Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 1999/311/EC adopting the third phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education (Tempus III) (2000-2006)" (COM(2002) 47 final — 2002/0037 (CNS))
Date: 2002-04-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, Mediterranean third countries, Middle East, cooperation policy, higher education, information system

C 149/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.6.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision amending
Decision 1999/311/EC adopting the third phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for
higher education (Tempus III) (2000-2006)’

(COM(2002) 47 final — 2002/0037 (CNS))

(2002/C 149/10)

On 28 February 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 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 11 April 2002. The rapporteur was Ms Florio.

At its 390th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 2002), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion unanimously.

‘Co-operation on higher education strengthens and deepens
the whole fabric of relations existing between the peoples of
Europe, brings out common cultural values, allows fruitful
exchanges of views to take place and facilitates multinational
activities in the scientific, cultural, artistic, economic and social
spheres.’ (1)

methodology equal to the challenges of radically changing
socio-economic systems, with the aim of strengthening demo-
cratic institutions and ensuring peaceful coexistence among all
the peoples of the continent.

1. Co-operation in the field of higher education: the

reasons for the Tempus programme

The Tempus programme was launched in 1990 as a
1.1.
programme for co-operation in the field of higher education,
conceived as an integral part of the programmes to provide
assistance for economic and social reforms in the central and
eastern European countries, the republics of the former Soviet
Union, and Mongolia.

1.2.
Over the last ten years the programme has undergone
a series of changes and adjustments, mainly due to the
development of relations between the European Union and
the CEEC, so that in 1993 — by which time 11 countries were
eligible to join the programme — it was decided to extend the
programme to include the countries of the former Soviet
Union. The programme was thus further modified twice
(Tempus II and Tempus II A) with the inclusion of the New
Independent States.

1.3.
The need was to encourage a comparative system and
far-reaching structural reforms in the higher education sector,
so as to create in the central and eastern European countries
and the former Soviet Union a modern academic teaching

(1) Council Decision of 29 April 1999 adopting the third phase of
the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education
(Tempus III) (2000-2006), 1999/311/EC — OJ L 120, 8.5.1999,
p. 30.

1.4.
As the geo-political situation changed, the Balkans
region was therefore also included in the programme in
successive stages, on the principle that co-operation in the
university sector could consolidate and markedly improve the
young democracies of the Balkans. At present, Croatia, Albania,
Bosnia Herzegovina and the FYROM, followed by the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, belong to the group of countries
included in the Tempus programme.

Initially the Tempus programme identified three pri-

1.5.
ority areas:

1)

support for curricular reforms in education programmes;

2)

reform of the structures of higher education and of their
management;

3)

development and integration of higher training, with a
view to bridging the current gaps between the different
higher education systems. The reforms are essentially
aimed at changing the entire model of higher education,
particularly in the former socialist countries, adapting it
to the necessary economic reforms, and improving and
strengthening the link with the world of work.

21.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 149/37

1.5.1.
All this is implemented mainly through the JEPs
(Joint European Projects managed by networks of institutions)
and individual bursaries for visits to partner countries awarded
to teachers, researchers, trainers, administrators from universit-
ies and educational systems, senior ministry officials and
training experts. Such visits, which cover a rather broad range
of activities, can make a decisive contribution to better
understanding between different cultures and to bringing them
closer together.

2. Tempus III: extending the programme to the MEDA

countries

2.1.
By amending Decision 1999/311/EC, the Council now
wishes to extend the application of the Tempus programme to
include certain Mediterranean countries which already benefit
from the European Union’s MEDA programme.

2.2. With the adoption of the partnership decision, the
Tempus programme would thus be extended to Morocco,
Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Syria
and Lebanon.

2.3.
It has become necessary to include such countries to
redress imbalances which have gradually arisen in the co-
operation programmes, especially in the higher education
sector; the need also arises from the strengthening of co-
operation and dialogue with eligible countries in the Mediter-
ranean area.

It is envisaged that Israel, too, could join the Tempus
2.4.
partnership; however, its participation would be self-funded,
since the country does not currently belong to the MEDA
bilateral agreements.

3. General comments

3.1.
It is extremely important to include the countries on
the southern shore of the Mediterranean in the programme,
because this would boost the chances of greater integration
between the countries of the European Union and a geographi-
cal area whose economic potential has not yet been adequately
developed.

3.2.
Such co-operation, the roots of which go as far back
as the 1960s, was significantly extended in the 1990s and
received a decisive boost from the Barcelona Declaration,
adopted in November 1995 at the Euro-Mediterranean Confer-
ence.

3.3.
The ESC itself has also recently emphasised the need
for closer co-operation with the Mediterranean countries (1), in
the light of the events of 11 September 2001, and regarding
the Barcelona Declaration as an essential
for
meeting the needs of these countries and facing the challenges
posed by relations with them.

instrument

3.4.
This process of strengthening inter-Mediterranean co-
operation has also benefited from the contribution made by
the Lisbon Declaration, which stresses the importance of
education and training as valuable instruments which can
provide a highly qualitative approach to meeting the challenges
of an increasingly integrated market.

.Thus,

in view of the increasingly pressing need to
4.
strengthen co-operation between the European Union and the
eligible Mediterranean countries, the Committee is in favour
of their joining the Tempus III partnership, for a variety of
reasons relating to the nature of the programme itself and that
of international relations.

First and foremost, the Tempus III programme has
4.1.
already shown itself
for
developing inter-university co-operation and the exchange of
experience and know-how between the beneficiary countries.

to be an effective instrument

Secondly, the structure of the programme is simple and easily
adaptable, making it easy to apply to countries in a variety of
regions.

4.2.
The types of projects and general activities envisaged
constitute the basic instruments for achieving the aims and
priorities set by the third countries themselves. This is also
shown by the fact that the structure of the programme has
been copied a number of times in applying the EU’s policy for
co-operation with other regions of the world (LINK, ALFA,
MED-Campus).

4.3.
It is also worth mentioning that, after the failure of
the MED-Campus programme (due more to management
problems than to structural ones), inter-university co-oper-
ation with eligible Mediterranean countries was entirely sus-
pended, thus breaking a precious link for bringing peoples
closer together and developing mutual understanding. We
believe that including these countries in the Tempus pro-
gramme is now the best instrument for reviving this type of
co-operation.

4.4.
In this context it will be important to develop an
adequate information system, for a broader dissemination
of
the programme in all university and higher training
establishments.

The Committee advocates the setting up of an
4.4.1.
electronic information system between higher education estab-
lishments which would further strengthen this type of scientific
and cultural cooperation.

(1) Own-initiative opinion of 18 October 2001 — OJ C 36, 8.2.2002.

C 149/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.6.2002

4.5.
The Committee also undertakes to follow the progress
of the programme, so as to inform the socio-occupational
organisations of the Mediterranean countries with which it has
built up close, fruitful cooperation over a period of years, and
encourage them to take part in Tempus MEDA.

4.6.
The Committee also hopes that the activities carried
out under the Tempus programme will be integrated with
those envisaged under other programmes, such as the 6th Fra-
mework Programme on research and development, and will
take account of other initiatives, particularly that on the
European Education Area, which should be extended to include
the Mediterranean countries.

Brussels, 24 April 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘ACP-EU Partnership Agreement’

(2002/C 149/11)

On 28 February and 1 March 2001, in accordance with the third paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of
Procedure, the Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion on the ‘ACP-EU
Partnership Agreement’.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the
subject, adopted its opinion on 11 April 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Baeza Sanjua´n.

At its 390th plenary session of 24 and 25 April 2002 (meeting of 24 April 2002) the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 101 votes in favour with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
ACP-EU cooperation has its roots in the Treaty of
Rome where the signatories expressed their solidarity with the
overseas colonies and territories and undertook to contribute
to their prosperity. The Yaoundé I and II Agreements (1963-
1969 and 1969-1975 respectively) regulated relations between
the EEC Member States and the ACP countries for the first
it was
time. In 1975 the Lomé I Convention was signed;
revised every five years until the expiry of Lomé IV in 2000.

1.2.
For a long time the Lomé Convention was regarded as
a model for international cooperation agreements because of
its innovative nature. The principle of equality between
partners, the linking of trade and aid (with price stabilisation
mechanisms and protocols on specific products), the gradual
introduction of reciprocal political commitments and the
creation of a joint institutional framework made the Lomé
Convention a yardstick in international relations.

1.3.
However, the political changes which occurred during
the 90s called into question this model of EU/ACP relations.
Some of
the provisions which formed the fundamental
commercial basis of the Lomé Convention were incompatible
with the new rules established by the World Trade Organis-
ation (WTO). The practical implementation of the Convention
turned out to be difficult because of complex procedures
which prevented full use of the resources potentially available.
Despite the Convention’s provisions, the relative share of the
ACP countries in EU trade continued to fall and the outlook
for the development of these countries was, with a few
exceptions, bleak. Poverty increased, exacerbated by a prolifer-
ation of armed conflicts. The increase in emergency humani-
tarian aid bore witness to the shortcomings of long-term
development policies, not to mention the fact that some aid
did not reach its final destination, not infrequently because of
corruption. The end of the bipolar international order favoured
the emergence of two aspects where Lomé was clearly deficient:
a political dimension and its democratisation, through the
effective participation of non-governmental players. Finally,