eastern European higher education in 
the overall reform process of the countries concerned, in the context of their transition to both market 
economy and democracy. It attempted to identify the key problems which must be tackled if this role 
is to be fully assumed. The role of Community support in this context, with particular regard to the 
future development of TEMPUS, was examined objectively and in depth. 
A broad consensus quickly emerged that the successful restructuring of the higher education system 
might be a crucial factor in the transition to democracy and a market economy in the eligible 
countries. Equally, however, it was recognised that barriers inhibiting the fulfilment of this role by 
universities still remained. TEMPUS was praised as an early visible sign of the commitment to 
overcome, these obstacles, in order to ensure that universities make their fullest possible contribution 
to the transition process. Practical suggestions for improving the way it functions were put forward 
and the Commission undertook to^nsure that Ihese recommendations were examined and followed 
up as appropriate during the next phase of theTEMPUStScheme. 
5.2. COUNCIL DECISION OF 29 APRIL 1993 
Following an initial exchange of views among the Education Ministers of the European Community 
in November 1992, and the positive opinion of the European Parliament rendered in March 1993, the 
Council Decision adopting the second phase of the Trans-European cooperation Scheme for higher 
education (TEMPUS II) was taken on 29 April 1993.13 This Decision effectively continued the 
operation of the TEMPUS Scheme to the existing eligible countries and also extended it to the 
Republics of the former Soviet Union, enabling those Republics wishing to devote a part of the 
overall funds made available to them by the Community to participation in the TEMPUS Scheme 
(cf. Foreword). 
13 OJN°L112/34,6May 1993 
33 
The Council Decision of 29 April 1993 also reflects the Commission's intention to direct TEMPUS 
in its next phase of development more firmly towards the higher education reform strategy of each 
individual eligible country. This is reflected both in the newly defined objectives of TEMPUS II set 
out in Article 4 of the Decision and in Article 5, which states that the Commission shall agree with 
the competent authorities in each eligible country detailed objectives and priorities for the role of 
TEMPUS II in the respective national strategies for social and economic reform. In addition, one of 
the tasks now assigned to the TEMPUS Committee is to consider the objectives and priorities to be 
discussed with each country. 
The Annex to the Council Decision on TEMPUS sets out the different activities covered by the 
like TEMPUS CPHARE^) until now, will TACIS TEMPUS II programme. TEMPUS 
concentrate on Joint.European JProjects.(including: attendant mobility) between at least two Member 
State higher education-institutions and one eligible country higher education partner institution as 
the main instrument for the cooperation activities envisaged. 
53. TEMPUS TACIS : THE PRE-JEP STRATEGY 
For TEMPUS TACIS it is the Commission's intention to modulate the particular mix of 
activities proposed for TEMPUS II as well as the time-scale for their introduction to meet the 
differing needs and conditions of development of the eligible states concerned. 
Given the overall aims of the TACIS Programme, support will be focused on projects for structural 
change in higher education, aimed at encouraging institutional development within higher education 
(e.g. by encouraging large scale curriculum overhaul, by strengthening institutional autonomy or via 
the introduction of appropriate institutional management techniques). 
TEMPUS II activities are planned to commence in the academic year 1994/95. In order to be able to 
Joint European Projects at that time, the Commission intends to implement viable TEMPUS .TACIS; 
undertake preliminary action in 1993/94, concentrating mainly on support for the preparatory 
mobility of staff between universities planning cooperation on an institutional level at a later date 
(e.g. study and information gathering visits, preparation of institutional cooperation, staff updating 
and retraining, teaching assignments etc.). 
The countries eligible for these pre-programme phase activities for the academic year 1993/94 are 
Belarus, the Russian Federation, and the Ukraine, although it is envisaged that other Republics of the 
former Soviet Union may also be included in the programme in the future. Eligible partners in the 
beneficiary countries will be restricted to one university per project, while in the EC two to three 
higher education institutions may participate. One institution from a non-EC (G-24) country may 
also participate. 
