Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a programme for the enhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through cooperation with third countries (Erasmus World) (2004-2008)" (COM(2002) 401 final — 2002/0165 (COD))
Date: 2003-02-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation policy, cultural policy, education grant, education policy, educational exchange, higher education, third country

23.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/35

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European
Parliament and Council Decision establishing a programme for the enhancement of quality in
higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through cooperation with
third countries (Erasmus World) (2004-2008)’

(COM(2002) 401 final — 2002/0165 (COD))

(2003/C 95/10)

On 30 August 2002, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 February 2003. The rapporteur was
Mr Rodríguez García Caro.

At its 397th plenary session on 26 and 27 February 2003 (meeting of 26 February), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 110 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Article 149(1) of the Treaty establishing the European
Community stipulates that the Community shall contribute to
the development of quality education in Europe by encourag-
ing cooperation between the Member States and, if necessary,
by supporting and supplementing their action.

Paragraph 3 of the same article states that the Community and
Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries.

The European Union has shown a firm commitment
1.2.
to the development of quality higher education at Community
level through measures to promote quality assurance and
quality assessment as part of the ongoing drive to achieve
recognised educational and scientific standards in European
universities.

A number of Member States have longstanding traditions of
cooperation with third countries in the sphere of education,
which has helped to consolidate internationally prestigious
reputations which are highly attractive to students from across
the world who wish to pursue different university course in
these countries.

level,

interinstitutional

At
the European Union has used
its experience in implementing different higher education
programmes to develop various cooperation initiatives with
third countries.

1.3.
The Bologna Declaration of June 1999 highlighted the
importance of promoting the European higher education
system in other countries and ensuring that it was able to
attract students not only from Europe but from across the
world.

1.4.
The European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), which
makes recognition of academic work carried out in another
country considerably easier in the country of origin, has
attracted huge interest in other parts of the world. As the

Commission communication on strengthening cooperation
with third countries in the field of higher education states,
further development of this system would be in line with the
Bologna process and the conclusions of the meeting of higher
education ministers held in Prague in May 2001, which
highlighted the importance of mobility, accreditation and
quality assurance (1).

1.5.
Existing programmes provide for limited cooperation
with third countries through exchanges, access for students
from third countries to European higher education institutions,
the creation of centres for European Union studies, cooper-
ation with countries in the ACP region to improve education
in these countries, etc. More decisive action is required to
extend and expand these initiatives, some of which have been
running for a considerable period of time, both in terms of
quality and of quantity, since in their current form they may
prove to be incapable of achieving the objectives set out in this
proposal.

Existing programmes do not provide for the creation of
European Union Masters degrees, partnerships between univer-
sities to deliver such courses, or the award of grants to enable
students and scholars of repute from third countries to come
to European universities in large numbers.

The proposed decision draws on the experience and
1.6.
prestige of programmes such as Socrates/Erasmus and the
cooperation programmes with the United States and Canada.
No Community programme combines in such an ambitious
way a specific internal
initiative with a large-scale grants
system. In the near future, grants of international repute could
play an integral part in achieving the decision’s objectives.

(1) COM(2001) 385 final.

C 95/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.4.2003

1.7.
The proposal would benefit the higher education
systems of the Member States by reinforcing efforts to maintain
and improve the quality of the education they offer, enabling
European universities to attract not only the best students, but
also the most highly regarded scholars from outside the
Community who wish to spend a period of study, teaching or
research in universities in the European Union.

1.8.
Consequently, and in line with Article 149 of the EC
Treaty, this proposal for a decision seeks to support and
complement the action of the Member States by contributing
to the development of quality higher education which is
attractive to third-country nationals and ensuring that they
have more opportunities to access this education than in the
past.

Finally, the Committee would draw attention to one of
1.9.
the points it made in its opinion on the Proposal
for a
Council Recommendation on European cooperation in quality
assurance in higher education (1), which is in line with the
principle on which this proposal for a decision is based:

‘The systematic application of the methodology of quality
assurance as an instrument for continuously improving quality
is the best way of achieving genuine quality higher education
in the Union’s teaching establishments.
It will encourage
university education in the Member States and make it easier
to draw comparisons between different education systems in
the Union (2).’

