Report from the Commission to the Council on the interim evaluation of the third phase of the Tempus programme
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CIS countries, Central and Eastern Europe, EU programme, higher education, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 08.03.2004 
COM(2004)157 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

on the interim evaluation of the third phase of the Tempus programme 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report is presented pursuant to article 12 of Council decision 1999/311/EC of 29 April 
1999. It puts forward the Commission position on the main conclusions and recommendations 
of the external evaluation of the third phase of the Tempus programme (Tempus III).  

The complete interim evaluation report on Tempus III1 can be found at the following Internet 
address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/evaluation/evaluation_en.html. 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

The  Tempus  programme  was  first  proposed  at  the  meeting  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  of 
Education  in  December  1989  as  an  instrument  of  co-operation  between  higher  education 
institutions in the Member States and in the Partner Countries. Its first phase (Tempus I) was 
adopted in 19902. 

The  programme  initially  covered  the  Central  and  Eastern  European  Countries  (CEEC); 
between  1992  and  1993,  it  was  extended  to  the  Russian  Federation,  Ukraine,  Belarus  and 
Albania. For a short period (1991) it operated in Yugoslavia as well.  

Tempus  sought  to  contribute  to  socio-economic  reform  through  co-operation  in  higher 
education. More specifically, the programme was designed to promote the joint development 
of  new  curricula,  the  acquisition  of  new  management skills  by academic and administrative 
staff and the opening up of Partner Countries’ educational systems to civil society. 

The second phase of the programme (Tempus II) was adopted in 19933 for the period 1994-
1998 and, in 1996, it was extended until 20004. The second phase provided an extension of 
the programme to new eligible countries covered by the PHARE5 and Tacis6 programmes, but 
also increased the ambition and expectation levels for the programme. In particular Tempus II 
introduced  specific  national  priorities  which  complemented  the  original  «bottom-up» 
approach whereby initiative rested exclusively with Universities. 

Although  its  logic  of  intervention  has,  to  a  large  extent,  remained  unchanged,  the  Tempus 
programme has evolved significantly, accompanying the changes in the political context and 
contributing to the process of accession of the CEEC to the European Union.  

The third and current phase of Tempus (Tempus III) was adopted in 1999 for a period of six 
years from 1 July 20007. The logic of intervention of the programme was not fundamentally 
altered. However, two innovative aspects were introduced. First, in addition to the tried-and-

1  

2 
3 
4 
5 

6 

7 

The  final  report  on  the  second  phase  of  the  Tempus  programme  can  be  found  at  the  same  Internet 
address as well. 
Council decision 90/233/EEC of 7 May 1990. 
Council decision 93/246/EEC of 29 April 1993. 
Council decision 96/663/EC of 21 November 1996. 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 of 18 December 1989 on economic aid to certain countries of 
central and eastern Europe programmes and subsequent amendments. 
The  current  legal  base  for  this  programme  is  the  Council  regulation  (EC,EURATOM)  99/2000  of  29 
December  1999  concerning  the  provision  of  assistance  to  the  partner  States  in  Eastern  Europe  and 
Central Asia. 
Council decision 1999/311/EC of 29 April 1999. 

2 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
tested  country-specific  approaches,  particular  emphasis  was  placed  on  the  programme’s 
capacity  to  encourage  regional  co-operation.  Second,  more  explicit  reference  was  made  not 
only  to  the  need  for  the  programme  to  ensure  consistency  and,  where  necessary, 
complementarity with other Community programmes, but also to create synergies with other 
forms of assistance to the partner countries. 

Council  regulation  2666/2000/EC  of  5  December  2000,  setting  out  the  framework  for 
Community  Assistance  for  Reconstruction,  Development  and  Stabilisation  (CARDS)  to  the 
Western Balkans amended the Tempus III decision to include the participation of Croatia and 
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 

Tempus  III  was  further  amended  in  20028  extending  the  programme  to  the  Southern  and 
Eastern Mediterranean countries covered by the MEDA programme, in the framework of the 
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership which emerged following the 1995 Barcelona Declaration. 

The  extension  seeks  to  respond  to  the  need  for  closer  co-operation  in  higher  education 
between  the  Union  and  its  partners  in  the  region  with  a  view  to  contributing  to  their  socio-
economic  development.  Additionally  it  aims  to  promote  inter-cultural  dialogue  and 
understanding among them as a means to secure sustainable growth, peace and stability in the 
region and serves to reinforce the intercultural and civil society dimension of the programme. 

Tempus  III  comes  to  an  end  in  December  20069,  along  with  the  other  mainstream 
programmes in education and training (Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci). 

3. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMME 

Tempus is primarily designed to contribute to the reform and upgrading of partner countries’ 
higher  education  systems.  Through  co-operation  at  higher  education  level,  the  programme 
aims  also  at  reinforcing  civil  society,  promoting  democracy  in  these  countries  as  well  as 
enhancing mutual understanding and intercultural dialogue between the EU and its partners. 

The  programme  combines  a  bottom-up  approach,  whereby  initiative  is  left  mainly  to  the 
universities,  with  a  top-down  approach,  whereby  national  priorities  are  established  for  each 
partner countries with a view to maximise the impact of the programme on reform processes. 

To achieve these objectives, the programme supports three types of projects: 

–  Joint European Projects, which are multilateral projects bringing together higher education 
institutions from the EU and from partner countries with a view to support institutions in 
partner  countries  efforts  to  develop  and  upgrade  curriculum  development  or  university 
management. These projects seek also  to  contribute to build up the institutional tissue of 
partner  countries.  They  last  normally  two  or  three  years  and  they  are  the  main  type  of 
project within Tempus. 

8 
9 

Council decision 2002/601/EC of 27 June 2002. 
The decision regarding the extension of the Tempus programme to the MEDA countries amended the 
duration of the programme so that the end date became the same for Tempus, Socrates and Leonardo da 
Vinci. 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
–  Structural and Complementary Measures, which are also multilateral projects designed to 
support  short  term  interventions  aimed  at  system  reform  and  linked  closely  to  partner 
countries’ priorities. 

–  Individual  Mobility  Grants,  which  are  awarded  to  individuals  –  professors,  lecturers, 
members of staff or ministry officials – in order to help them to travel to other countries for 
work related to a particular reform process. 

Beneficiary partner countries under Tempus are: 

–  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Croatia,  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia 
and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (these are referred to as the 'CARDS' countries). 

–  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, the 
Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan (these are referred 
to as the 'Tacis' countries). 

–  Algeria,  Egypt,  Israel10,  Jordan,  Lebanon,  Morocco,  the  Palestinian  Authority,  Syria  and 

Tunisia (these are referred to as the 'MEDA' countries). 

The Tempus programme is funded from the CARDS, MEDA and Tacis budget for bilateral 
co-operation with each one of the partner countries. 

4. 

THE EVALUATION WORK 

The  Commission  launched  an  open  call  for  tender  in  2002  as  a  result  of  which  the  firm 
ECORYS-NEI was selected to carry out the evaluation of the third phase of Tempus III. This 
evaluation  was  undertaken  together  with  and  taking  into  account  the  findings  of  the  final 
evaluation of the second phase of the programme. 

The  terms  of  reference  requested  the  evaluator  to  examine  the  intervention  logic  of  the 
Tempus programme, addressing in particular the following issues: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Do  the  socio-economic  needs  that  gave  rise  to  the  first  and  second  phase  of  the 
Tempus programme persist today? Do the objectives of the programme correspond to 
the  existing  education  conditions  in  eligible  countries?  To  what  extent  has  the 
programme contributed to changing the socio-economic conditions in these countries? 

Are  the  call  for  proposals  and  selection  process,  based  on  national  priorities,  a  valid 
approach  and  how  appropriate  is  it  to  encourage  co-operation  between  neighbouring 
eligible countries in a programme driven by national priorities? 

Is the multilateral model involving EC and eligible countries' institutions a valid one to 
achieve the objectives of the programme and in particular, what is the value added in 
relation to structural investment in educational reform? 

Are  the  type  of  projects  (outputs)  supported  by  the  programme  (Joint  European 
Projects and Individual Mobility Grants in particular) relevant in the light of expected 
results, outcomes and impact on higher education systems? 

10 

Israel’s participation is possible on a self-funding basis only. 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

Is  the  level  of  funding  sufficient  to  meet  the  objectives  outlined?  Does  the  present 
approach generate a critical mass capable of producing a durable impact? 

Are  current  implementation  tools,  management  approaches  and  in  particular  the 
modalities of technical support appropriate and sufficient to ensure project quality and 
proper project implementation? Are monitoring practices sufficient? Are the existing 
mechanisms for feedback and result dissemination adequate to exploit the experience 
acquired through the programme? 

The  evaluation  team  designed  an  evaluation  methodology  with  a  strong  emphasis  on 
interactive participation by the various stakeholders in Tempus III. The main evaluation tools 
used in the period October 2002- June 2003 were:  

–  Three interactive workshops (Moscow, Almati and Skopje) with stakeholders and a lessons 
learned  workshop  (Brussels)  where  all  key  evaluation  questions  were  discussed.  This 
approach  was  supplemented  with  an  intervention  logic  analysis;  a  literature  review; 
interviews with stakeholders; and country case studies. 

–  Data  on  Tempus  II  achievements  were  used  and  questions  relevant  for  this  Mid-term 
evaluation were included in three survey instruments: an on-line questionnaire on Tempus 
impact on higher education reforms and sustainable partnerships (599 JEP co-ordinators); a 
survey amongst (80) JEP partners in the eligible countries; and (26) interviews with higher 
education authorities in the eligible countries. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  terms  of  reference  were  elaborated  before  Tempus  III  was 
extended 
the  Southern  and  Eastern  Mediterranean.  However  conclusions  and 
recommendations apply also to the implementation of the programme in this region. 

to 

5. 

THE EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS  

5.1. 

The relevance of the programme in view of the socio-economic needs 

Prevailing socio-economic conditions and need to support higher education 

The evaluator carried out a comparative analysis which shows that the CARDS and the Tacis 
countries are now in a situation which is similar to that prevailing during previous phases of 
the Tempus programme. These countries still cannot be considered as stable democracies. In 
both  CARDS  and  Tacis  countries,  transition  is  still  only  very  partially  completed  and  the 
process  suffers  from  sluggish  economies,  limited  capacity  for  reform  implementation,  weak 
welfare  measures,  disruptions  in  public  services  and  high  public  finance  deficits.  Public 
expenditure  in  education  suffers  from  this.  Across  the  Tacis  and  CARDS  regions  more 
students  than  ever  before  continue  on  to  higher  education,  whilst  funding  in  real  terms 
remains around a third of levels 10 years ago. 

In many of the MEDA countries, although set in an entirely different historical context, higher 
education  has  also  suffered  from  severe  under-funding.  In  the  poorer  MEDA  states  the 
chronic  lack  of  available  funds  has  been  compounded  by  the  prevailing  view  amongst  the 
international  donor  community  that  aid  for  education  should  concentrate  on  primary  and 
secondary  school.  This  would  be  more  cost-effective  and  provide  higher  short-term  social 
returns  than  investment  in  higher  education.  This  view  has  changed  in  the  recent  past  and 
support to higher education is now considered key to ensure sustainable development. 

5 

 
 
  
 
The evaluator argues that the challenges faced by the eligible countries of the third phase of 
the Tempus programme are just as formidable than those addressed by Tempus I and II and 
they provide a strong case for giving priority to training and higher education reforms. 

“The  transition  process  from  communist  society  to  democracies  and  market  economies 
created  the  socio-economic  needs  for  belief  system  change,  institutional  change  and  skills 
change/training.  These  needs  gave  rise  to  first  phase  of  Tempus  after  the  fall  of  the  Berlin 
wall and to the second phase of Tempus in the early nineties… In eligible countries for the 
third  phase  of  Tempus  these  needs  are  still  very  much  felt  and  this  makes  the  programme 
highly relevant.” 

The  Commission  shares  the  evaluator’s  view  that  “in  the  eligible  countries  the  needs  for 
further  innovation  and  investment  in  the  higher  education  sector  are  much  higher  than  they 
can  afford  at  present,  and  the  needs  can  be  expected  to  increase.  The  rationale  for  higher 
investment levels in the higher education and research sector is strong.” 

Relevance of Tempus to support higher education reform and development 

The  evaluation  (of  both  Tempus  II  and  Tempus  III)  proves  the  value  of  Tempus  to  change 
socio-economic conditions in the eligible countries. The staff and mobility programmes have 
reached  hundreds  of  thousands  of  students,  teachers  and  lecturers  from  CEEC  higher 
education institutions. This exposed the participants of Tempus I and Tempus II to new ideas, 
ideals, concepts and best practices on virtually every aspect of EU societies, and has shown 
the variety EU Member States adopt in dealing with the challenges of societal reform and to 
education.  This  exposure  has  involved  nearly  all participants  in  extensive  and  wide  ranging 
dialogue,  and  has  contributed  to  awareness  raising,  comparison  of  national  values  and 
cultures,  attitude  changes  and  increased  commitment  to  support  the  social  and  economic 
reform process in their own countries and in their own working environment.  

The  establishment  of  partnership  relations  between  individuals  and  institutions  from  the 
partner countries and the EU has provided higher education institutions with enormous access 
to  knowledge  networks.  This  has  made  an  important  indirect  contribution  to  legal, 
administrative  and  institutional  changes  facilitating  transition  towards  a  market-based 
economy and more democracy. 

The  evaluation  report  suggests  that  Tempus  has  done  more  than  any  other  external 
programme in the eligible countries to help university departments and faculties to modernise 
courses  and  to  introduce  new  ones.  It  has  thus  helped  the  transition  of  existing  education 
systems to better educate the next generation in view of the evolving labour market needs. 

The Commission agrees with the evaluator that the third phase of Tempus is relevant given 
the  prevailing  socio-economic  conditions  in  partner  countries  and  that,  without  question, 
Tempus continues to be a relevant and efficient tool to address current needs as far as higher 
education is concerned.  

5.2. 

The validity of national and regional priorities 

The  evaluator  demonstrates  that  there  is  a  broad  consensus  among  the  programme 
stakeholders as to the importance of national priorities to maximise impact as well as on the 
need  to  reinforce  the  dialogue  between  the  Commission  and  the  local  authorities  to  better 
define these priorities. 

6 

 
 
  
 
The  evaluator  argues  that  the  perception  regarding  the  validity  of  the  national  priority 
approach mainly depends on the appropriateness of the process established to formulate them. 
“In  countries  where  the  main  stakeholders  in  the  Tempus  programme  were  consulted,  the 
national priority approach was considered useful for guiding applicants. In countries were the 
priorities were clearly set without consultation, the selection was considered arbitrary and an 
unnecessary form of irrelevant top-down meddling.” 

The  Commission  points  out  that  there  is  no  significant  difference  in  the  way  in  which  the 
national priorities have been established for different countries. However it acknowledges that 
there  are  indeed  differences  as  to  the  nature and  presentation  of  national  priorities.  In  some 
cases  national  priorities  can  be  easily  translated  into  operational  proposals.  In  other  cases 
priorities are too broad or ambiguous to be operational. 

The  consensus  proved  more  difficult  to  reach  on  the  actual  weight  to  be  given  to  national 
priorities  in  orienting  the  programme.  On  one  hand  it  was  observed  that  in  a  bottom-up 
programme, innovative ideas should in principle prevail over prescriptive guidance from the 
top.  On  the  other  hand,  a  more  resolute  strategic  planning  may  enhance  the  impact  of  the 
programme  and  avoid  dispersion  of  resources.  Similarly,  on  the  issue  of  the  weight  to  be 
given  to  the  compliance  with  national  priorities  in  the  selection  process,  programme 
stakeholders did not have a single view. 

The Commission takes the view that national priorities are essential if we are to maximise the 
impact  of  the  programme  on  reform  and  development  process  in  higher  education,  and 
through  higher  education  on  the  development  of  the  whole  education  and  training  systems. 
However,  as  the  evaluation  suggests,  it  is  important  to  maintain  the  bottom-up  approach  in 
order to stimulate innovation and creativity at institution-level. The bottom-up approach can 
also  serve  to  guarantee  (where  necessary)  that  the  programme  is  not  held  hostage  to 
bureaucracy and inappropriate political or economic interests. 

As  regards  regional  co-operation,  the  evaluator  concludes  that  the  needs  for,  inter  alia, 
intensified cultural co-operation, security co-operation, EU accession prospects and growing 
interest among partners to follow the Bologna process provide a strong case for intensifying 
university co-operation at regional level. 

Although  the  Commission  has  been  encouraging  applicants  to  submit  regional  projects 
(involving  more  than  one  partner  country),  it  is  true  that,  within  Tempus,  there  is  no 
mechanism  in  place  for  joint  formulation  of  region-wide  priorities  by  the  higher  education 
authorities in the respective regions. 

5.3. 

The value of the multilateral model of partnership  

This model is broadly perceived by the overwhelming majority of Tempus stakeholders as the 
key to the success of the Tempus intervention logic. 

At  the  heart  of  the  Tempus  approach  there  has  always  been  a  reliance  on  the  ability  of 
universities  in  the  EU  and  in  the  eligible  countries  to  identify  needs  and  formulate  and 
implement innovative and targeted projects. This approach appears to have worked well not 
only in reforming university curricula, but also in introducing new management practices. It 
has  also  provided  an  incentive  to  higher  education  institutions  to  make  their  knowledge 
available in response to new needs arising from processes of societal change. 

7 

 
 
  
 
The evaluator concludes that the multilateral model has proven successful in promoting that 
Tempus  achieves  its  twin  objectives  of  cultural  rapprochement  and  adaptation  of  higher 
education  systems.  This  model  has  a  direct  major  impact  on  the  emergence  of  sustainable 
personal networks and institutional partnerships between higher education institutions in the 
eligible  countries  and  in  EU  Member  States  –  which  is  a  main  indicator  of  success  for  the 
'cultural rapprochement' objective of Tempus III. 

The validity of the multilateral model to promote the reform and upgrade of higher education 
has been confirmed by the final evaluation of Tempus II. 

The evaluator compared the Tempus programme to other interventions and points out that the 
strength of the Tempus multilateral, bottom-up approach is its networking, people-to-people 
dimension.  Tempus  puts  a  human  face  to  co-operation  aid  since  as  all  Tempus  projects  are 
based on close collaboration between willing institutions and individuals. 

As the evaluator puts it “the value added of Tempus compared with structural investment in 
education  lies  in  its  promotion  of  international  co-operation,  which  generates  new  insights, 
ideas  and  new  networks  of  personal  and  professional  contacts.  In  addition,  the  strength  of 
multilateral  mobility  model  is  that  it  facilitates  entrepreneurship  at  faculty  level,  which 
provides  a  bottom-up  motor  for  innovation  and  reforms.  As  a  result  the  diversity  of  the 
innovation projects is very large.” 

The Commission notes the evaluator’s argument that Tempus brings “good value for money” 
in that the cost of Tempus interventions is comparatively lower than, for example, structural 
interventions involving international expert input. 

5.4. 

Relevance of the type of projects (outputs)  

Tempus types of projects are described in section 2. In the light of the programme objectives, 
the evaluator concludes that there is a very good match between the programme objectives as 
stated in the Council Decision and the programme instruments: 

–  Joint  European  Projects  and  Structural  and  Complementary  Measures  contribute  to  the 
adaptation  and  development  of  higher  education  systems  since  they  provide  the  partner 
countries  access  to  the  expertise  on  modernisation  and  reform  available  in  the  EU 
Institutions. 

–  Joint  European  Projects  on  curriculum  development  address  development  at  institution 
level  through  the  introduction  of  innovative  study  programmes;  and  projects  on  the 
improvement  of  university  management  address  the  management  reforms  in  the  higher 
education institutions.  

–  Joint  European  Projects  and  Individual  Mobility  Grants  promote  mobility  and  cultural 
dialogue as well as institution building, and are therefore relevant for reaching the Tempus 
III objective of rapprochement of cultures and civil society development. 

The evaluation concludes that the different types of project have been effective in achieving 
the expected outcomes of the programme and the overall Tempus impact on higher education 
reforms.  In  particular,  Joint  European  Projects  have  been  proved  to  contribute  to 
legislative/regulatory  change  in  the  field  of  higher  education.  They  also  contribute  to 
openness and preparedness for international co-operation among higher education institutions; 
institutions management reform; curriculum development; training of decision makers; and to 

8 

 
 
  
 
sustainable  partnerships  between  higher  education  institution  in  the  EU  and  in  the  eligible 
countries. 

However,  the  evaluator  does  identify  some  scope  for  enhancing  the  programme’s  impact, 
suggesting  in  particular:  additional  emphasis  on  information  exchange  and  dissemination  of 
results;  and  enhanced  university-industry  relations  with  an  explicit  focus  on  employability. 
The  evaluator  suggests  also  integration  of  Tempus  Joint  European  Projects  with  vocational 
training  programmes  for  teacher-training,  and  the  dissemination  of  innovative  results  to 
training  centres,  and  secondary  and  primary  schools.  Joint  European  Projects  should  also 
serve to educate top students for research careers. 

The  Commission  agrees  largely  with  this  analysis,  and  underlines  that  there  is  a  case  to 
consider  the  mechanisms  to  reinforce  synergies  between  higher  education  and  vocational 
education and training within the present programme, and to extend the programme beyond 
higher education in its next incarnation.  

5.5. 

Level of funding and critical mass 

The evaluator  observed that  the  programme objectives were not translated into a number of 
performance  targets  verifiable  through  quantitative  indicators.  He  argues,  however,  that  the 
analysis  of  the  selection  process  reveals  that  the  number  of  quality  applications  has  always 
exceeded  the  available  funding.  Once  the  programme  was  well  established,  the  absorption 
capacity has never been exceeded. This suggests that Tempus has been under-funded. 

As  for  the  critical  mass,  the  conclusion  of  the  evaluation  is  that  such  critical  mass  can  be 
achieved with current level of funding at project level. However, at country level, achieving 
critical  mass  depends  on  the  size  of  the  country  and  on  the  allocation  of  sustained  and 
increased funding. 

The  Commission  agrees  with  the  evaluator’s  analysis  and  acknowledges  that  variations  in 
funding  levels  that  the  programme  has  experienced  in  the  past,  though  often  justified  for 
political and programming reasons, do jeopardise the effectiveness of the programme. 

5.6. 

The management of the programme 

The  evaluation  report  states  that  the  current  implementation  tools,  management  approaches 
and modalities of technical support are appropriate and have in the past ensured a satisfactory 
level of project quality and proper project implementation. 

While  the  report  acknowledges  the  Commission’s  recent  efforts  to  streamline  procedures,  it 
points out that the rules for contracting and financial administration are more rigid and time-
consuming than necessary. The Commission underlines that, although there is an element of 
truth  in  this  conclusion,  there  is  a  very  difficult  balance  between  the  need  to  ensure 
appropriate  accountability  for  the  use  of  public  funds  and  administrative  simplicity.  The 
introduction of the new Financial Regulation has not made such work any simpler. 

As far as selection procedures are concerned, the evaluator underlines the transparency of the 
system,  but  points  out  that  there  is  insufficient  feedback  provided  to  assessors  on  the 
performance of past projects, and no horizontal comparison of the relative merits of projects 
in  the  wider  context  of  the  higher  education  reform  needs  of  the  eligible  countries.  The 
Commission  has  already  taken  steps  to  improve  the  selection  process,  in  particular  by 
reinforcing assessor training.  

9 

 
 
  
 
Regarding  monitoring,  the  evaluator  concludes  that  Tempus  III  monitoring  practices  are 
limited but can be considered adequate. The Commission acknowledges that field monitoring 
has  not  taken  place  in  a  systematic  manner  during  Tempus  III,  and  this  has  limited  the 
information flow on Tempus achievements in the eligible countries. The Commission agrees 
also that it would be desirable to improve the dissemination of results.  

6. 

THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATOR 

The evaluation report makes a series of recommendations, which are summarised below (in 
italics) together with the Commission comments: 

(1)  The  successful  multilateral  model  of  Tempus  should  be  extended  to other  regions  of  the 
world. 

The  Commission  has  drawn  the  evaluators’  attention  to  the  fact  that  some  existing 
programmes (such as ALFA or Asia-Link) have adopted the Tempus partnership model. 

(2) The annual national budgets for the remaining years of Tempus III should be increased. 

The Commission agrees with the evaluators arguments regarding the fact that ‘critical mass’ 
can  only  be  achieved  through  increased  levels  of  funding  and  is  committed  to  keep  the 
funding of the programme at a sufficiently high level to ensure an efficient use of resources.  

(3)  The  process  of  formulation  of  the  country-specific  priorities  should  be  strengthened  by 
means of a more structured dialogue with the educational authorities of the partner countries. 

The Commission recognises that dialogue with the authorities of the partner countries is key 
to the success of the programme, and will take immediate measures towards a more structured 
and coherent approach. 

(4)  Increase  the  usefulness  of  the  National  Priorities  further  by  specifying  the  priorities  as 
horizontal education issues, rather than as list of vertical academic specialisations. 

The Commission recognises that the nature and presentation of national priorities should be 
improved. 

(5) The Call for Proposal approach and the selection mechanism for regional projects should 
be improved. 

The Commission recognises that the current system based on national priorities and national 
budgets  does  not  allow  the  realisation  of  the  full  potential  of  regional  co-operation,  even  if 
this  is  explicitly  encouraged  in  the  current  phase  of  the  programme.  The  Commission  will 
examine how best to reinforce the regional dimension of the programme. 

(6) Tempus funds should be used for what the programme does best, i.e. promoting mobility, 
exchanges and innovation of study programmes. 

The  Commission  is  pleased  that  the  Tempus  programme  has  gained  a  reputation  for 
promoting  the  mobility  and  the  innovation  of  study  programmes  and  teaching  methods,  but 
considers that the ambition of the programme to extend its impact to reach system level is the 
logical  consequence  of  the  growing  importance  attached  to  national  priorities.  Therefore 
while activities focusing on curriculum development at institutional level will continue to be 

10 

 
 
  
 
central  to  the  programme,  other  activities,  particularly  those  seeking  to  involve  actors  at 
system level, will be further developed.  

(7)  Increase  the  relevance  and  effectiveness  of  the  Individual  Mobility  Grants  further  and 
limit the room for misuse of the grants. 

The Commission will revise the criteria and funding conditions for IMGs and plans to involve 
the  partner  countries’  national  authorities  in  defining  priorities  for  this  type  of  activity.  The 
Commission considers that the perception that IMGs are or can be misused is not supported 
by  evidence.  It  is  worth  noting  that  IMGs  do  allow  beneficiaries  to  carry  out  legitimate 
activities  that  go  beyond  the  original  scope  of  the  grant;  this  may  have  given  raise  to  the 
misperception. 

(8) The co-ordination between DG EAC and EuropeAid should be strengthened to maximise 
the impact of the programme on higher education reform. 

The Commission will ensure co-ordination at all levels between services with responsibility 
over co-operation in education in the partner countries concerned. This co-ordination should 
take place both as regards the identification of overall priorities, programming as well as co-
ordination, monitoring and evaluation. 

(9)  Investigate  the  feasibility  of  reducing  the  maximum  JEP  grant  amounts  to  say  EUR 
200,000 for a two-year project with the aim of selecting more projects for funding. 

While  for  some  countries  smaller  grants  and  higher  number  of  projects  may  be  desirable, 
experience has shown that the current maximum funding level (EUR 500,000) is necessary to 
ensure critical mass at project level. 

(10)  Introduce  a  new  project  type  for  conference  organisation  in  support  of  regional  co-
operation/networking  and  dissemination  of  project  result.  (11)  Reserve  funding  for  actions 
that  will  promote  information  exchange  and  more  dissemination  of  the  intangible  and 
tangible results of Tempus. 

The Commission considers that the launching of the Structural and Complementary Measures, 
which  include  support  for  information  and  dissemination  projects,  and  the  organisation  of 
Tempus regional conferences addresses these recommendations. 

(12) Focus the Tempus Guidelines for Applicants more firmly on the promotion of: top talent, 
employability,  university-industry-civil  society  relations  and  the  trickle-down  of  JEP 
innovation  to  other  training  establishments  including  secondary  and  primary  education 
programmes. 

The Guide for Applicants already encourages university-industry-civil society relations. The 
Commission  will  seek  to  stimulate  further  this  collaboration  through  targeted  information 
activities in partner countries. 

The  Commission  will  also  seek  to  exploit,  within  the  current  phase  of  the  programme,  the 
potential of higher education to stimulate development of vocational and adult education and 
training as well as school education. As regards the renewal of the Tempus programme, the 
Commission  will  consider  the  extending  the  Tempus  model  so  that  it  covers  the  whole 
spectrum of lifelong learning. 

(13) Statistics on good quality submitted proposals should be published. 

11 

 
 
  
 
The Commission agrees that such statistics serve to prove the additional absorption capacity 
of partner countries and therefore serve as a reference for a potential increase of programme 
funding. They also relate to the requirements of the new Financial regulation as regards the 
publication of results. 

(14) An effort should be made to raise the average quality level of funded proposals.  

The Commission will address this issue in two ways: (1) it will encourage National Tempus 
Offices11 to organise training session for prospective Tempus applicants; (2) it will improve 
the  information  material  for  the  applicants  and  the  training  of  the  experts  involved  in  the 
project selection. 

(15) The relevance and the impact of the programme should be actively promoted at the level 
of the local authorities. 

The  Commission  recognises  the  importance  of  closer  involvement  of  national  authorities  in 
defining priorities for the implementation of the programme and in stimulation participation 
of higher education institutions as well as other organisations. To this end, the Commission 
has taken steps to set in place a mechanism for structured dialogue with national authorities. 

(16) Contracting procedures should be simplified. 

Simplifications  of  the  contracting  procedures  have  been  introduced  in  2003,  reducing  the 
number of payments and the number of reports required from grant holders. However, further 
efforts  in  the  direction  must  take  account  of  the  changed  (and  more  complex)  regulatory 
environment. 

(17) The selection process should focus on project relevance. 

The Commission is of the view that the relevance of project to higher education reform will 
be improved through the reinforcement of national priorities, better information up-stream the 
selection process and appropriate training of experts involved in the selection process so that 
project  relevance  to  local  needs  can  be  better  assessed.  Steps  are  being  taken  in  all  these 
respects. 

(18) Reintroduce field monitoring on a selective basis.  

The  Commission  plans  to  reinforce  the  current  system  for  field  monitoring,  subject  to  the 
availability  of  additional  human  and  financial  resources,  both  within  the  Commission  and 
within its technical assistance. 

7. 

CONCLUSION 

The interim evaluation confirms the relevance of the Tempus programme and fully endorses 
its  intervention  logic  as  effective  and  efficient.  While  no  fundamental  reorientation  of  the 
programme  appears  necessary,  the  Commission  has  already  taken  steps  to  improve  its 
implementation and will adopt further measures as indicated above. 

11 

National  Tempus  Offices  are  designated  by  national  authorities  in  partner  countries  and  assist  the 
Commission in the implementation of the programme providing information and advise to prospective 
applicants and feedback to the Commission on project implementation. 

12 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
In  particular,  the  Commission  will  seek  to  reinforce  national  priorities,  improve  result 
dissemination  and  strengthen  monitoring.  The  Commission  will  also  seek  to  ensure  a 
sustained level of funding in order to ensure an efficient operation of the programme. 

Through Tempus, the Commission will also stimulate reform in school, vocational and adult 
education  and  training  in  order  to  fully  exploit  the  programme’s  value  as  an  instrument  for 
socio-economic change in partner countries. 

13