Following discussions in Belarus, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine with representatives of the 
authorities and the universities, the Commission decided to provide support in the following areas: 
• humanities and social sciences 
• political sciences and economics (not focusing on business/management) 
• modern European languages (not focusing on literature or linguistics) 
• improvement of university management. 
-34-
The Commission also decided, in view of the overall aims of the TACIS Programme, that particular 
consideration would be given to projects relevant to the fields of agriculture, energy and transport. 
By encouraging the preliminary mobility envisaged in this pre-programme phase, within the 
perspective of a planned cooperation between institutions, the Commission intends to meet the need 
for the re-establishment of contacts between academics in the NIS (Newly Independent States) and 
their counterparts in the Community while at the same time recognising the value of support to 
institutional development as the optimum means of maximising the impact of TEMPUS in the NIS. 
5.4. TEMPUS CjHARE^) NEW MODES OF COOPERATION (JEP+, CMEf AND JEN) 
In the light of the suggestions made by Coopers and Lybrand in the Evaluation Report prepared in 
199114 and by the European Court of Auditors in their Report on TEMPUS mentioned earlier15, and 
in accordance with the provision of the Council Decision on TEMPUS II, a number of important 
decisions have now been made with regard to the future development of TEMPUS. The principal 
objective is to position TEMPUS more clearly within a strategic framework for higher education 
development within each country. This is reflected first and foremost in the choice of well-defined 
priorities for support for each country. It is hoped in this way to develop a greater relevance for the 
process of economic and social reform and also to establish a selection procedure which avoids the 
frustration of applicants and substantial over subscription, as was the case under the first phase of the 
TEMPUS Scheme. 
To this end, from the academic year 1994/95 onwards, two new types of project are being introduced 
into the programme on an experimental basis in addition to the existing possibilities for Joint 
European Projects and Complementary Measures. These will be known respectively as "JEP+" and 
"CME+", and are designed to support particular priorities identified by the national authorities of 
individual eligible countries to correspond to the strategic needs of higher education reform. The 
decision on whether or not to continue with these activities after 1995 will be based on the 
experience gained in 1994. 
5.4.1. JEP+ Projects 
JEP+ Projects will be a small number of specific projects defined by the national authorities in the 
eligible countries which address particular national needs, for example, curriculum development 
projects at national level, the setting up of a faculty or centre in a particular field etc. These projects 
will be subject to a special tender procedure on the basis of detailed terms of reference. 
5.4.2. CME+ Projects 
CME+ Projects will aim at providing technical assistance and support to national authorities in the 
field of higher education policy development for example, studies on the establishment of 
accreditation and evaluation centres, or on computerised information systems in libraries. These 
projects will also be subject to a special tender procedure on the basis of detailed terms of reference. 
14 Cf. Annual Report on the TEMPUS Scheme 1 August 1991-31 July 1992, Section IV, for fuller details of this evaluation. 
15 Cf. footnote 12, page 27. 
-35-
5.43. Joint European Networks (JENs) 
Within die framework of the TEMPUS ^PHARÊT) programme the first 120 Joint European Projects 
came to the end of their three-year TEMPUS funding in August 1993. It seems certain that the 
results of these projects are of major importance and represent a considerable resource for the 
universities concerned. As a result of cooperation with the European Community via the networking 
of higher education institutions in several countries significant improvements have been introduced, 
both in the development of curricula and teaching materials, and in the updating and retraining of 
staff. 
