Amended 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 co-operation with third countries (Erasmus Mundus) (2004-2008) (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)
Date: 2003-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation in the field of education, higher education, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 29.4.2003
COM(2003) 239 final

2002/0165 (COD)

Amended 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 co-operation with
third countries (Erasmus Mundus) (2004-2008)

(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)

2002/0165 (COD)

Amended 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 co-operation with third countries
(Erasmus Mundus) (2004-2008)

1.

BACKGROUND

Transmission of the Proposals to the Council and the European Parliament (COM 2002 (401)-
final 2002/0165 (COD)) in accordance with article 175(1) of the Treaty: 18 July 2002

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: 26 February 2003

Opinion of the Committee of Regions: 9 April 2003

Opinion of the European Parliament - first reading: 8 April 2003

2.

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

Based on article 149, the proposal seeks to establish a Community programme whose overall
aim  is  to  enhance  quality  education  by  improving  the  perception  of  European  higher
education world-wide and by fostering co-operation with third countries in order to improve
the  development  of  human  resources  and  to  promote  dialogue  and  understanding  between
peoples and cultures. The future programme will be a means to respond to the challenges faced
by  European  higher  education  today,  in  particular,  the  need  to  stimulate  the  process  of
convergence  of  degree  structure  and  enhance  attractiveness  world  wide.  These  are  themes
central to the Sorbonne/Bologna/Prague process and to national reform in higher education in
several Member states.

3.

COMMISSION OPINION ON THE AMENDMENTS ADOPTED BY THE PARLIAMENT

Total number of amendments: 65

Amendments that can be accepted in full: 20

Amendments that can be accepted in principle: 18

Amendments that can not be accepted: 27

3.1.

Amendments accepted in full by the Commission

3.1.1.

Title

The Commission accepts amendment 1 giving the programme the name “Erasmus Mundus”.
This change will be reflected throughout the proposal.

2

3.1.2.

Recitals

The Commission accepts amendment 4, which brings in an important reference to linguistic
diversity;  amendment  5,  which  introduces  a  politically  important  reference  to  the  ideals  of
democracy and equality between men and women; amendment 11 which makes an  editorial
modification, rendering the text more precise; and amendment 14 which reinforces the text by
spelling out the objectives of the programme in a new recital.

3.1.3.

Articles

Concerning  Article  1,  the  Commission  accepts  amendment  17,  which  slightly  rephrases
paragraph 1 and reflects the change in the name of the programme.

As regards Article 4, amendments 28, which refers to “increased” support to mobility, in line
with the purpose of the programme, as well as amendment 31, which usefully simplifies the
text, are accepted.

The Commission accepts amendment 32, which defines more precisely the bodies covered by
this particular provision of Article 5.

Concerning Article 6, the Commission accepts amendment 34, which introduces earlier in the
text  a  reference  to  joint  actions;  amendment  35,  reinforcing  the  information  role  of  the
structures designated by Members States to co-operate with the Commission; amendment 36,
asking Member States to ensure complementarity and coherence between this programme and
similar  national  initiatives;  and,  finally,  amendments  37  and  38,  providing  for  co-operation
between  the  Commission  and  Member  States  for  the  purpose  of  the  programme,  thereby
completing the two previous paragraphs of this Article referring respectively to Commission
and to Member States.

The Commission can accept amendment 43, which suppresses Article 9. The content of this
article is merged with that of Article 11.

Amendment 47, which simplifies the text of the second paragraph of Article 13 on monitoring
and evaluation, is also accepted.

3.1.4.

Annex

The  Commission  accepts  amendment  59,  referring  to  partnerships  between  universities  and
industry with a view to collect and exchange information and facilitate access to employment
as a possible activity under Action 3.

As regards Action 4, the Commission can accept amendment 62, expanding on the idea of an
internet gateway for the programme; amendment 63, which results logically from the previous
amendment  as  it  suppresses  a  reference  to  an  internet  gateway  later  in  the  text;  and
amendment 66, which refers to a “limited number “ of surveys and thus reinforces the notion
that this in an action of limited scope.

3.2.

Amendments accepted in substance or principle by the Commission

3.2.1.

Recitals

Amendment  9  proposes  a  new  recital  7  referring  to  higher  education  institutions’  existing
experience  in  co-operation  with  third  countries.  The  recital  reflects  the  Commission's

3

assumptions in this respect.  In  order  to  keep  the  text as  lean  as  possible,  this amendment is
merged with  amendment 10,  also accepted  in  essence  and  which  refers  to  the  failure  of  the
European  Union’s  academic  institutions  to  attract  a  fair  share  of  internationally  mobile
students. These amendments are merged in a redrafted recital 7, which reads as follows:

"There is wide recognition of the potential of academic institutions in the European Union to
increase  their  share  of  internationally  mobile  students,  by  combining  their  individual
strengths  and  building  on  their  educational  diversity  and  on  their  wide  experience  in
networking and in co-operating with third countries, in a manner that enables them to offer
courses  of  great  quality  unique  to  Europe;  such  courses  will  allow  the  benefits  of
international  mobility  to  be  shared  more  widely  within  the  Community  and  its  partner
countries."

3.2.2.

Articles

Amendment 18 adds a new paragraph to Article 1 which refers to the respect for the European
Union’s  and  Member  States'  respective  competences  in  education  and  training;  the
amendment can be accepted without the reference to training.

Amendment  20  adds  a  reference  to  European  ideals  of  democracy  and  human  rights  to  the
first paragraph of Article 3. The amendment can be accepted without the word "European", as
the ideals of democracy and human rights are universal.

Also regarding Article 3, amendment 21 simplifies the text but suppresses the word “enable”,
which conveys an important notion for the purpose of the programme. It also suppresses the
equally important reference to highly qualified students. Therefore, the Commission proposes
to take the wording of the Parliament in the following manner:

"To encourage and enable highly qualified students and scholars from all over the world to
acquire European experience and/or qualifications."

The Commission can accept the reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights as suggested
by amendment 23; however this reference will be inserted in recital 6, which would read as
follows:

"There  is  a  need  to  step  up  Community  efforts  to  promote  dialogue  and  understanding
between cultures world-wide, and to disseminate the ideals of democracy, including equality
of  women  and  men,  specially  as  mobility  fosters  the  discovery  of  new  cultural  and  social
environments and facilitates understanding thereof. In so doing, the Community shall ensure
that  no  group  of  citizens  or  third  country  nationals  is  excluded  or  disadvantaged,  having
regard  to  article  21  paragraph  1  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European
Union."

Amendment  24  includes  in  Article  3  a  provision  regarding  ‘brain  drain’.  The  Commission
shares the concern underlying this amendment, but considers it inappropriate to include such a
provision in Article 3; rather, it proposes to make reference to it in a new recital 7 bis , which
would read:

'In  promoting  international  mobility,  the  Community  should  be  mindful  of  the  phenomenon
commonly known as “brain drain".'

Amendment  26  changes  the  name  of  ‘European  Union  Masters  Courses’  into  ‘Erasmus
Mundus  Masters  Courses’  in  Article  4.  The  Commission  can  accept  this  part  of  the

4

amendment. The substance of the remaining text of the amendment is covered in the Annex,
under  Action  1,  paragraph  2,  which  lists  the  basic  requirements  that  Masters  Courses  must
fulfil.

The substance of amendment 70, seeking to introduce in Article 4 a provision encouraging the
use  of  two  languages  in  the  context  of  Masters  Courses,  can  be  accepted.  However,  this
provision is directly linked to Masters Courses and therefore should be covered in the Annex,
Action 1.2. as proposed by amendment 69 hereunder.

The Commission suggests that the substance of amendment 39, which proposes a new article
regarding programme management, be taken up in a new  recital  9 ter, which would read as
follows:

"The Community action shall be managed in a manner that is transparent, user-friendly, open
and comprehensible to all."

Amendment 41 introduces in Article 7 a reference to selection procedures and to a panel; the
amendment cannot be accepted in its present form. The Commission proposes to include the
substance  of  this  amendment  in  a  new  section  of  the  Annex  on  selection  procedures  which
would read as follows:

"SELECTION PROCEDURES

The selection procedures will be laid down as provided for in article 7(1). The assessment of
proposals under Action  1 and under  Action  3  shall  be  carried  out  by  an  Assessment  Board
presided by a person which it elects, composed of high level personalities from the academic
world  and  representative  of  the  diversity  of  higher  education  in  the  European  Union.  The
Assessment Board shall ensure that Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses and Partnerships are
of the highest academic quality. "

Amendment 46 concerns Article 11 and entails the obligation for the Commission to inform
the programme committee on initiatives taken in other areas of education, training and youth.
The substance is acceptable and could be integrated in the second paragraph of Article 11, the
wording of which is largely similar to that of the amendment. The Commission proposes to
refer not to education, training and youth but to “all relevant fields”. The paragraph thus reads
as follows:

"The Commission shall keep the Committee regularly informed  about Community initiatives
taken  in  relevant  fields,  and  ensure  efficient  linkage  and,  where  appropriate,  joint  actions,
between  this  programme  and  the  programmes  and  actions  in  the  area  of  education
undertaken  within  the  framework  of  the  Community's  co-operation  with  third  countries,
including bilateral agreements, and the competent international organisations."

3.2.3.

Annex

The notion of quality contained in amendment 48 can be accepted, but it will be included in
the section on selection procedures referred  to above.  The references  to hosting provided to
students are part of the requirements listed under paragraph 2, point (h) of Action 1.

Amendment  49  proposes  to  add  to  Action  1  a  new  paragraph  containing  a  reference  to
selection criteria and the guaranteeing of continuity. The Commission's original proposal lists
the basic criteria for the selection of Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses. Further reference to
selection will be included in an Annex as indicated above. The basis on which the selection

5

shall ascertain the potential for continuity is to be determined at operational level; therefore,
this part of the amendment cannot be accepted.

Amendment  50  indicates  that  Masters  Courses  should  be  representative  of  various  fields  of
study  and  gives  two  examples.  The  substance  of  this  amendment  is  acceptable,  but  the
Commission feels that no examples of fields of study should be  given in the text, since this
might  create  a  misleading  impression.  However,  the  notion  of  representativeness  has  been
included in Action 1.3, which reads as follows:

"Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses will be selected for a five-year period, subject to a light-
weight annual renewal procedure based on progress reporting, which period could include a
year's preparatory activities before the actual course begins to run. Balanced representation
of different fields of study will be sought over the duration of the programme. The Community
may provide financial support for Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses and funding would be
subject to the annual renewal procedure."

The Commission can accept the substance of Amendment 51, which makes reference to the
use  of  two  languages.  However,  this  reference  concerns  specifically  Masters  Courses  and
should  be  placed  in  the  Annex,  Action  1.2(i)  as  suggested  by  amendments  53  and  69.  The
latter amendments can be accepted in substance; the wording has had to be adapted so that it
is clear that this provision does not impose any requirement on the language of instruction of
the  Masters  Courses  and  that  it  leaves  in  the  hands  of  higher  education  institutions  the
decision as to the most appropriate means to implement this provision. The text of this point
thus reads as follows:

"without  prejudice  to  the  language  of  instruction,  provide,  as  appropriate,  for  students'
language  preparation  and  assistance  so  that  they  have  the  opportunity  to  use  at  least  two
European  languages  spoken  in  the  Member  States  where  the  higher  education  institutions
involved in the Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses are situated."

3.3.

Amendments not accepted by the Commission

3.3.1.

Recitals

Amendment 2 includes a reference to Members States in recital 1 which is not consistent with
the recital as it refers to the specific role of the European Community in the field of education,
in accordance with article 149 of the Treaty.

Amendment  3  adds  to  recital  5  a  reference  to  the  Mediterranean  region,  which  creates  an
imbalance in a text that does not otherwise refer to any specific geographical region.

Amendment 6 proposes a new recital that would make reference to the forthcoming revision
of  current  programmes.  Such  a  prospective  statement  would  not  be  appropriate  as  a  recital.
Recitals should spell out the basis and rationale for the programme.

The reference to programmes for development co-operation proposed by amendment 7 would
lead  to  confusion  as  the  programme  concerns  primarily  higher  education  in  the  European
Union.

The Commission is not in a position to play a role of follow-up and recognition in promoting
co-operation  between  higher  education  institutions  as  amendment  8  would  require.  In
particular, Member States have exclusive competence in matters of recognition.

6

The  present  proposal  concerns  higher  education,  including  professional  education  at  a  level
equivalent to higher education. Vocational training is not covered by the present proposal and
therefore amendments 12 and 15 cannot be accepted.

Amendment 13 assumes that degrees awarded under Erasmus Mundus need to be recognised
or validated once they have been awarded. This is a false assumption. Only Masters awarding
recognised degrees will be eligible under Erasmus Mundus.

Erasmus  Mundus  is  based  on  the  respect  of  academic  neutrality  and  independence  of
universities. Amendment 16 cannot be accepted because European Community action cannot
in any way interfere with these principles.

3.3.2.

Articles

The  definition  of  “scholar”  in  the  Commission’s  proposal  covers  not  only  individuals  with
outstanding  academic  experience  but  also  individuals  with  outstanding  professional
experience. Amendment 19 changes the definition of “scholar” in Article 2 in a manner that
would  exclude  from  this  action  individuals  with  outstanding  professional  experience  and
would  thus  deprive  Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Courses  of  potential  highly  valuable
contributions.  This  runs  against  existing  practice  at  Masters  level  and  therefore  this
amendment cannot be accepted.

Amendment 27 seeks a simplification of the text in Article 4, but it would lead to confusion as
it  would  merge  approaches  that  relate  to  different  actions.  Amendment  30,  which  follows
logically from amendment 27, cannot be accepted for the same reason.

Regarding Article 6, the wide obligation on the Commission to involve relevant organisations
in  the  implementation  of  the  programme,  which  amendment  33  would  impose,  cannot  be
accepted.  Consultation  is  the  only  precise  form  of  involvement  envisaged  for  these
organisations.  Amendment  42,  concerning  Article  8,  asks  for  these  organisations  to  be
involved  in  the  work  of  the  programme  committee;  this  is  also  not  acceptable  as  it  would
affect the principles governing ‘comitology’.

Amendment  40  adds  to  Article  7  a  reference  to  a  definition  in  the  Annex  regarding  the
breakdown  of  funds  between  actions.  This  amendment  would  introduce  an  undesirable
rigidity in the implementation of the programme.

At this stage, the Commission is not in a position to accept amendment 44 raising the budget
of the programme to 300 million euros.

Amendment 45 refers  to  vocational  education  and  training  programmes in  Article 11 which
may lead to confusion as to the primary focus of Erasmus Mundus, namely, higher education.

3.3.3.

Annex

The  Commission’s  proposal  recognises  in  Action  1  the  importance  of  adequate  hosting
arrangements for third  country  students. However, by requiring that  Masters  Courses  put  in
place, inter alia, high quality hosting arrangements, particularly in conjunction with regional
and local authorities, amendment 52 imposes a specific condition on Masters Courses which
would not necessarily have a positive effect on their quality and many would not be  able to
fulfil.

7

The Commission is not in a position to accept amendment 54 because Masters Courses cannot
be  required  to  foresee  relations  with  research  centres,  as  many  are  professionally-,  and  not
research-oriented, nor with enterprises, since this requirement would not apply to Masters in
the field of arts.

Amendment  55  introduces  an  operational  provision  regarding  the  examination  of  progress
reports by a committee of experts in the framework of annual renewal procedures for Masters
Courses.  This  provision  relates  to  the  implementation  modalities  of  the  programme  and  is
inappropriate for a legislative text.

Amendment  56  introduces  the  notion  of  degree  recognition  in  Action  2.  Such  notion  goes
beyond  the  scope  of  the  programme  and  therefore  the  Commission  is  not  in  a  position  to
accept this amendment.

The  Commission  is  of  the  view  that  there  should  be  a  balanced  representation  of  different
fields of study covered by Masters Courses over the duration of the programme (as proposed
above in relation to amendment 50). However, it would be inappropriate  for the  decision to
give examples of fields of study, as amendment 57 proposes. This amendment also refers to
objective  and  quality  criteria  in  the  framework  of  the  Action  2.  The  Commission  is  of  the
view that higher education institutions can be trusted to determine the appropriate admission
criteria.

Regarding Action 3, the Commission is not in a position to accept amendment 58, which in
effect proposes that the selection of Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses give priority to those
that  have  established  partnerships  with  third  country  higher  education  institutions.  While
partnerships  are  an  important  component  of  the  programme,  this  provision  would  de  facto
impose an obligation which would not necessarily ensure Masters Courses’ higher quality.

The  indication  of  a  3%  limit  on  the  budget  of  Action  4  proposed  in  amendment  60  is  not
acceptable as it entails an unnecessary budget restriction on this Action. Budget allocation per
Action will be determined as provided for in article 7.

The Commission proposal clearly indicates that the participation of less-advantaged students
from third countries will be encouraged. Amendment 61 asks for particular  consideration to
be  given  to  organisations  working  on  behalf  of  the  disadvantaged.  This  amendment  would
place excessive operational emphasis on a particular category of organisations in the context
of Action 4. Similarly, amendments 64 and 65 would place excessive operational emphasis on
mainstreaming  and  equal  treatment  for  men  and  women.  These  amendments  cannot  be
accepted.

3.4.

Amended proposal

Having  regard  to  Article  250,  paragraph  2,  of  the  EC  Treaty,  the  Commission  modifies  its
proposals as indicated above.

8