Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 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: 1998-12-02
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU programme, cooperation policy, higher education

15.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40/23

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision
Adopting the Third Phase of the Trans-European Cooperation Scheme for Higher Education
— Tempus III (2000-2006)’ (1)

(1999/C 40/08)

On 1 October 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee under
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 November 1998. The rapporteur working
alone was Mr Rodrı´guez Garcı´a Caro.

At its 359th plenary session on 2 and 3 December 1998 (meeting of 2 December) the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 102 votes in favour, 8 votes against
and 16 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1. Tempus I

1.1.1.
Decision 90/233/EEC, adopted by the Council
on 7 May 1990, brought into being the Tempus pro-
gramme, establishing a trans-European mobility scheme
for university studies. The Committee issued an opinion
on the programme on 25 April 1990.

1.2. Tempus II

1.2.1.
In accordance with Article 11 of the decision,
in 1992 the Commission submitted an evaluation report
and a proposal for a decision inaugurating the second
phase of the programme.

The Economic and Social Committee adopted an opinion
on this at its plenary session held on 27 January 1993.

1.2.2. On 29 April 1993 the Council adopted
Decision 93/246/EEC inaugurating the second phase of
Tempus for the period 1994/1998.

1.2.3.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 11
of the Decision, the Commission in 1996 submitted an
evaluation report and a proposal for a decision amending
the previous decision, adapting Tempus as from 1998.

The Economic and Social Committee’s opinion on this
decision was adopted at its July 1996 plenary session.

1.2.4. On 21 November 1996 the Council adopted
Decision 96/663/EEC amending Decision 93/246/EEC
and extending Tempus until 2000.

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

1.3. Tempus III

1.3.1. On 17 July 1998 the Commission submitted a
proposal for a Council Decision for the third phase
of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher
education (Tempus III) for the period 2000-2006 and
referred it to the Economic and Social Committee for
its opinion.

1.3.2.
has had two constant themes.

Throughout its life the Tempus programme

1.3.3.
First, stress should be laid on the effort made
to promote the development of education systems in the
countries covered by the Phare and Tacis programmes,
contributing to improved training in universities in the
eligible countries and supporting actions to improve
and reform the structures and management of higher
education institutions.

1.3.4.
Secondly, the Committee welcomes the way in
which the Community business sector and universities
have been brought closer to their counterparts in the
countries participating in the Tempus programme. The
active involvement of firms in the development of the
programme has given it an enormous impetus, which
should be borne in mind in future.

2. Proposal for a decision

Tempus III is aimed at the central and eastern
2.1.
European countries which have not been involved in the
Socrates and Leonardo programmes. Basically, these are
the countries which came late to the Tempus programme
and the beneficiaries of the Tacis programme (Albania,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, the new independent states and Mongolia).

2.2.
Tempus III will take account of the needs
common to the Tacis countries arising from the grave
financial crisis which also affects the higher education

C 40/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.2.1999

systems of the new independent states and Mongolia.
Tempus will contribute to the efforts to provide access
to new methods of education, to introduce new courses
and provide essential equipment.

2.3. Without losing sight of the general problems
affecting all these countries, Tempus will respond to the
specific needs of states, promoting actions to meet the
demand for improvement and progress in universities in
the eligible countries.

2.4. With regard to the non-associated central and
eastern European countries involved in the Phare pro-
gramme, Tempus continues to be relevant by helping to
reduce disparities between these countries and the EU
Member States.

Actions will concentrate on four priority areas:

initiatives undertaken by the states as part of the
process of reform.

2.7.
The proposal for a decision states that the
programme shall last for six years, beginning on 1 July
2000. An evaluation report is to be drawn up in
2004 which will include a proposal for adapting the
programme after 2006.

2.8.
The general objective of Tempus III is to promote
specifically, within the objectives of the Phare and Tacis
programmes dealing with the economic and social
development of the eligible countries, the development
of higher education systems via close cooperation with
European Union partners.

2.9. Within this general framework, Tempus has
specific objectives concerning the provision of assistance
to higher education systems in order to:

2.4.1.
making universities a focus of regional solidarity.

Giving the regional dimension a boost, by

— develop study programmes

2.4.2. Modernizing national and local administration
by providing university training to civil servants.

— reform structures and institutions, including man-

agement

2.4.3. Managing change in the context of national
reforms of higher education.

— develop specialized training.

2.4.4.
Building on what has been achieved in the
associated countries so that the results obtained in the
course of the whole Tempus programme can be exploited
by the countries participating in Tempus III.

3. Comments

3.1. General comments

Tempus is at present

2.5.
the only Community
framework for the development of relations between
universities in the EU and the countries covered by the
programme.

3.1.1.
The Committee welcomes the continuation of
the programme to 2006. Education and training bring
freedom and enable people to grow in knowledge,
harmony and well-being, thus encouraging balanced
social and sustained economic development.

Tempus thus needs to continue in order to build on the
benefits already obtained through the higher education
systems of the eligible countries.

Improving and reinforcing higher education and making
it available to citizens is essential if people are to be able
to face the future with optimism.

2.6.
Tempus needs to be extended in order to
develop further the results of the Phare and Tacis
programmes in higher education and to reinforce the
improvements in the management of higher education
as a key element of socio-political reform, and in
order to consolidate university-industry cooperation in
the broad sense of the term, as indicated in Act 3(b)
thus backing up
of

the Commission proposal (1),

(1) b) ‘industry’ and ‘company’ cover all types of economic
activity, irrespective of legal status, local ‘authorities and
public law bodies, autonomous business organizations,
chambers of commerce and industry and/or their equiva-
lents, professional associations, employers’ and workers’
organizations, and the training bodies of the institutions
and organizations mentioned above (COM(1998) 454
final)’.

3.1.2.
Universities can play an important role in
the socio-economic development of the programme’s
eligible countries. To this end, the Committee believes
that close and flexible links are needed between univer-
sities and firms (in the sense of entities made up of
employers and workers) so that academic institutions
will be worthwhile both on their own terms and as a
necessary and dynamic support to the life of the state in
which they are located, e.g. by promoting the active
transfer of firms’ know-how.

Universities, with the benefit of business expertise, must
be well placed to observe society’s higher education
needs. The Committee therefore feels that the economic
and social
interest groups should be more closely
involved in decisions on the implementation of the
programme and the selection of projects.

15.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40/25

3.1.3.
The Committee does not share the view that
associated central and eastern European countries should
be excluded from Tempus on the grounds that they are
already covered by the Socrates programme. Whilst
acknowledging that it is illogical to be participating
simultaneously in similar programmes, the Committee
does not feel that this criterion should be applied as
long as some states are further than others from the
achievement of improvements in their education systems.

The objectives of Socrates do not include the develop-
ment of the participants’ higher education systems, and
countries which still need to reinforce and improve this
sector should be free to benefit from Tempus.

The Committee therefore urges the Commission and
the Council to take account of this and to allow countries
to transfer gradually from one programme to another
in line with the need for reform and improvement of
their higher education systems.

3.1.4.
The Committee feels that the improvement of
the higher education structures and institutions of the
eligible countries is a priority task with a view to the
socio-economic development of these states.

The management of higher education institutions
requires the support of skilled professionals able to
maximize the efficiency of universities and ensure that
funds, which are always in short supply, are used to
serve the aims of the institution.

To this end, the Committee feels that the common
European projects covering activities aimed at improving
the management of universities in the eligible countries
should involve not only EU universities but also firms,
with their management expertise.

The Committee endorses the part of

3.1.5.
the
explanatory memorandum to the proposal for a decision
dealing with the harnessing of solidarity in the part of
ex-Yugoslavia participating in Phare.

One way of doing this is through the active participation
of universities from areas which have experienced ethnic
conflict in projects involving other universities from the
same geographical region, whether in the EU or the
associated states.

The Committee calls on the Commission, in developing
the programme, to step up and give priority to this type
of activity in order to bring citizens of these zones of
conflict closer together.

3.1.6.
The development of study programmes is one
of the objectives of Tempus III. In a society approaching
the third millennium in which material considerations
are at the forefront of European citizens’ minds a
counterweight is needed to this excessively materialistic
concept of development.

The Committee considers that actions for the develop-
ment of education programmes, study plans and course
design should not overlook the humanities, which can
contribute to the re-establishment of solidarity and help
bring people closer together.

At the same time as promoting reform of
3.1.7.
education systems via the common European projects,
we should not lose sight of the need for continuous
qualitative improvement
in higher education insti-
tutions.

The reforms may be insufficient unless underpinned by
an awareness of the need for continuous improvement
of the product offered to society. The Committee feels
that the projects should include activities aimed at the
continuous improvement of quality in higher education.

The Committee recommends that, in selecting common
European projects, priority be given to measures for
the establishment of quality guarantee systems in the
universities and in study plans and programmes.

The Committee feels that special emphasis
3.1.8.
should be placed on improving the presentation and
take-up of common European projects, which would
require measures for the training and retraining of
university teachers in the eligible countries and periods
of secondment to EU firms. In order to guarantee
high-quality university education, well-trained teachers
are needed with access to advances in knowledge.

3.2. Specific comments

For the avoidance of confusion, the Committee
3.2.1.
feels that the terminology of the body of the text of the
proposal for a decision should be harmonized with that
of the appendices. Thus, the definition of the states
covered by Tempus as ‘eligible countries’ (Article 2)
in order to
should also be used in the appendix,
differentiate them from associated countries.

3.2.2. One of the objectives of Tempus I was to
language-learning opportunities
promote reciprocal
between the Member States and the eligible countries.

The Committee notes that this is not listed among the
objectives of the third phase of Tempus, nor is it included
in the development of programme activities. The Com-
mittee feels that, language being the natural vehicle of
communication, there will be no mutual understanding
without a common means of expression.

language-learning opportunities

Reciprocal
should
therefore be reincorporated into the third phase of
Tempus, with support for the training of language
teachers.

C 40/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.2.1999

3.2.3.
The programme’s support for student mobility
between universities is one of the programme’s most
positive features in that it promotes the interchange of
culture and knowledge in a barrier-free Europe based
on solidarity.

The Committee welcomes the priority which the pro-
gramme attaches to projects for the mutual recognition
of courses undertaken in other universities. This priority
selection criterion should be made general and be a key
element in the decision to support a project so that
interchange and mobility will be encouraged and study
periods in other universities made more attractive.

3.2.4.
In its previous opinions on the programme the
Committee has repeatedly advocated that one of the
two seats on the advisory committee reserved for each
Member State be occupied by a university representative
and the other by a representative of industry. In view of
the emphasis placed by the programme on activities
to promote cooperation between universities and the
economic and social players, particularly industry, the
Committee feels that it would be prudent to give the
latter a voice on the advisory committee.

Under the third phase of Tempus, however, the seats on
the advisory committee are reduced to one per Member
State.

Whilst fully aware of the arguments in favour of
economy, the Committee wonders whether it might not
actually be more cost-effective to sacrifice this principle
and thus enable the committee to perform more
efficiently the functions assigned to it by the proposal
for a decision.

The Committee would therefore call for the number of
seats to remain at two per Member State, shared between
the university and socio-economic worlds, in order to
help the committee meet the objectives for which it was
set up.

The experience, both positive and negative,
3.2.5.
accumulated over the life of the Tempus programme
can be used in planning future developments. There
should be specific support under Tempus III for publicis-
ing the results of projects and activities carried out under
the programme over the years in order to provide

Brussels, 2 December 1998.

institutions and bodies wishing to participate with a
reference framework in drawing up common European
projects.

New participants in the programme need both a guide
for applicants, clearly setting out all the conditions of
the programme, and a guide to past projects, with details
of participants, enabling experience garnered from past
projects to be used to improve the quality of future
Tempus projects.

3.2.6.
Improving national and local public adminis-
tration in the eligible countries is a priority for the states
covered by the Phare and Tacis programmes. Civil
servants need to upgrade their skills in order to meet
new management demands arising from the reforms
being undertaken.

The universities of the eligible countries can play an
important part in the retraining of civil servants by
making their infrastructure available and enlisting the
support of universities in the Member States and
associated countries in order to design an appropriate
model
the eligible
countries’ civil servants.

for the continuing training of

The Committee feels that these training activities should
be given greater weight within the programme and the
objectives spelt out more clearly in the appendix.

3.2.7.
The Committee feels that activities aimed at
improving the training of the economic and social
players in the eligible countries (training of trade union
and employers’ representatives) should be taken into
account in developing programmes for promoting the
reform of socio-economic systems in these states. The
states’ participation in these programmes should be on
the basis of equality.

3.2.8.
The Committee recommends that, in publicis-
ing the information needed to encourage participation
in the programme, maximum transparency be practised.
More higher education institutions and firms from the
Member States need to be involved in Tempus projects
in order to prevent stagnation, and new ideas and
approaches should be embraced, thus enriching the
substantial body of experience already accumulated over
the life of the programme.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

15.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40/27

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were defeated during
the discussion:

Point 3.1.2, first paragraph

Replace ‘... firms (in the sense of ...)’ by: ‘economic and social interest groups’.

Result of the vote

For: 54, against: 59, abstentions: 9.

Point 3.1.2, second paragraph

In the first sentence, replace ‘with the benefit of business expertise’ by ‘with the benefit of the expertise
of the economic and social interest groups’.

Result of the vote

For: 47, against: 63, abstentions: 6.

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
(EC) applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 January
1999 to 31 December 2001’

(1999/C 40/09)

On 2 December 1998 the Economic and Social Committee, acting in pursuance of Rule 23(3)
of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for External Relations, which was instructed to drawn up the section’s opinion
on the matter, adopted its opinion on 17 November 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Giesecke.

The Committee adopted the opinion set out below at its 359th plenary session (meeting of
2 December 1998) by a unanimous vote.

1.

Introduction

governments in developing countries and also importers
who wish to focus on transparent markets.

1.1. Over the last few decades, the EU has constantly
improved and adjusted its policy on trade preferences
for developing countries in the light of recent develop-
ments; the EU has, however, taken care not to leave its
own sensitive economic sectors unprotected. The EU
has sought to take account more effectively of the
differing needs of the various groups of developing
countries, whilst, however, also paying greater heed to
the interests of EU importers.

1.3.
A new development was the provision whereby
good conduct on the part of individual developing
countries in the fields of labour law, protection of the
environment and anti-drug measures could be specially
rewarded; another new provision was the graduation
mechanism under which advanced developing countries
gradually ceased to benefit from preferences.

1.2.
The latest major revision of the GSP came into
force in 1995, marked by the beginning of a new ten-year
period of EU tariff arrangements. This revision brought
further progress on transparency and predictability, for

A number of additional

1.4.
improvements and
adjustments are now being proposed three years into
the new period covered by the Community offer.