In this light, and with a view to maximising the benefits and the impact of the resources invested in 
TEMPUS projects hitherto; the Commission of the European Communities will make additional 
support available to the best Joint European Projects finishing in 1992/93 in order to (a) contribute to 
the maintenance of the results accomplished within the project and (b) stimulate the dissemination of 
the JEP results outside the project network in the eligible country/ies involved. This additional 
support will be awarded in the form of a TEMPUS Joint European Network grant 
The principal activities envisaged are: maintenance of results by the continuation of teaching of new 
courses introduced through TEMPUS JEP support; maintenance of the international network 
established through TEMPUS JEP support by the organisation of workshops and seminars; 
maintenance of the equipment purchased with the TEMPUS JEP grant; dissemination of the results 
of the JEP through staff mobility and in particular via meetings, seminars, workshops and 
conferences. The second essential aspect of JEN projects will be the introduction of activities 
enabling all higher education institutions in the eligible countries to benefit from the TEMPUS 
experience of the relatively limited number which have participated in JEPs. In general, the question 
of the dissemination of the results of JEPs within the country will certainly receive more attention as 
the Programme develops. 
36 
ANNEX 1 
TEMPUS PUBLICATIONS 
TEMPUS publications issued during the period 1 August 1992 - 31 July 1993: 
1. 
3. TEMPUS Guide for applicants 1993/94, in 9 languages, giving full details of the Scheme, its 
objectives and selection criteria, together with application forms for the various activities. 
DA Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-469-DA-C 
DE Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-469-DE-C 
EN Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-469-EN-C 
ES Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-469-ES-C 
FR Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-469-FR-C 
GR Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-469-GR-C 
IT Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-469-IT-C 
NL Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-469-NL-C 
PT Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-469-PT-C ISBN: none 
2. Special Guide for applicants for TEMPUS TACIS , in 9 languages, giving details of the 
Scheme, explaining the pre-JEP strategy, its objectives and selection criteria, together with an 
application form for activities in the pre-JEP phase. 
DA Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-78-93-685-DA-C ISBN: 92-826-5799-X 
DE Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-78-93-685-DE-C ISBN: 92-826-5800-7 
EN Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-78-93-685-EN-C ISBN: 92-826-5802-3 
ES Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-78-93-685-ES-C ISBN: 92-826-5798-1 
FR Catalogue JSTf 11,16 CY-78.93-685-FR-C ISBN: 92-826-5803-1 
GR Catalogue N? 11 16 CY-78-93-685-GR-C ISBN: 92-826-5801-5 
IT Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-78-93-685-IT-C ISBN: 92-826-5804-X 
NL Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-78-93-685-NL-C ISBN: 92-826-5805-8 
PT Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-78-93-685-PT-C ISBN: 92-826-5806-6 
Youth activities Guidelines, in 9 languages, providing details of this part of the TEMPUS 
Scheme, together with an application form. 
DA Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-461-DA-C ISBN: none 
DE Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-461-DE-C 
EN Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-461-EN-C 
ES Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-461-ES-C 
FR Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-461-FR-C 
GR Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-461-GR-C 
IT Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-461-IT-C 
NL Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-461-NL-C 
PT Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-75-92-461-PT-C 
Pilot Projects with Poland in 4 languages (DE, EN, FR, IT), providing details of this special 
action of the TEMPUS Scheme, together with an application form. 
Catalogue N°: none ISBN: none 
*f 
5. TEMPUS Leaflet in 9 languages, giving a brief outline of the Scheme. 
Catalogue N°: none ISBN: none 
6. List of accepted Joint European Projects in EN. 
Catalogue N°: none ISBN: none 
7. TEMPUS Compendium for 1992/93, in EN (introduction in DE, EN, FR) giving details of all 
JEPs and Complementary Measures projects currently running, together with indexes. 
EN Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-76-92-649-EN-C ISBN: 92-826-4911-3 
8. Directory of Higher Education Institutions in Central and Eastern Europe in EN, with brief 
introductions to die structures of the higher education systems in each of die eligible countries. 
EN Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-80-93-016-EN-C ISBN: 92-826-6278-0 
9. Report of the TEMPUS Conference held in October 1992, in 4 languages including summaries 
of die papers and workshop discussions. 
DE Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-79-93-720-DE-C 
EN Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-79-93-720-EN-C 
ES Catalogue N° 1116 CY-79-93-720-ES-C 
FR Catalogue N° 11 16 CY-79-93-720-FR-C 
10. Annual Report 1991/92 in 9 languages. 
DA 
DE 
EN 
ES 
FR 
GR 
IT 
NL 
PT Catalogue N° 
Catalogue N° 
Catalogue N° 
Catalogue N° 
Catalogue N° 
Catalogue N° 
Catalogue N° 
Catalogue N° 
Catalogue N° 11 16CY-76-92-641-DA-C 
11 16CY-76-92-641-DE-C 
11 16CY-76-92-641-EN-C 
11 16CY-76-92-641-ES-C 
11 16CY-76-92-641-FR-C 
11 16CY-76-92-641-GR-C 
11 16CY-76-92-641-IT-C 
11 16CY-76-92-641-NL-C 
11 16CY-76-92-641-PT-C ISBN: 92-826-6159-8 
ISBN: 92-826-6160-1 
ISBN:92-826-6158-X 
ISBN: 92-826-6161-X 
ISBN: 
ISBN: 
ISBN: 
ISBN: 
ISBN: 
ISBN: 
ISBN: 
ISBN: 
ISBN: 92-826-4903-2 
92-8264904-0 
92-826-4906-7 
92-826-4902-4 
92-826-4907-5 
92-826-4905-9 
92-826-4908-3 
92-826-4909-1 
92-826-4910-5 
3* 
ANNEX2 
STATISTICAL TABLES 
— 
mn Supported projects 
JEP DISTRIBUTION BY SUBJECT AREA (newaiTraewriprojecfa) 
aeataas^B=cc=8»ga=e=iac===s==:i i i ===:^== ""srssasssi ' . II 
Subject area Number % 1 
10: Management/Business administration 80 15.9 I 
20: Medical science 44 8.7 
30: Applied sciences, technologies/Engineering 130 25.8 
40: Modern European languages 31 6.1 I 
50: Agriculture/Agro-business 33 6.5 I 
60: Environmental protection 37 7.3 
70: Social/Economic sciences 24 4.8 
80: Priority areas (general) 13 2.6 
91: Architecture/Urban and regional planning 12 2.4 
92: Art/Design 10 2.0 I 
93: Education/Teacher-training 25 5.0 
94: Humanities/Philological sciences (non-priority) 6 1.2 
95: Law 10 2.0 
97: Natural sciences/Mathematics 36 7.1 
98: Social sciences (non-priority) 12 2.4 
99: Non-priority areas (general) 1 0.2 
I Total 504 100 
31 
OVERALL STATISTICS ON JEP SELECTION 1993/94 
Supported applications (new and renewal projects) 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
GR 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
WE Coordinating country 
28 
47 
18 
8 
59 
13 
23 
4 
0 
40 
6 
104 
0 5.5 
9.3 
3.6 
1.6 
11.7 
2.6 
4.6 
0.8 
0.0 
7.9 
1.2 
20.6 
0.0 Country involvment 
137 
223 
63 
112 
206 
69 
137 
61 
0 
149 
51 
303 
2 % 
6.0 
9.7 
2.7 
4.9 
9.0 
3.0 
6.0 
2.6 
0.0 
6.5 
2.2 
13.2 
0.8 
ALB 
BG 
CZ 
EE 
H 
LT 
LV 
PL 
RO 
SIX) 
SK 0 
9 
15 
3 
38 
1 
1 
24 
30 
18 
9 0.0 
1.8 
3.0 
0.6 
7.5 
0.2 
0.2 
4.8 
6.0 
3.5 
1.8 14 
66 
81 
17 
125 
16 
15 
155 
87 
38 
46 0.6 
2.9 
3.5 
0.7 
5.4 
0.6 
0.6 
6.8 
3.9 
1.6 
2.0 
A 
AUS 
CDN 
CH 
IS 
J 
N 
NZ 
S 
SF 
T 
USA 0.4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.4 
0.4 
0.0 
0.0 24 
1 
4 
5 
0 
1 
11 
0 
26 
23 
2 
16 1.0 
0.04 
0.2 
0.2 
0.0 
0.04 
0.5 
0.0 
1.1 
1.0 
0.08 
0.7 
Total 504 100.0 2,286 100.0 
fo 
TEMPUS SCHEME: OVERALL FIGURES 
1990 1991 | 1992 I 1993 I TOTAL 
1. BUDGET: 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 23.16 
23.16 70.5 
55.5 
15.0 98.0 
85.5 
12.5 •129.15 
108.00 
10.25 
10.90 320.81 
272.16 
37.75 
10.90 
* To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
= . 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: (total) 
from ECE1 to EC 
fromECtoECE 
from ECE to ECE 
Students: (total) 
from ECE to EC 
from EC to ECE 
from ECE to ECE 153 
118 
35 
153 
1,308 
724 
584 
1,218 
1,033 
185 452 
357 
95 
134 
318 
5,198 
3,148 
2,050 
3,099 
2,747 
352 643 
506 
137 
403 
240 
9,870 
6,014 
3,794 
62 
6,407 
5,612 
786 
9 504 
414 
90 
465 
39 
9,518 
5,876 
3,436 
206 
6,166 
5,253 
873 
40 750 
25,894 
15,762 
9,864 
268 
16,890 
14,645 
2,196 
49 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: 
Students: from EC to ECE 
from ECE to EC 
from EC to ECE 
from ECE to EC 2,239 H 6,864 
629 
1,610 1,538 
3,887 
69 
1,370 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 40 37 42 19 138 
Number of Youth Activities supported 65 66 106 114 351 
ECE = Eastern and Central Europe 
¥i 
OVERALL FIGURES BY ELIGIBLE COUNTRY 
Fact Sheet Albania 
F 1990 
1. BUDGET: 1991 1 1992 | 1993 | TOTAL j 
—- -- -
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 1.25 
1.20 
0.05 *4.94 
2.50 
0.04 
2.40 6.19 
3.70 
0.09 
2.40 
—=r-m-i 
* To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 14 
13 
1 
9 
5 13 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: 
Students: from ALB (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to ALB (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 
from ALB (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to ALB (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 47 
47 
48 
48 
50 
50 124 
124 
73 
73 
65 
65 
6 
6 171 
171 
121 
121 
115 
115 
6 
6 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: 
Students: from EC to ALB 
from ALB to EC 
from EC to ALB 
from ALB to EC 63 
9 
54 163 
37 
126 226 
46 
180 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which ALB is involved) 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which ALB is involved) 
tl 
Fact Sheet Bulgaria 
1990 1991 | 1992 1993 | TOTAL 
1. BUDGET: 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 6.0 
5.0 
1.0 8.92 
8.00 
0.92 •15.71 
15.00 
0.71 30.63 
28.00 
2.63 
• To finance pluri-annuai activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: from BG (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to BG (total) 
from EC 
9 from ECE 
Students: from BG (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to BG (total) 
from EC 
I from ECE 53 
31 
22 
7 
46 
259 
259 
150 
150 
70 
70 86 
59 
27 
52 
34 
607 
607 
341 
341 
295 
295 
29 
29 66 
49 
17 
66 
620 
620 
344 
344 
321 
321 
57 
57 80 
1,486 
1,486 
835 
835 
686 
686 
86 
86 
,. ,, ,—— 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: 
Students: from EC to BG 
from BG to EC 
from EC to BG 
from BG to EC 140 
16 
102 
22 128 
20 
108 296 
54 
242 564 
90 
452 
22 
r 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which BG is involved) 19 12 35 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which BG is involved) 12 28 
fc 
Fact Sheet Czech Republic2 
1. BUDGET: I 1990 | 1991 1 1992 1 1993 | TOTAL] 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources •10.94 
8.00 
2.94 10.94 
8.00 
2.94 
* To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: from CZ (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to CZ (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 
Students: from CZ (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to CZ (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 81 
26 
55 
81 
691 
671 
20 
428 
417 
11 
612 
608 
4 
130 
126 
4 691 
671 
20 
428 
417 
11 
612 
608 
4 
130 
126 
4 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: 
Students: from EC to CZ 
from CZ to EC 
from EC to CZ 
from CZ to EC 240 
89 
151 240 
89 
151 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which CZ is involved) 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which CZ is involved) 15 15 
for 1990-1992 see fact sheet Czechoslovakia 
*Y 
Fact Sheet Slovak Republic3 
I 1990 1 1991 
1. BUDGET: 1992 1 1993 M TOTAL I 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources •6.18 
5.00 
1.18 6.18 
5.00 
1.18 
! 
* To finance pluri-aimual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 46 
12 
34 
44 
2 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: 
Students: from SK (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to SK (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 
from SK (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to SK (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 365 
351 
14 
226 
210 
16 
292 
289 
3 
41 
36 
5 365 
351 
14 
226 
210 
16 
292 
289 
3 
41 
36 
5 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: from EC to SK 
from SK to EC 
Students: from EC to SK 
from SK to EC 
1, ————~-J II ...LI . . — • i -J •-136 
41 
95 _________ 
136 
41 
95 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which SK is involved) 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which SK is involved) 
_.., _ ... , — . s •,-•? 
10 1 10 
3 for 1990-1992 see fact sheet Czechoslovakia 
yr 
Fact Sheet Czechoslovakia 
1990 1991 1 1992 1 1993 | TOTAL 1 
1. BUDGET: 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 3.7 
3.7 12.8 
9.0 
3.8 18.46 
15.00 
3.46 34.96 
27.70 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: from CS (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to CS (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 
Students: from CS (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to CS (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 39 
39 
39 
141 
141 
119 
119 
154 
154 
28 
28 124 
57 
67 
50 
74 
636 
636 
405 
405 
500 
500 
70 
70 163 
70 
93 
125 
38 
1,192 
1,181 
11 
660 
649 
11 
980 
979 
1 
167 
165 
2 145 
1,969 
1,958 
11 
1,184 
1,173 
11 
1,634 
1,633 
1 
265 
263 
2 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: from EC to CS 
from CS to EC 
Students: from EC to CS 
from CS to EC 287 
58 
175 
1 
53 452 
70 
222 
16 
144 269 
78 
191 1,008 
206 
588 
17 
197 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which CS is involved) 24 21 8 53 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which CS is involved) 14 22 12 1 48 
use 
Fact Sheet Estonia 
1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 j TOTAL 
1. BUDGET: 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 1.01 
1.00 
0.01 •3.62 
1.50 
0.02 
2.10 4.63 
2.50 
0.03 
2.10 
* To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobilitv flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: from EE (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to EE (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 
Students: from EE (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to EE (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 8 
6 
2 
8 
57 
57 
33 
33 
36 
36 
1 
1 11 
6 
11 
6 
67 
62 
5 
65 
56 
9 
63 
63 
8 
8 14 
124 
119 
5 
98 
89 
9 
99 
99 
9 
9 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: from EC to EE 
from EE to EC 
Students: from EC to EE 
from EE to EC 43 
10 
33 113 
20 
93 156 
30 
126 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which EE is involved) 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which EE is involved) - 4 4 
n 
1. BUDGET: Fact Sheet Hungary 
•[go 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | TOTAL I 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 6.2 
6.2 16.1 
12.0 
4.1 19.27 
16.00 
3.27 •1833 
16.0 
2.33 59.9 
50.2 
* To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: from H (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to H (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 
Students: from H (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to H (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 63 
63 
63 
224 
224 
192 
192 
403 
403 
74 
74 161 
89 
72 
62 
99 
678 
678 
455 
455 
844 
844 
160 
160 179 
91 
88 
155 
24 
1,115 
1,103 
12 
802 
790 
12 
1,419 
1,417 
2 
232 
230 
2 125 
75 
50 
107 
18 
988 
971 
17 
517 
496 
21 
1,179 
1,178 
1 
197 
191 
6 204 
3,005 
2,976 
29 
1,966 
1,933 
33 
3^45 
3,842 
3 
663 
655 
8 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: from EC to H 
from H to EC 
Students: from EC to H 
from H to EC 351 
124 
83 
24 
120 284 
63 
77 
5 
139 125 
65 
60 184 
82 
102 944 
334 
322 
29 
259 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which H is involved) 27 23 16 73 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which H is involved) 32 17 13 13 75 
Vt 
Fact Sheet Lithuania 
jj 1990 1991 | 1992 | 1993 1 TOTAL j. 
1. BUDGET: 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 1.5 
1.5 •5.2 
2.5 
2.7 6.7 
4.0 
2.7 
• To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: from LT (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to LT (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 
Students: from LT (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to LT (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 11 
7 
4 
11 
83 
83 
36 
36 
65 
65 
11 
11 16 
5 
11 
5 
142 
133 
9 
96 
90 
6 
89 
89 
19 
19 16 
225 
216 
9 
132 
126 
6 
154 
154 
30 
30 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: from EC to LT 
from LT to EC 
Students: from EC to LT 
from LT to EC 34 
12 
22 113 i 
45 
68 147 
57 
90 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which LT is involved) 3 -""•-;"" •—it •• 
4 I 7 
H 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which LT is involved) 11 
** 
Fact Sheet Latvia 
I 1990 1 1991 1 1992 1 1993 I TOTAlJ 
1. BUDGET: 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources IS 
i.5 •4.7 
2.0 
2.7 62 
3.5 
2.7 
• To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: fromLV 
to EC 
to ECE 
toLV 
from EC 
from ECE 
Students: from LV 
to EC 
to ECE 
toLV 
from EC 
from ECE 11 
7 
4 
11 
95 
95 
45 
45 
52 
52 15 
9 
6 
9 
6 
124 
116 
8 
95 
89 
6 
138 
138 
40 
40 17 
219 
211 
8 
140 
134 
6 
190 
190 
40 
40 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: 
Students: from EC to LV 
from LV to EC 
from EC to LV 
from LV to EC 43 
14 
29 96 
31 
65 139 
45 
94 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which LV is involved) - 2 2 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which LV is involved) 5 7 12 
$& 
Fact Sheet Poland 
1990 | 1991 1 1992 | 1993 | TOTAL 
1. BUDGET: 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 12.4 
12.4 18.1 
13.5 
4.6 29.51 
26.00 
3.51 •37.52 
35.00 
2.52 97.53 
86.90 
10.63 
• To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 85 
85 
85 144 
76 
68 
82 
62 245 
150 
95 
145 
100 155 
105 
50 
154 
1 248 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: 
Students: from PL (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to PL (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 
from PL (total) 
to EC 
to ECE 
to PL (total) 
from EC 
from ECE 326 
326 
256 
256 
467 
467 
58 
58 786 
786 
550 
550 
879 
879 
53 
53 1,724 
1,719 
5 
1,178 
1,173 
5 
1,764 
1,763 
1 
251 
250 
1 1,557 
1,536 
21 
958 
931 
27 
1,506 
1,496 
10 
265 
261 
4 4,393 
4,367 
26 
2,942 
2,910 
32 
4,616 
4,605 
11 
627 
622 
5 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: 
Students: from EC to PL 
from PL to EC 
from EC to PL 
from PL to EC 884 
124 
199 
10 
551 444 
97 
114 
9 
224 323 
69 
254 539 
142 
397 2,190 
432 
964 
19 
775 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which PL is involved) 31 24 19 2 76 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which PL is involved) 26 20 66 59 171 
Fact Sheet Romania 
1990 | 1991 | 1992 1 1993 [TOTAL 
1. BUDGET: 
___—_—, . 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 10.2 
10.0 
0.2 13.32 
13.00 
0.32 •18.23 
18.00 
0.23 41.75 
41.00 
0.75 
• To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
9 national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: from RO 
to EC 
to ECE 
toRO 
from EC 
from ECE 
Smdents: from RO 
to EC 
to ECE 
toRO 
from EC 
from ECE 69 
62 
7 
6 
63 
498 
498 
287 
287 
316 
316 
57 
57 104 
85 
19 
73 
31 
901 
901 
575 
575 
817 
817 
84 
84 87 
78 
9 
87 
1,045 
1,041 
4 
575 
575 
842 
842 
91 
91 94 
2,444 
2,440 
4 
1,437 
1,437 
• 
1,975 
1,975 
232 
232 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: from EC to RO 
from RO to EC 
Students: from EC to RO 
from RO to EC 182 
16 
95 
1 
70 273 
31 
242 237 
64 
173 692 
111 
510 
1 
70 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which RO is involved) 18 11 3 32 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which RO is involved) 10 18 16 44 
-JSt-
Fact Sheet Slovenia 
[ 1990 1991 | 1992 1 1993 1 TOTAL 
1. BUDGET: 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 2.81 
2.30 
0.51 •3.76 
2.50 
0.26 
1.00 6.57 
4.80 
0.77 
1.00 
• To finance pluri-annual activities 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
of which: national projects 
regional projects 
renewed 
new 44 
24 
20 
24 
20 38 
25 
13 
38 
20 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: 
Students: from SLO 
to EC 
to ECE 
to SLO 
from EC 
from ECE 
from SLO 
to EC 
to ECE 
to SLO 
from EC 
from ECE 225 
221 
4 
106 
104 
2 
138 
138 
16 
16 256 
251 
5 
162 
155 
7 
166 
164 
2 
39 
38 
1 481 
472 
9 
268 
259 
9 
304 
302 
2 
55 
54 
1 
S USE US ! = 1=^ L= 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: from EC to SLO 
from SLO to EC 
Students: from EC to SLO 
from SLO to EC 95 
6 
89 122 
24 
98 217 
30 
187 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which SLO is involved) 3 2 I 5 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which SLO is involved) 
•& 
Fact Sheet Yugoslavia 
1. BUDGET: I 1990 1991 1992 | 1993 | TOTAL j 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 73 
6.0 
1.3 13 
6.0 
1.3 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: fromYU 
to EC 
to ECE 
toYU 
from EC 
from ECE 
Students: from YU 
to EC 
toECE 
toYU 
from EC 
from ECE 71 
42 
29 
13 
58 
291 
291 
203 
203 
138 
138 
12 
12 58 
291 
291 
203 
203 
138 
138 
12 
12 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: from EC to YU 
from YU to EC 
Students: from EC to YU 
from YU to EC 155 
18 
96 
3 
38 155 
18 
96 
3 
38 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which YU is involved) 19 19 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which YU is involved) 5 5 
4¥ 
Fact Sheet DDR 
I 1990 1991 | 1992 | 1993 [TOTAL 
1. BUDGET: 
Total TEMPUS budget (in MECU) 
National indicative programme 
Regional funds 
Other PHARE sources 0.9 
0.9 0.9 
0.9 
2. PROJECTS: 
Number of Joint European Projects supported 
national projects 
regional projects 
of which: renewed 
new 
Mobility flows within Joint European Projects 
(new + renewed): 
Staff: from DDR 
to EC 
to ECE 
to DDR 
from EC 
from ECE 
Students: from DDR 
to EC 
to ECE 
to DDR \ 
from EC 
from ECE 12 
12 
12 
33 
33 
17 
17 
9 
9 
25 
25 12 
33 
33 
17 
17 
9 
9 
25 
25 
Number of Individual Mobility Grants supported 
(each person can visit more than one country) 
Staff: 
Students: from EC to DDR 
from DDR to EC 
from EC to DDR 
from DDR to EC 50 
9 
32 50 
9 
32 
Number of Complementary Measures supported 
(number of projects in which DDR is involved) 17 1 1? 
i 
Number of Youth Activities supported 
(number of projects in which DDR is involved) - -
$r 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(94) 142 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 16 
Cataloeue number : CB-CO-94-149-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-67639-6 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg