Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Proposal for a Council Decision adopting the third phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education Tempus III (2000-2006)'
Date: 1998-11-19
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU programme, cooperation policy, cross-border cooperation, higher education

C 51/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.2.1999

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision adopting
the third phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education Tempus III
(2000-2006)’

(1999/C 51/14)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision adopting the third phase of the
trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education Tempus III (2000-2006) (COM(98)
454 final — 98/0246 CNS) (1);

having regard to the decision of the Council on 1 October 1998, under the first paragraph of
Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee
of the Regions on this matter;

having regard to its Bureau decision of 13 May 1998 to instruct Commission 7 — Education,
Vocational Training, Culture, Youth, Sport & Citizens’ Rights — to draw up the relevant
opinion;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 301/98 rev.) adopted by Commission 7 on 1 October
1998 (rapporteur: Ms Morsblech),

unanimously adopted the following Opinion at its 26th plenary session of 18 and 19 November
1998 (meeting of 19 November).

1.

Introduction

1.1.
This opinion deals with the Proposal for a
Council Decision adopting the third phase of the
trans-European cooperation scheme for higher edu-
cation Tempus III (2000-2006). The proposal seeks to
launch a third phase of the Tempus programme for the
period 2000-2006.

1.2.
The Council decided to adopt the Tempus higher
education programme on 7 May 1990 (Council Decision
90/233/EEC). Tempus was designed to encourage the
development and restructuring of higher education in
the eligible countries and was initially adopted for a
three-year period beginning on 1 July 1990. It was
subsequently decided to extend this initial phase to the
end of June 1994 (Council Decision 92/240/EEC).

1.3. On 29 April 1993, the Council adopted a second
phase of the Tempus programme for a further four years
starting on 1 July 1994 (Council Decision 93/246/EEC).
On 21 November 1996, the Council decided to extend
this second Tempus phase by two years from 1998 to
2000 (Council Decision 96/663/EC).

1.4.
At its plenary session of 19 September 1996, the
Committee of the Regions adopted an Opinion on the
Proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision
93/246/EEC of 29 April 1993 adopting the second phase
of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher

education (Tempus II 1994-1998) (2). In this opinion, the
Committee of the Regions endorsed the Tempus higher
education programme. The opinion welcomed the rede-
fined Tempus II objectives set out in the proposed
Council decision, and backed the plan to ensure that the
programme dovetailed into the spending priorities of
the Tacis and Phare programmes. The COR endorsed
the general objectives outlined in the proposed decision,
i.e. the development and overhaul of curricula in priority
areas, the reform of higher education structures and
establishments and their management, and the develop-
ment of vocational training, in particular by improving
and increasing links with industry, in order to make up
for the lack of skills at higher education level becoming
apparent in the economic reform process. The Com-
mittee of the Regions broadly supported the Tempus
objectives, particularly in the context of economic and
social reform. The Committee felt that Tempus should
be used to help those countries preparing to join the
single market as part of a pre-accession strategy in the
move from assistance to co-operation programmes.

1.5. Moreover, at its plenary session of 20 September
1995, the Committee of the Regions adopted an opinion
on the role of local and regional authorities in education
and training for central and eastern Europe provided
through the European Union (3). In this opinion, the

(1) OJ C 270, 29.8.1998, p. 9.

(2) CdR 193/96 fin — OJ C 34, 3.2.1997, p. 49.
(3) CdR 298/95 — OJ C 100, 2.4.1996, p. 98.

22.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/87

Committee stressed the importance of decentralized and
pluralist structures within which democratic local and
regional government can play an influential role in the
economic and social development of central and eastern
Europe. It also underlined the tremendous value of
EU-CEEC local and regional cooperation, not least in
education and training. The Committee opinion noted
that the Tempus programme appeared to have been very
successful and should be developed further to allow
central and eastern European universities to play a
greater role in the partnerships.

1.6. On 29 May 1998, the Commission adopted
a working document on bilateral and multilateral
cooperation between the Member States of the European
Union and the central and east European countries in the
area of higher education(1), noting that complementarity
between the different types of actions was likely to result
in increasing synergy. The Commission indicated that it
would endeavour, through Tempus III and the new
generation of education and training programmes,
to consolidate and then further extend the scope of
cooperation in order to pave the way for the establish-
ment of a genuine external dimension whereby the
European education area can come into its own.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Tempus programme was based on the
European Council’s 1989 request to the Commission to
submit proposals for action in the field of higher
education to back up the reform process in the countries
of central and eastern Europe. The COR still considers
this objective to be fundamental, albeit the focus in a
number of partner countries which have been eligible to
take part in the scheme from the outset has now shifted
more to pre-accession objectives and preparing the
ground for European Union membership.

2.2.
The Committee feels that the Tempus higher
education programme reflects the European Union’s
political commitment to cooperation and dialogue with
the countries of central and eastern Europe, the new
independent states and Mongolia. The Committee shares
the Commission’s view that, as part of this cooperation,
top priority has to be given to education and training
and to human resource development.

2.3.
In addition, the field of education, higher edu-
cation and training offers an excellent forum for regional
cooperation, and can also help strengthen the regional
level.

(1) SEC(1998) 909 final.

2.4.
Particularly in the case of the new independent
states, Mongolia and the non-associated countries of
central and eastern Europe, the Committee agrees that
the EU has a key role in helping promote stability in
this region. The COR would stress that support for
education, higher education and training — i.e. the
remit of the Tempus programme — is an excellent
means of promoting such stability.

2.5.
At the same time, in the associated countries of
central and eastern Europe, education, higher education
and training can be a key factor both in reshaping
the system of government and in structural change.
Depending on eligible countries’ stage of development
and the length of time they have been involved in the
programme, Tempus has grown in importance; from
supporting the restructuring of higher education systems,
it has moved on to promoting educational cooperation,
backing up participation in EU programmes, and, finally,
helping pave the way for European Union membership.
This evolution has been accompanied by a greater
emphasis on the specifics of the higher education system
in each partner country, as has become clear, for
example, with regard to curricula, higher education
structures and training opportunities.

2.6.
Indeed, the implementation of the Tempus pro-
gramme is linked to the national support priorities set
in the individual partner countries. There should always
be a direct connection between these national priorities
and the individual countries’ strategy in the run-up to
EU accession.

2.7.
For the countries of central and eastern Europe,
Tempus has also always been, as planned, an appropriate
means of cooperation with the regions of the EU Member
States.

2.8.
In its first phase (1990-1994), Tempus was the
only policy tool to support higher education reform in
the individual countries concerned and, at the same
time, to give central and eastern European universities
access to international cooperation.

2.9.
In the second phase (1994-1998), Tempus was
expanded to give the associated countries of central and
eastern Europe access to the European Union’s Leonardo
and Socrates programmes. At the same time, Tempus
developed a scheme for establishing national priorities
to reflect the specific characteristics of each individual
country.

2.10. Overall, this second phase saw the objective
shift from assistance to cooperation, with the partner
countries increasingly in a position to work together
with the EU in education and higher education. This

C 51/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.2.1999

was an essential development, enabling education, train-
ing and higher education to help prepare the associated
countries of central and eastern Europe for EU accession.

3. Specific comments

2.11.
Tempus was also extended to the new indepen-
dent states and to Mongolia at the start of the second
phase.

3.1.
The Committee of the Regions shares the Com-
mission’s view that Tempus has proved an effective tool
in the restructuring and ongoing development of higher
education.

As far as the associated countries of central and
2.12.
eastern Europe are concerned, the focus of the current
extension of the second phase (1998-2000) is increasingly
on helping prepare for EU accession. More importance is
also attached to assisting participation in and promoting
links with EU programmes.

3.2.
The Committee agrees that the positive impact
of the Tempus programme also extends to universities’
overall remit. For example, in the Committee’s view,
vocational and university training links in with efforts
to facilitate and promote the reforms needed in industry
and government. As a result, Tempus can undoubtedly
claim to be instrumental in the development of demo-
cratic society.

The Committee shares the Commission’s view
2.13.
that universities in the associated countries of central
and eastern Europe are able to play an active part in
preparing their respective countries for EU membership.
The COR would point out, however, that development
levels clearly vary, not only within the associated
countries themselves, but also within their higher edu-
cation establishments.

The Committee agrees that, since 1994, Tempus
2.14.
has also proved beneficial
in the new independent
states and Mongolia, which are involved in the Tacis
programme.

2.15.
The COR would stress the particular import-
ance of universities in building up international cooper-
ation, particularly in the Tacis countries, whose post-
Soviet Union transition is in many ways fraught with
difficulty. Alongside assistance in expanding education
and higher education systems,
it can be especially
important for universities in these countries to pool
experiences and work together among themselves, given
the largely comparable point of departure following the
dissolution of the Soviet Union.

2.16.
The COR is pleased that the joint European
projects (JEPs) have proved a focus of Tempus activities.
The Committee feels that the basic idea behind these
projects — cooperation between a university in an
eligible country and two partners from EU Member
States — is, together with other factors, fundamental to
the ongoing success of the Tempus programme.

2.17.
extremely important and successful feature of
Tempus venture and have been very useful
development of the programme to date.

The COR also feels that mobility grants are an
the
in the

The COR shares the view that Tempus has done
3.3.
much to promote the closer alignment of university
standards and study opportunities between the EU
Member States and the countries of central and eastern
Europe.

3.4.
The Committee would stress the close link
between the economic development of the eligible
countries and investments in education. For this reason
too, the Committee endorses the decision to establish
Tempus within the purview of the Phare and,
in
particular, the Tacis programmes.

3.5.
Finally, the Committee would stress Tempus’
role in significantly strengthening the ability of CEEC
universities to cooperate with the EU. Tempus has thus
done much to ensure that universities in central and
eastern European countries are able to take part in the
Socrates and Leonardo programmes.

3.6.
The Committee of the Regions feels that the
opening-up of the Socrates and Leonardo programmes
to the countries of central and eastern Europe fits
in particularly well with pre-accession support. The
Committee expects that involvement in Socrates and
Leonardo will further deepen cooperation between
CEEC universities and the EU. Such cooperation is also
an opportunity to maintain and continue to develop
machinery established under Tempus auspices.

3.7.
The Committee believes that the main focus of
Tempus’ work in promoting the changes needed in
government and society lies in particular with the Tacis
countries. The COR endorses the remit of Tempus and
Tacis to date, not least in backing the development
of independent, decentralized and diversified higher
education systems and helping universities further econ-
omic and social reform in their respective countries.

22.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/89

3.8.
In particular, the COR would stress that, as far
as the Tacis countries are concerned, one of the major
objectives is to strengthen the regional aspects of higher
education and its development.

3.9. Given Tempus’ positive track record to date, the
COR explicitly welcomes the proposal for a Council
decision adopting a third phase of the programme
covering the period from 2000 to 2006.

3.14.
The Committee shares the Commission’s view
that, of the Phare countries remaining eligible under
Tempus, Albania in particular will continue to be
dependent on considerable support. The COR also sees
a broad need for support in the countries of the
former Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. For these countries,
the Committee feels it is essential to press ahead with
the Tempus programme. The COR expects that this
will also give a further boost to the requisite development
of a democratic and pluralist society in these European
countries too.

3.10.
The Committee notes that the countries eligible
to take part in Tempus are the Tacis countries — i.e.
the new independent states and Mongolia — and, within
the purview of the Phare programme, the non-associated
countries of central and eastern Europe. The proposal
excludes from Tempus the associated countries of
central and eastern Europe involved in the Phare
programme. In the Committee’s view, this represents a
crucial new departure from Tempus’ approach up to
now.

3.15.
For the non-associated Phare countries of cen-
tral and eastern Europe, the COR welcomes Tempus’
stronger focus on regional aspects (particularly in the
countries of the former Yugoslavia), as well as on
modernizing national and local administrations, estab-
lishing efficient machinery for higher education adminis-
tration and utilizing the findings of Tempus projects
carried out in the associated countries.

3.11.
The COR basically shares the view that the
same objectives and priorities of education and higher
education policy apply to the beneficiaries of Tempus
III as they did to countries taking part in the Tempus
programme at the start. The Committee feels that it is
perfectly permissible to compare the points of departure
in education and higher education in the associated
countries of central and eastern Europe at the start of
the 1990s with the current situation in the non-associated
and Tacis countries.

3.12.
The COR firmly backs the Commission view
that any interruption of Tempus would slow up or even
halt changes to the higher education system. The
Committee notes that if the programme were not
extended, there would no longer be any EU higher
education support mechanism for the countries eligible
under Tempus III.

3.13.
The Committee feels that opening up the
Socrates and Leonardo programmes to the associated
countries of central and eastern Europe is a positive step
which can help strengthen and promote both the ongoing
development of CEEC education and higher education
systems, and cooperation in this field between these
countries the EU. The Committee of the Regions expects
a further increase in CEEC involvement in the Socrates
and Leonardo programmes. However, in the case of the
associated countries of central and eastern Europe, the
Committee feels that inclusion in the Socrates and
Leonardo programmes is no substitute for Tempus
higher education support, from which these countries
are excluded under the Tempus III proposal.

The COR feels that, under the current Com-
3.16.
mission proposal, future Tempus activities will focus
on the new independent states and Mongolia. The
Committee thereby backs the key objectives put forward
by the Commission, particularly the promotion of
diversification, decentralization and autonomy in higher
education, a stronger regional dimension in this field,
an overhaul of curricula, teacher training, introduction
of new teaching methods and a modernized university
administration. Furthermore, the Committee expects
that universities will be given support to make a real
contribution to structural change in industry and society.

3.17.
The COR welcomes the hitherto generally
positive assessment of Tempus’ track record in the Tacis
countries. This, the Committee feels, confirms its view
that the objectives set to date should continue to be
pursued as proposed.

4. Conclusions

The Committee would stress that the current
4.1.
political and financial difficulties in various successor
states of the former Soviet Union, in particular the
largest of these, the Russian Federation, call for sustained
support to promote the tough structural switch to a
democratic and pluralist society. For this reason, it is
impossible to exaggerate the need for the stabilizing
impact of EU policy. There is thus no doubt in the
Committee’s mind that the Tacis programme and, in
this context, the Tempus higher education programme
remain fully justified.

C 51/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.2.1999

4.2.
The Committee of the Regions notes that even
after ten years of Tempus support, the countries of
central and eastern Europe still require assistance in the
ongoing development of their higher education systems,
although the situation naturally varies from one country
to the next. Against this backdrop, the Committee is
uneasy about the proposal to discontinue Tempus in all
the associated countries.

states of the former Soviet Union in particular, one of
the key tasks of the EU is stability-building. The
Committee of the Regions would point out that debar-
ring all associated CEEC from the Tempus programme
would alter the nature of the programme; instead of
helping preparing for EU accession, its entire remit
would be to promote stability in eastern Europe.

4.3.
The COR would point out the significant differ-
ences which exist in the stages of development reached
by the different CEEC and their education and higher
education systems. The split among the applicant
CEEC into one group admitted to first-wave accession
negotiations and a second group which will be eligible
at most for the second wave, serves to highlight these
differences.

4.4.
It seems justified to discontinue Tempus support
for the first wave of applicant countries — Poland, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia — since
standards in these countries are moving closer to
European levels. The Committee of the Regions agrees
that, in this case, it is tenable to restrict assistance to
participation in EU support programmes. The Com-
mittee does not of course deny that continuing Tempus
support for this group of countries taking part in the
first round of accession negotiations could help bring
them into line with EU standards faster. However, given
the need to use EU resources efficiently, the Committee
feels that, for these countries, it is defensible to discon-
tinue support.

4.5. However, with regard to the second group of
associated CEEC (Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia
and Lithuania), the Committee of the Regions wonders
whether it is not too early to discontinue Tempus
support across the board. In the Committee’s view,
consideration should be given to whether individual
countries from this group should be able to continue to
take part in Tempus or whether transitional assistance
should be provided under the Phare programme.

4.6.
In this context, the COR would point out that
one of the main objectives of the Tempus programme is
to prepare for EU accession and to help universities in
the partner countries reach a stage at which cooperation
becomes possible. It is therefore a problem when
countries seeking EU membership are debarred from the
Tempus programme even though their education and
higher education systems are still very far removed from
the level of development required for accession. The
associated central and eastern European countries thus
differ from the new independent states and the non-
associated CEEC, which have no need for help in
preparing for EU accession since there are no plans for
them to join. In contrast, when it comes to the successor

4.7.
For the entire group of associated countries of
central and eastern Europe, consideration should be
given to whether support measures should be provided
under the Socrates and Leonardo programmes to make
CEEC involvement in the programmes easier.

4.8.
Furthermore, the Committee of the Regions
advocates that the Tempus programme should continue
to focus on the joint European projects. The Committee
feels that
this kind of support, based on project
implementation, is also particularly important since it
ensures direct university involvement.

4.9.
The COR feels strongly that increasing efforts
should be made to involve universities from the associ-
ated countries of central and eastern Europe in the JEPs.
In this way, the CEEC universities given support during
Tempus’ first ten years should be integrated into the
programme so that they can pass on their findings
and experience to universities from the Tacis and
non-associated countries.

The Committee of the Regions considers that
4.10.
including universities from the associated countries of
central and eastern Europe in the JEPs and the Tempus
programme would also help promote regional cooper-
ation between the applicant CEEC and their eastern
neighbours. The COR would advocate stepping up this
form of regional cooperation between the associated
countries of central and eastern European, the Tacis
countries and the non-associated CEEC. The Committee
feels that work should begin even at this stage to ensure
that the regional development on both sides of any
future EU eastern external border is underpinned by
network of cooperation between the various regions.

In the Committee’s view,

4.11.
the development
of decentralized and regional machinery is also a
particularly important objective of education and higher
education policy. It feels, however, that the development
of such machinery must at the same time be accompanied
by a strengthening of local, and in particular regional
administrative arrangements. Tempus support must, in
the COR’s view, also strengthen the regions in the
partner countries. This can be achieved, for example,

22.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/91

by expanding universities in the regions, thereby helping
realize the structural policy objective of enhanced
regional centres. Moreover,
the Committee of the
Regions feels it is important to link education and higher
education systems, and their future development, with
the development of local authorities.

The Committee of the Regions believes that
4.12.
particular importance attaches to cooperation between
universities and the regional administration and to
universities’ role in building up and modernizing the
machinery of regional administration. At the same time,
this must benefit the growth of administrative structures
in the regional authorities, boosting these authorities’
capacity to cooperate with the EU and the further
development of the education and higher education
system itself.

4.13.
The Committee feels that, to foster the ongoing
development of democracy and pluralism, not least in
the new independent states, new political, economic and
social machinery must be set in place. In this context,
the Committee believes it is particularly important to
develop local and regional structures. Support from the
Tempus programme must therefore also help reinforce
these structures.

4.14.
The COR advocates that, increasingly, inter-
faces should be established between universities and
companies as part of the Tempus programme. In the
Committee’s view, interaction between the findings of
applied research and the needs of industry and companies
in the partner countries is essential if Tempus support
is to have a broad-based, constructive impact.

4.15.
The COR also advocates that, as part of the
Tempus programme, universities in the partner countries
should increasingly work towards training the specialists
particularly needed to build up a democratic and
structured administration and develop a well-
functioning economy. The Committee feels that con-
sideration must thereby also be given to the needs of the
emerging regional authorities.

Brussels, 19 November 1998.

4.16.
As part of the programme, the Committee
would encourage the establishment of a new scheme
centred on fostering study opportunities for eastern
Europeans in western Europe and vice versa, thus
making it easier for both sides to get to know each
other. Markedly multicultural curricula should be an
essential element of a scheme of this kind.

4.17.
The Committee feels that Tempus must also be
used to expand the scope for regional and cross-border
cooperation between EU regions and regions of the
central and eastern European countries and the new
independent states. In the Committee’s view, universities
are particularly important in building up regional and
cross-border cooperation. In the partner countries, this
can help reinforce regional structures and make for a
balanced structural policy.

4.18.
The Committee believes that it is particularly
important to share and disseminate the findings and
results of the Tempus higher education projects within
the partner countries. In the Committee’s view, more
work is needed to make sure that the partner countries
systematically encourage — and take steps to ensure —
the sharing of findings and results with other universities
not covered by Tempus support.

4.19.
Finally, the Committee would stress univer-
sities’ remit, particularly in the new independent states,
to foster awareness and knowledge in building up a
democratic and pluralist state. Tempus must also help
universities in their important task of promoting a
change of thinking in the partner countries.

therefore,

the Committee of

4.20. Overall,
the
Regions very much welcomes the proposal for a Council
decision adopting a third phase of Tempus. The COR
broadly endorses the objectives set out in the proposal
and its focus on the new independent states. However,
the Committee would note that the exclusion of the
entire group of associated countries of central and
eastern Europe from Tempus support could run counter
to the needs of some of these countries and their
pre-accession concerns.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER