Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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)
Date: 2003-04-10
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation policy, higher education, teaching quality, third country

C 244/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.10.2003

Establishing supportive financial markets and favourable
fiscal conditions for R&D (1)

and private R&D sectors. However there should, if possible, be
no increase in overall public spending;

24.
welcomes the Commission’s statement that a mix of
different instruments is needed, as no single instrument is able
to provide the full range of incentives. The optimal mix of
instruments differs not only across countries but across regions
as well, and extremely careful selection is required as a result
(bearing in mind the skill’s available in each region). In some
cases, this may mean changing the balance between the public

(1) COM(2002) 499 final only.

25.
would like, in conclusion, to acknowledge the Com-
mission’s efforts to involve the regions more closely in its
policies. Success depends on the Member States and regions,
which have to ensure that the measures already taken have an
impact across the EU. This requires that they be involved in
the discussion process. Thus, cooperation with the regions
should also be encouraged in drawing up a list of priority
measures, in order to give a further impetus to the European
Research Area.

Brussels, 10 April 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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)

(2003/C 244/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council 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));

having regard to the decision of the Council of 30 August 2002 to consult it on this subject, under the
first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its President of 26 June 2002 to instruct the Commission for Culture and
Education to draw up an Opinion on this subject;

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 327/2002 rev. 2) adopted on 18 February 2003 by its Commission
for Culture and Education (Rapporteur: Mr Roberto Pella, Mayor of Valdengo (I-EPP)),

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 49th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 April 2003
(meeting of 10 April).

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/15

1. The Committee of the Regions’ views

education can be better dealt with at national
level, at
intergovernmental level or in the context of existing Com-
munity actions and programmes.

1.1.
The Committee of the Regions is pleased to note that
the Commission has accepted and fully applied the principle
— with which the CoR fully agrees — contained in the report
of the European Parliament on the Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on
strengthening cooperation with third countries in the field of
higher education (1), in which the European Parliament ‘urges
the Commission to make provision, in its programmes for
reconstruction and development assistance, and in projects
intended to support the transition towards market economies
and strengthen democracy,
for initiatives to enable third
countries and EU Member States jointly to develop training
exchanges and scholarships, and
programmes,
vocational integration grants for those who intend to return
to their country of origin as a means of brain-drain prevention’.

student

However, the Committee of the Regions emphasises
1.7.
that, despite intergovernmental cooperation, some needs and
gaps still exist, and these are effectively identified and highlight-
ed by the Commission:

— difficulties encountered by European universities in mak-
ing the most of their comparative advantages to provide
an original and attractive higher education offer, particu-
larly at postgraduate level;

— the lack of a clearly distinguishable European identity in

the higher education sector;

1.2.
The Committee endorses the draft decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council presented by the
Commission, particularly in view of the added value which
Erasmus World can give to action at Community level to
improve higher education; indeed, this would appear to be one
of the fields where the Member States acting together can
achieve more important objectives than if they acted separately.

— the absence of ‘flagship products’ such as double degrees
at postgraduate level, and the consequent need to create
a Community label for high-quality postgraduate courses;

— the growing imbalance in the influx of third-country

students;

1.3.
As already stated in earlier opinions, the Committee
takes the view that higher education has an important role to
play in economic, social and cultural life at local and regional
level. In the context of that role, it is necessary to establish
strong links between higher education and the local and
regional authorities.

— the general tendency among the brightest postgraduate
students and scholars in search of international education
to go to the United States;

— the risk of a growing deficit in intercultural understanding

between Europe and other cultures;

1.4. Moreover, transnational mobility is an essential pre-
requisite for creating job opportunities and education and
training possibilities, and is a fundamental requirement for
European research.

— the insufficient development of structural schemes to
encourage bridges between European networks and third
countries’ centres of excellence in the field of higher
education and the outward mobility of students and
scholars as part of a European cursus;

1.5.
The Committee agrees with the Commission that there
is a need for a Community action programme, subject to
Article 149 of the Treaty which limits Community action in
the education sector to supporting and supplementing the
action of Member States and prohibits legislative harmonis-
ation.

— the absence of coordinated action at Community level to
promote the attractiveness of Europe, and the lack of
mechanisms to ensure international cooperation in terms
of quality assurance and services for students.

1.6.
It appreciates the precision with which the objectives
of the Erasmus World programme are identified and the care
taken to avoid overlapping measures, recognising that many
subjects at the centre of the internationalisation of higher

(1) OJ C 135, 14.12.2001, p. 44.

1.8.
The Committee of the Regions stresses in particular
the problem of the imbalance in the distribution of the influx
of students from third countries: more than three-quarters of
the approximately 400 000 students from non-European
countries who study in the Community go to the United
Kingdom, France or Germany; this is one of the main defects
of the current education programmes, which needs to be
remedied as soon as possible because of its effects on local and
regional authorities, some of which are burdened with the
presence of too many foreign students, while others do not
succeed in attracting them.

C 244/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.10.2003

1.9.
The Committee is convinced that the Community
action programme Erasmus World will bring about a redistri-
bution of the influx of students from third countries, which
will undoubtedly benefit local and regional authorities.

1.16.
Indeed, as emphasised also by the European Parlia-
ment in the report quoted in point 1.1. above, ‘cooperation in
the field of education favours good neighbourly relations
and reciprocal understanding between peoples, which is the
indispensable basis for the development of any civil society in
today’s multi-ethnic, inter-religious world’.

1.10.
The Committee is pleased that the Commission will
seek, in the selection procedure for European Union Masters
Courses, to ensure a geographically balanced representation of
the Member States and will take due account of the existence
of centres of university excellence in the most disadvantaged
regions of the EU, with a view to strengthening the economic,
social and cultural influence of the universities in such regions.

The Committee of the Regions points out

1.11.
that
European Union Masters Courses must not lead to differen-
tiation in European higher education. Rather, attention should
be paid to enhancing the quality and attractiveness of higher
education throughout the European Union.

1.12.
It urges the Commission to take particular care to
avoid the Erasmus World programme being reduced by
financial constraints to a programme reserved for the few, or
aimed at people and institutions with the greatest economic
resources, thereby jeopardising the principle of equal oppor-
tunities.

The Committee also invites the Commission to
1.13.
provide effective operational instruments to avoid a situation
in the funding of individual projects where minimum amounts
are laid down in which are so high as to prevent access to
Erasmus World for institutions and bodies with lesser funds
that are often capable, unlike other bodies, of drawing up
highly innovative projects.

1.14.
It fully agrees with the importance of the general aim
of the Commission proposal, namely to contribute to high-
quality education in the European Union, particularly by
fostering cooperation with third countries.

1.15.
Cooperation with third countries in the field of
education seems essential in order to prepare European citizens
to live and work in a globalised society, based on knowledge,
above all with a view to improving mutual understanding
between peoples and cultures, as the Commission rightly
emphasises, to contribute to world peace and stability.

1.17.
The Committee of the Regions believes that the
Erasmus World programme is worthwhile and hopes that, in
the long term, it will represent for Europe a real possibility of
growth — in the same way that the Fulbright programme has
brought and continues to bring benefits to the United States
— in terms of improving the quality of higher education,
stimulating European universities to develop ever better inter-
national services and improving intercultural dialogue; the
Committee takes the view that it is an effective policy on
higher education which has enabled the United States to act as
host for a number of years now to a larger number of foreign
students than in all the Member States of the European Union
put together.

1.18.
It appreciates the special attention devoted by the
Commission to tackling the so-called ‘brain drain’ problem, by
inviting the institutions taking part in European Union Masters
Courses and the other host universities to ensure that their
application and selection procedures avoid or discourage a
‘brain drain’ from the less developed countries. The Committee
of the Regions sees it as one of the main responsibilities of the
European Union in relation to the poorest non-European
countries to guarantee them development based on their own
resources.

2. Assessment of the specific objectives of the action

programme proposed by the Commission

Among the specific objectives identified by the Com-
2.1.
mission, the local and regional authorities are particularly
interested in that of giving a higher profile and greater visibility
to European education as well as making it more accessible.

2.2.
Indeed, the presence in the Member States of students
from third countries involves local and regional authorities for
two reasons.

Firstly,

2.3.
bodies capable of guaranteeing equality of access to services.

local and regional authorities are the only

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/17

Secondly,

2.4.
local and regional authorities are directly
involved in some of the activities defined by the Commission
as activities complementary to the action programme, namely:

— changes in society and educational systems in global

perspective;

— safety and health of students who avail themselves of the

opportunities offered by the programme;

— aspects of consumer protection connected with inter-

national education.

The Committee of the Regions also fully endorses the

2.5.
other three specific objectives of the programme, namely:

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

ing European Union mobility as part of European study
programmes.

3. Assessment of the operational objectives of the action

programme proposed by the Commission

3.1.
The Committee of the Regions endorses the reasons
which led the Commission to concentrate on postgraduate
education and place it at the centre of Community action.

3.2.
It particularly appreciates the attention given to the
problems which would arise from having to maintain signifi-
cant numbers of students from third countries for a period of
university study lasting between three and six years —
problems which would affect local and regional authorities in
particular.

— greater worldwide interest in, and more concrete possi-
bilities for acquiring, European qualifications and/or
experience among highly-qualified graduates and scholars
from all over the world;

— more structured cooperation between European Com-
munity and third-country institutions and greater outgo-

3.3.
In this context, the Committee of the Regions points
out that in earlier opinions it had already asked the Com-
mission to take appropriate measures to harmonise conditions
of admission and residence for third-country nationals going
to Europe to study, and it is pleased that the Commission has
recently drawn up a draft directive on the subject, on which
the Committee will give its opinion.

4. The Committee of the Regions’ recommendations

Recommendation 1

Preamble (6) bis (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

This programme provides for the creation of EU masters
degree courses which will enable students to carry out a
tour of Europe in various university institutes. It therefore
seems desirable to take account of this new European
dimension of higher education in the current review of
European programmes such as Socrates,
in order to
encourage European students’ access to the Erasmus
World programme.

Reason

The stronger the link with current Community programmes, the more effective the Erasmus World
programme will be, always provided that the specific objectives of each are clearly distinguished.

C 244/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.10.2003

Recommendation 2

Preamble (13)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

This programme should be regularly monitored and
evaluated in cooperation between the Commission and
the Member States in order to allow for readjustments,
implementing the
particularly in the priorities
measures; the evaluation should include an external
evaluation to be conducted by independent, impartial
bodies.

for

This programme should be regularly monitored and
evaluated in cooperation between the Commission, the
Member States and the local and regional authorities in
order to allow for readjustments, particularly in the
priorities for implementing the measures; the evaluation
should include an external evaluation to be conducted
by independent, impartial bodies.

Reason

Only the local and regional authorities, through the regional universities, are best placed to monitor the
effectiveness of the programme in question in terms of implementation and participation, pointing out
any practical difficulties encountered by students from third countries.

Recommendation 3

Article 1, paragraph 2 bis (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

This programme will respect the powers of the European
Union and the Member States in accordance with the
distribution of powers and the administrative structure
in each of the Member States, in line with the subsidiarity
principle, in terms of education and training, especially
as regards measures designed to preserve cultural and
linguistic diversity.

Reason

As already happens in other Community programmes, it is necessary to preserve not only the Member
States’ powers in terms of education and training but also cultural and linguistic diversity — a rich
heritage of European culture.

Recommendation 4

Article 4 (2) (a)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

(a)
support for the development of joint educational
programmes and cooperation networks facilitating the
exchange of experience and good practice;

(a)
support for the development of joint educational
programmes, cooperation networks and pilot projects
based on transnational partnerships — some of them
already implemented by local and regional authorities
— facilitating the exchange of experience and good
practice;

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/19

Reason

It is important to make effective use of existing networks; in fact, for example, many industrial concerns
based in the Member States have already activated — partly through bilateral agreements between
Member States and third countries — effective forms of exchange in order to optimise vocational training
in the post-university context; such networks are ideal channels for ensuring that the Erasmus World
Community programme takes off more quickly.

Recommendation 5

Article 6, paragraph (2) bis (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States
and the local and regional authorities, shall ensure that
the actions included in this programme receive sufficient
information and publicity coverage.

Reason

The success of Erasmus is linked with the effectiveness of the information and publicity about it, designed
to reach the largest possible number of interested parties, above all through the involvement of regional
universities and local and regional authorities.

Recommendation 6

Article 8 (1)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

1.
The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee
composed of representatives of the Member States and
chaired by the representative of the Commission.

1.
The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee
composed of representatives of the Member States and
representatives of the local and regional authorities and
chaired by the representative of the Commission.

Reason

An improvement in the quality of European higher education can be achieved only by directly involving
regional universities, and hence by directly involving the local and regional authorities from the initial
stages of the programme onwards.

Recommendation 7

Article 10 (1)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

1.
The financial framework for the implementation
of this programme for the period specified in Article 1
is hereby set at EUR 200 million.

1.
The financial framework for the implementation
of this programme for the period specified in Article 1
is hereby set at EUR 300 million.

C 244/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.10.2003

Reason

The funding of EUR 200 million is insufficient. In order to increase the possibilities for intercultural
exchanges, it is essential to ensure that even students from third countries which are very distant from
Europe will participate.

Recommendation 8

Article 13 (1)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

The Commission shall regularly monitor this pro-
1.
gramme in cooperation with the Member States. The
results of the monitoring and evaluation process shall be
utilised when implementing the programme.

The Commission shall regularly monitor this pro-
1.
gramme in cooperation with the Member States and
the local and regional authorities. The results of the
monitoring and evaluation process shall be utilised when
implementing the programme.

Reason

Please refer to the reason given for Recommendation 2 above.

Recommendation 9

Annex, Action 1, paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

The Community will identify and grant European post-
graduate courses the label of ‘European Union Masters
Courses’ through a rigorous selection process as provided
for in Article 7(1) and in accordance with the procedure
set out in Article 8(2).

through a rigorous selection
The Community shall,
process carried out by the competent bodies in the
Member States, grant European postgraduate courses the
designation of ‘Erasmus World Masters Courses’.

Reason

The label of ‘European Union Masters Courses’ must be granted in cooperation with the universities and
the local and regional authorities. Indeed, the universities can guarantee the assessment of the quality of
the courses offered, and the local and regional authorities can concern themselves with the reception of
students and then assess its effectiveness.

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/21

Recommendation 10

Annex, Action 1, paragraph 2 (a)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

involve a minimum of

a)
institutions from three different Member States;

three higher education

involve a minimum of

a)
institutions from two different Member States;

three higher education

Reason

The aim of the Erasmus World programme is to encourage intercultural understanding while improving
the quality of higher education. In order to give students from third countries an opportunity to get to
know the culture of the host country, it seems desirable to limit to two the number of Member States
involved, and hence to increase from 9 months to one year the period of residence in each Member State.

Recommendation 11

Annex, Action 1, paragraph 2 (b)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

implement a study programme which involves a
b)
period of study in at least two of the three institutions
under (a);

implement a study programme which involves a
b)
period of study in at least two of the three institutions
under (a), and the study of at least two languages used in
the Member States, with reference to minority languages;

Reason

One of the basic means of getting to know a country’s culture is the language used there, and particularly
the minority languages, which are fundamental factors for cultural richness and variety.

Recommendation 12

Annex, Action 1, paragraph 2 (h)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

h)
put in place adequate arrangements to facilitate
access for, and hosting of, third-country students (infor-
mation facilities, accommodation etc.);

h)
put in place adequate arrangements to facilitate
access for, and hosting of, third-country students (infor-
mation facilities, accommodation etc.) in cooperation
with the local and regional authorities;

Reason

Here too it seems essential to stress the importance of the quality of the systems adopted, and above all
the fundamental role of the local and regional authorities in ensuring proper hosting of the students. It is
instruments for consultation of the local and regional
necessary to provide effective operational
authorities, in order to tackle in the simplest and most efficient way practical problems such as that of
the students’ accommodation, with a view to facilitating access to European Union Masters Courses.

C 244/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.10.2003

Recommendation 13

Annex, Action 1, paragraph 2 (i)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

provide, as appropriate,

i)
preparation and assistance.

for students’

language

for students’

provide, as appropriate,

i)
language
preparation and assistance, with a view to the objective
in point (b) — the knowledge of at least two languages
used in the Member States, with reference to minority
languages.

Reason

Please refer to the reason given for Recommendation 11 above.

Recommendation 14

Annex, Action 3, paragraph 3 bis (new)

Text of the Commission proposal

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

3 bis. Where possible, the Community will make use
of existing networks and partnerships already set up by
local and regional authorities with third countries to
improve higher education.

Reason

Please refer to the reason given for Recommendation 4 above.

Recommendation 15

Annex, Action 4, paragraph 4.1, point 2, first indent

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment by the Committee of the Regions

— development of general written or visual common — development of general written or visual common
information and dissemination tools
information and dissemination tools
contributing
contributing
towards a better understanding of the value of study in
towards a better understanding of the value of study in
Europe; creation of an Internet site to facilitate access to
Europe;
the EU Masters Courses and other European courses;

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/23

Reason

The Internet is undoubtedly the most effective information tool for reaching all the potential beneficiaries
of the Erasmus World programme. Moreover, entrusting the information function mainly to the Internet
site would make it possible to devote more funds to financing student mobility.

Brussels, 10 April 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Territorial cohesion’

(2003/C 244/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 14 May 2002, under the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an opinion on territorial cohesion and to
instruct the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy to carry out the preparatory work;

having regard to its opinion of 14 January 1999 on the European Spatial Development Perspective
(rapporteur: Mrs du Granrut; co-rapporteur: Mr Knape) (CdR 266/98 fin) (1);

having regard to its opinion of 15 February 2001 on the Structure and goals of European regional policy
in the context of enlargement and globalisation: opening of the debate (rapporteur: Mr Klär (D-PES))
(CdR 157/2000 fin) (2);

having regard to its opinion of 14 November 2001 on the Second report on economic and social
cohesion (rapporteurs: Mr Zaplana Hernández-Soro, E-EPP, and Mr Tindemans (NL-PES)) (CdR 74/2001
fin) (3);

having regard to its opinion of 10 October 2002 on the Commission Communication: First progress
report on economic and social cohesion (rapporteur: Mr D’Ambrosio (I-PES)) (CdR 101/2002 fin);

having regard to its study on territorial cohesion in Europe, submitted by the Study group on European
politics (CdR 195/2002 fin);

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 388/2002 rev.) adopted by the Commission on Territorial
Cohesion Policy on 19 February 2003 (rapporteur: Mr Valcárcel Siso, President of the Region of Murcia
(E-EPP));

whereas cohesion is one of the fundamental objectives of the European Union;

whereas the territorial dimension of cohesion figures among the priorities of the European Commission’s
Second report on economic and social cohesion, published in January 2001;

whereas regional and cohesion policy constitutes one of the European Union’s most important
Community policies;

(1) OJ C 93, 6.4.1999, p. 36.
(2) OJ C 148, 18.5.2001, p. 25.
(3) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 27.