2. The proposal for a decision

The programme’s overall aim is to ‘enhance quality education
by improving the perception of European higher education
world-wide and by fostering cooperation with third countries
in order to improve the development of human resources and
to promote dialogue and understanding between peoples and
cultures.’

It is proposed that the programme will run between 2004 and
2008.

The proposal seeks to achieve the following specific

2.1.
objectives:

— the emergence of a distinctly European offer in higher
education which is attractive both within the European
Union and beyond its borders;

— a higher profile for European education;

— greater international interest in acquiring European quali-

fications;

— more structured co-operation between European Union
to promote greater

and third country institutions
mobility.

( 1) COM(97) 159 final.
( 2) OJ C 19, 21.1.1998.

The following actions are planned as part of this

2.2.
initiative:

— European Union Masters Courses;

— scholarships for third country graduate students;

— scholarships for third country visiting scholars;

— partnerships between European Union Masters Courses

and third country higher education institutions;

— making European higher education more attractive;

— support measures.

2.3.
The label ‘European Union Masters’ refers to a group
of European postgraduate courses, and is intended to present
to third countries a distinctly European educational identity.
Each Masters course must involve a minimum of three higher
education institutions from three different Member States and
implement a study programme which involves a period of
study in at least two of the three institutions. At the end of the
course, double or multiple degrees would be awarded.

in the European Union Member States,

European Union Masters courses would be delivered in
universities
the
countries participating in the programme and the European
Union candidate countries. The proposed duration of courses
is 15 months on average. A certain number of places would
be reserved for those students from third countries who are
granted financial support under the programme.

Grants: There is a single grants system, with two

2.4.
possibilities for eligibility:

Students: The scheme would support stays of up to two
academic years (20 months). Scholarships would be linked to
a specific European postgraduate offer. The selection process
would ensure an appropriate balance across European Union
Masters Courses,
fields of study and students’ regions of
provenance and would encourage participation of women and
the most disadvantaged students.

Visiting scholars: Visiting scholars would have recognised
academic or professional experience and would receive grants
with a view to carrying out teaching and research assignments
connected with the Masters course which invited them. Each
European Union Masters Course may host
three visiting
scholars per academic year. The grant period would be on
average three months.

2.5.
Partnerships with third country higher education insti-
tutions are designed to open up European higher education
and raise its international profile by establishing relationships
between institutions to promote cultural and educational
exchange. Partnerships with top third country higher education
institutions would enhance the attractiveness of European
Union Masters Courses and offer students and visiting scholars
from the European Union taking part in the programmes the
possibility of working or studying in third countries.

23.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/37

Projects would run for a maximum of
three years and
would involve institutions from third countries in the Masters
programmes by including a fixed period of study in these
countries. The period of study would vary between one and
six months, and would encompass periods of teaching and
exchanges of scholars and encourage the spread of new
information and communication technologies.

2.6.
The aim of the programme is to make European higher
education more attractive, raise its profile and improve access
to it. Activities would be conducted within networks involving
a minimum of three organisations from three different Member
States and could involve organisations from third countries.
There are three different kinds of action:

— support for joint promotional actions;

— support for services facilitating access by third country

students to European education; and

— complementary activities, including quality assurance.

although attracting the best students and scholars will certainly
contribute added value, the Committee believes that other
factors related to quality should also be taken into account.

3.4.
The Committee agrees with the view expressed in the
Communication that there is a need for an effort, at Com-
munity level, to encourage higher education institutions to
take part in cooperation activities with third countries as a
matter of course.

The growing international popularity among students of
mobility and exchange should encourage higher education
institutions to improve continually so as to make themselves
more attractive to students from other countries. Alongside
the well-trodden path to the United States and certain EU
Member States, we should begin to see greater movement to
the other States of the Union. The actions proposed in this
communication could eventually pave the way for greater
recognition for European higher education as a whole.

3. General comments

3.1.
The Committee welcomes the proposal for a decision
submitted by the Parliament and Council and the measures
proposed pursuant to Article 149 of the EC Treaty aimed at
contributing to quality education in the European Union. In
this context, it considers that its comments in the opinion on
the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on European
cooperation in quality assurance in higher education, referred
to above, remain entirely valid.

Concerning the present proposal, the Committee wishes to
reiterate the comments it made in the opinion referred to
above.

3.2.
The Committee signals its support for the adoption of
specific initiatives which will pave the way for quality higher
education based, inter alia, on cooperation with third countries,
by working in partnership with top universities and attracting
renowned scholars and the best qualified students from the
countries concerned. This mutually beneficial synergy will
contribute to the development of closer links and lay the
foundations for better understanding and cooperation in the
future between the European Union and the participating
countries.

The Committee is of the view that the national agencies should
play a major role in the award of mobility scholarships and in
providing information and advice. European-level tasks should
be undertaken by existing or new structures, e.g. within the
framework of the Socrates programme.

The new Erasmus World programme requires the necessary
legal framework for the mobility of third country nationals in
Europe.

3.5.
The competitiveness of our higher education insti-
tutions must be backed up by continuous quality improve-
ment. We must go beyond mere quality assurance in higher
education:
individual universities, departments and degree
courses must be driven by the quest for excellence based on
the introduction of total quality management systems which
incorporate quality assurance.

Higher education institutions must be guided by criteria
of excellence,
including the satisfaction of different actors,
continuous improvement and results which mark them out
from institutions not taking part in this process. We thus
propose replacing references to quality assurance with refer-
ences to total quality management systems.

In its opinion on the Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Decision establishing the second phase of the
Community action programme in the field of education
‘Socrates’ (1), the Committee welcomed the establishment of
quality indicators and assessment of quality in education (2).
Higher education institutions in the European Union which
participate in the actions provided for under the present
proposal should have previously participated in quality assess-
ment procedures either on an institutional level or in connec-
tion with the degree courses taught.

3.3.
The proposal for a decision and its annex state more
than once that the aim of the proposal is to improve the
quality of higher education in the European Union by raising
its profile and cooperating with third countries. However,

(1) COM(98) 329 final.
(2) OJ C 410, 30.12.1998.

C 95/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.4.2003

3.6.
The Committee believes that the mobility of students
towards higher education institutions in Europe has a dimen-
sion which goes beyond the mere transmission and acquisition
of knowledge in specific subjects, however new or important.
It contributes a human dimension to knowledge, involving
exchanges and coexistence, which, over the course of time,
could have a beneficial impact on understanding and trust
between the students’ countries of origin and the European
Union. Attracting the best students may mean attracting the
future decision-makers in politics and technology in these
countries; thus the added value that the programme may bring
in terms of better intercultural relations is, in the Committee’s
view, a major advantage.

In this regard it is essential to implement support
3.7.
measures to ensure that participants return to their countries
of origin, to prevent countries in great need of their most
highly qualified human resources suffering from cultural and
professional brain drain. It is important to promote not only
the attraction of the intellectual elites in third countries, but
also to facilitate their return to their countries of origin. In this
connection, due attention should be paid to those higher
education establishments which have reciprocity programmes
with centres in developing countries.

The programme must safeguard linguistic diversity.
3.8.
The Committee has expressed its views on many occasions on
the importance of spreading a knowledge of the Member
States’ languages and of protecting and promoting minority
languages.

The Committee also believes that teaching centres should be
free to deliver Masters courses according to the criteria they
deem most appropriate. Nonetheless, it wishes to point out
that the Union’s linguistic diversity must be preserved and as
far as possible the move towards linguistic simplification on
grounds of efficiency or effectiveness must be avoided.

It thus welcomes the measures proposed under the section on
European Union Masters Courses with regard to linguistic
preparation of students and assistance in this matter.

4. Specific comments

The Spanish version of the explanatory memorandum

4.1.
refers to ‘associated countries’.

The Committee believes this term to be misleading as it is the
legal
term used to refer to those countries which have
association agreements with the European Union. It thus calls
for a less specific term to be used (the English text refers to
‘partner countries’).

The same section of the explanatory memorandum

4.2.
states that:

‘In pursuing these objectives the Community will also seek to
improve links between higher education institutions and
industry.

While the Committee shares this view, it considers that this
aspect is not sufficiently developed further on in the text or
the annex. The Commission should specify what part of the
proposed action is designed to improve these links.’

4.3.
On the basis of the general comments regarding quality
in higher education institutions which may take part in the
various actions, the Committee believes that two selection
criteria should be used in choosing which institutions are to
take part in each European Union Masters Course, either
jointly or independently.

Higher education institutions taking part in the Masters scheme
should operate a recognised quality management system which
has been subject to at least an internal evaluation. This would
ensure that the teaching centre is not only committed to the
quest for excellence, but also that it is itself involved in the
process.

3.9.
In its opinions the Committee has repeatedly expressed
its concern for facilitating the integration of the disabled.
Accordingly, it would urge the Commission, the Council and
the European Parliament to include in this programme some
funds to assist towards this end.

It would also be desirable to ensure that degrees on which
European Union Masters are based have been subject to a
process of quality assessment as part of a quality management
system.

The Committee urges the Parliament and Council to
3.10.
do their utmost to ensure that the proposal is dealt with in
time for a launch in 2004.

These or other means of evaluating quality must form part of
the criteria for selecting Masters courses or centres wishing to
take part in a programme designed to achieve improved
quality in higher education institutions in the European Union.

23.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/39

4.4.
The Committee endorses the idea of awarding a double
or multiple qualification on behalf of all of the teaching centres
involved. This kind of qualification could help provide an
integrated picture of the academic process followed and enable
studies carried out in the European Union to be presented in a
uniform manner.

Paragraph 5.3 of the financial statement states that
4.5.
scholarships for third country students and scholars entail
the allocation of
fixed amounts for accommodation and
subsistence, which are provided on the basis of merit. Para-
including
graph 6 details the average cost of all actions,
scholarships.

The Committee believes that the Commission should define
‘merit’ in greater detail, in order to clarify the criteria which
would be used to calculate the funding granted to each student.

Independently of this, and in accordance with the line taken in
other Committee opinions,
including that on the second
phase of Socrates, the Committee believes that corrective
should be introduced in the allocation of
mechanisms
resources,
those with lower incomes are
guaranteed higher levels of assistance and grants.

to ensure that

4.6.
Concerning mobility for students and scholars from
the European Union to higher education institutions in third
countries, the Committee would reiterate the comments it
made in its opinions on the first and second phases of Socrates,
to the effect that the Commission and Member States must

Brussels, 26 February 2003.

introduce mechanisms to allocate and monitor funding so that
the greatest possible number of people are able to access the
initiative, ensuring that assistance is not monopolised by
specific individuals or institutions.

4.7.
The proposal provides for citizens of third countries
residing in the European Union to participate in the mobility
actions in the framework of partnerships with higher education
institutions in third countries. The explanatory memorandum
establishes a minimum period of residency of three years, but
does not specify whether this refers to continuous residence
or whether breaks are permitted.

Article 11 of the Proposal for a European Parliament and
Council Directive on the right of citizens of the Union and
their family members to move and reside freely within the
territory of the Member States (1) allows breaks in residence of
up to six months, and longer in specific circumstances, for
third country nationals who are family members of Union
citizens, which do not affect the validity of the residence
permit.

The Committee thus considers that the requirement for three
years’ residence must be clarified to specify whether continuous
residence is required or whether breaks in residence are
permitted. Likewise, it would be desirable to specify whether
this requirement will apply to third-country nationals who are
family members of European Union citizens.

(1) COM(2001) 257 final.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH