Communication from the Commission - Mobilising the brainpower of Europe: enabling universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy {SEC(2005) 518}
Date: 2005-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: education budget, education policy, organisation of teaching, university

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.4.2005 
COM(2005) 152 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

Mobilising the brainpower of Europe: 

enabling universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy 

{SEC(2005) 518} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

Mobilising the brainpower of Europe: 

enabling universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy 

“The search for knowledge has always been at the heart of the European adventure. 
It has helped to define our identity and our values, and it is the driving force behind 
our future competitiveness”1. 

1. 

UNIVERSITIES ARE CRUCIAL IN ACHIEVING THE LISBON GOALS  

Within  the  next  20  years,  Europe’s  economic  paradigm  will  change  fundamentally.  Its 
manufacturing  base  will  continue  to  shrink,  future  growth  and  social  welfare  will  rely 
increasingly on knowledge-intensive industries and services, and ever more jobs will require a 
higher  education  qualification.  Yet  European  universities2,  motors  of  the  new,  knowledge-
based  paradigm,  are  not  in  a  position  to  deliver  their  full  potential  contribution  to  the  re-
launched Lisbon Strategy. 

Europe  must  strengthen  the  three  poles  of  its  knowledge  triangle:  education,  research  and 
innovation.  Universities  are  essential  in  all  three.  Investing  more  and  better  in  the 
modernisation  and  quality  of  universities  is  a  direct  investment  in  the  future  of  Europe  and 
Europeans.  

The  present  document  sets  out  ways  in  which  this  could  be  achieved.  It  has  its  roots  in  the 
consultation of stakeholders launched by the Commission’s 2003 Communication “The role 
of universities in the Europe of knowledge”3, which led to a dual follow-up:  

–  outcomes  of  the  consultation  concerning  research  aspects  were  analysed4  in  the 
light  of  two  reports  dealing  with  higher  education-research  relations5  and 
addressed at a major conference in Liège in April 20046; the forthcoming Action 
the  present 
Plan  on  University-based  Research 
Communication) will deal with the research dimension of universities; 

twin  document 

to 

(a 

–  outcomes on higher education aspects were analysed7 within the framework of the 
“Education and Training 2010” work programme8 and discussed at the conference 
“Enabling  European  universities  to  make  their  full  contribution  to  the  Lisbon 
Strategy” of February 20059; 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Mid-Term Review of the Lisbon Strategy - COM(2005) 24, 2.2.2005 (§ 3.3.2).  
The term “universities” is used to mean all higher education institutions. 
COM(2003) 58, 5.2.2003. 
http://europe.eu.int/comm/research/conferences/2004/univ/pdf/univ_outcome_consult_en.pdf 
From the STRATA-ETAN expert group, October 2002 and November 2003. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/conferences/2004/univ/index_en.html 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/consultation_en.html 
Council document 6365/02 of 20 February 2002. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/lisbon_en.html  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
This Communication is largely based on converging messages from the consultation process, 
which identified three main challenges for European higher education: achieving world-class 
quality, improving governance, and increasing and diversifying funding. Action suggested in 
these  areas  takes  full  account  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  whereby  Member  States  are 
responsible for the organisation of their higher education. 

2. 

INCREASING CHALLENGES 

This  section  should  be  read  together  with  the  Commission  staff  working  paper  “European 
Higher Education in a worldwide perspective” which complements it by providing, explaining 
and  analysing  additional  statistical  data  and  indicators  (mainly  in  its  Section  III  and  the 
Statistical Annex, tables 3, 4, 5 and 8). 

2.1. 

Human capital and innovation gaps 

Tertiary education attainment 

While  Europe  is  certainly  a  highly  educated  society,  only  21%  of  the  EU  working-age 
population has achieved tertiary education, significantly lower than in the US (38%), Canada 
(43%) or Japan (36%), as well as South Korea (26%).  

Access to higher education 

While most of Europe sees higher education as a “public good”, tertiary enrolments have been 
stronger and grown faster in other parts of the world – mainly thanks to much higher private 
funding.  With  an  average  gross  enrolment  ratio  of  52%,  the  EU  is  slightly  ahead  of  Japan 
(49%) but lags behind Canada (59%) and far behind the US (81%) and South Korea (82%).  

Research performance 

While  the  EU  educates  more  graduates  in  science  and  technology  and  produces  more  PhDs 
overall,  it  employs  only  5.5  researchers  per  1 000  employees, which  is  marginally  less  than 
Canada  and  South  Korea,  but  much  less  than  the  US  (9.0)  and  Japan  (9.7).  Two  recent 
surveys  emphasising  research  found  that  apart  from  a  handful  in  Britain,  there  are  no 
European Union universities in the top 20 in the world and relatively few in the top 5010. The 
rapid growth of Asian universities, both public and private, is now also challenging Europe – 
and the US – in terms of doctoral candidates in science and engineering11. 

2.2. 

The bottlenecks 

Uniformity 

A  tendency  to  uniformity  and  egalitarianism  in  many  national  systems  has  ensured  that  the 
average quality of universities, while generally homogeneous, is comparatively good – at least 
academically. But there are also deficiencies stemming from insufficient differentiation. Most 
universities  tend  to  offer  the  same  monodisciplinary  programmes  and  traditional  methods 
geared  towards  the  same  group  of  academically  best-qualified  learners  –  which  leads  to  the 

10 

11 

Surveys by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm and by the Times Higher 
Education Supplement, 5 November 2004. 
International graduate admissions survey, US Council of Graduate Schools, December 2004. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
exclusion  of  those  who  do  not  conform  to  the  standard  model.  Other  consequences  are  that 
Europe has too few centres of world-class excellence, and universities are not encouraged to 
explain at home and abroad the specific value of what they produce for learners and society.  

Insularity 

European  higher  education  remains  fragmented  -  between  and  even  within  countries  -  into 
medium  or  small  clusters  with  different  regulations  and,  naturally,  different  languages.  It 
needs  to  become  “readable”  in  the  world  if  it  wants  to  regain  its  position  as  the  leading 
destination of mobile students - a privilege lost to the US in the 1990s. It also remains largely 
insulated from industry, with limited knowledge-sharing and mobility. As a result, too many 
graduates – even at the highest level - lack the kind of entrepreneurship and skills sought on 
the labour market. Most universities are strongly dependent on the state and ill prepared for 
worldwide competition over talent, prestige and resources.  

Over-regulation 

The  over-regulation  of  university  life  hinders  modernisation  and  efficiency.  Nationally 
defined courses and employment rules for academic staff tend to inhibit curricular reform and 
interdisciplinarity.  Inflexible  admission  and  recognition  rules  impede  lifelong  learning  and 
mobility. Unattractive conditions encourage young talent to seek elsewhere for quicker access 
to  independence  and  more  rewarding  salaries.  Minute  ex  ante  control  hinders  universities’ 
capacity to react swiftly to changes in their environment. Where change is always a matter for 
legislation, reforms are bound to be few, disruptive and uniform.  

Under-funding 

Universities are at the crossroads of two huge investment deficits in the knowledge sector: 

–  on  research,  EU  countries  spend  1.9%  of  GDP  while  the  US,  Japan  and  South 
Korea  are  all  close  to  3%,  thanks  to  much  higher  research  investment  from 
industry; 

–  on higher education, EU countries spend on average just 1.1% of GDP, on a par 
with Japan but far below Canada (2.5%), the US (2.7%) and South Korea (2.7%). 
This  is  almost  entirely  due  to  much  lower  investment  levels  from  industry  and 
households  in  Europe.  If  Europe  were  to  match  the  US  figure,  it  would  need  to 
spend an additional EUR 150 billion each year on higher education12.  

In  policy  terms,  under-funding  and  dependency  on  state  funding  do  not  only  lead  to  the 
relative  poverty  of  the  higher  education  sector.  Consequences  vary  between  countries,  but 
extend  from  low  enrolment  rates  to  unmet  demand,  a  failure  to  prepare  students  for  the 
European labour market, too few jobs for teachers/researchers or difficulties in attracting and 
retaining top talent.  

12 

Commission Staff Working Paper, § 44.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

THE CORE MODERNISATION AGENDA: ATTRACTIVENESS, GOVERNANCE, FUNDING 

The bottlenecks referred to above are more or less marked depending on the Member State, 
but for the EU it is crucial that they are overcome everywhere in the Union. The consultation 
process has shown that solutions exist and require action in three directions.  

3.1. 

Attractiveness: the imperative of quality and excellence 

Raising quality and attractiveness requires major transformations at universities. Those who 
drive  these  transformations  within  universities  require  specific  support  (including  funding) 
from  their  environment.  Universities  failing  to  undertake  these  changes  -  for  want  of  drive, 
power  to  act  or  available  resources  –  will  create  a  growing  handicap  for  themselves,  their 
graduates and their countries. 

3.1.1.  Differentiation in quality and excellence 

Mobilising all Europe’s brain power and applying it in the economy and society will require 
much  more  diversity  than  hitherto  with  respect  to  target  groups,  teaching  modes,  entry  and 
exit points, the mix of disciplines and competencies in curricula, etc.  

Outstanding  quality  can  only  emerge  from  a  terrain  with  an  across-the-board  “culture  of 
excellence”. Excellence is never a permanent achievement: it always needs to be challenged. 
It can exist in a few entire universities, but much more widely in individual faculties or teams 
within  institutions  or  networks.  The  nature  and  intensity  of  research  (as  of  other  activities) 
varies  considerably  between  countries,  types  of  institution  and  individual  universities.  Each 
university must achieve its full potential in the light of its own strengths and priorities, and it 
must therefore be capable of identifying and focussing on these. 

This requires some concentration of funding, not just on centres and networks that are already 
excellent (in a particular type/area of research, teaching/training or community service) – but 
also on those who have the potential to become excellent and to challenge established leaders. 

3.1.2.  Factors to raise attractiveness to learners 

More flexibility and openness to the world in teaching/learning  

If universities are to become more attractive locally and globally, profound curricular revision 
is required - not just to ensure the highest level of academic content, but also to respond to the 
changing  needs  of  labour  markets.  The  integration  of  graduates  into  professional  life,  and 
hence  into  society,  is  a  major  social  responsibility  of  higher  education.  Learning  needs  to 
encompass transversal skills (such as teamwork and entrepreneurship) in addition to specialist 
knowledge. European and interdisciplinary aspects need to be strengthened. The potential of 
ICT  should  be  fully  exploited  in  teaching/learning,  including  for  lifelong  learning.  The 
bachelor-master  divide  allows  more  diverse  programme  profiles  and  learning  methods  (e.g. 
research-based learning and ICT delivery).  

Broader access 

With  new  types  of  learners,  greater  programme  diversity  and  more  mobility  across  Europe, 
improved guidance and counselling (before and during higher education), flexible admission 
policies and customised learning paths are of growing importance. They are key determinants 
for broadening access, supporting student commitment and increasing success and efficiency - 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
whether admission is competitive or not. Grant/loan systems, affordable accommodation and 
part-time  work  or  assistantships  are  also  important  for  universities  to  be  attractive  and 
accessible to a suitably wide range of learners – thus breaking the link between social origin 
and educational attainment.  

Better communication 

While academia tends to assume that good quality is its own advertisement, attractiveness is 
about  perceptions.  The  development  of  a  coherent  structure  of  degrees,  ECTS  credits,  the 
Diploma Supplement and trustworthy quality seals will enhance the recognition of European 
degrees. But it will not suffice: universities need better to communicate with society about the 
value of what they produce, and to invest more in their presence and marketing at home and 
abroad. Not all are well prepared for this. 

3.1.3.  Factors to strengthen human resources 

Human  resources  are  a  core  determinant  of  quality  in  higher  education  and  research. 
Universities  must  therefore  work  to  enhance  their  human  potential,  both  qualitatively  and 
quantitatively,  by  attracting,  developing  and  keeping  talent  in  the  teaching/research  career. 
Excellence can only emerge from a favourable professional environment based in particular 
on  open,  transparent  and  competitive  procedures.  Vacancies,  at  least  for  rectors,  deans, 
professors and researchers should be advertised publicly, and where possible internationally. 
Researchers should be treated as professionals from the early stages of their career13. Physical 
and  virtual  mobility  (whether  across  boundaries  or  between  university  and  industry)  and 
innovation  leading  e.g.  to  university  spin-offs  should  be  encouraged  and  rewarded14. 
Compensation  should  reward  quality  and  achievement  in  the  performance  of  all  tasks, 
including  a  share  of  income  from  research  contracts,  consultancies,  patents,  etc.  These 
measures  would  over  time  reinforce  world-class  excellence  at  European  universities,  thus 
reducing  the  attractiveness  gap  with  other  world  regions  and  benefiting  all  of  Europe  - 
through highly qualified graduates moving or returning to more regional universities, whether 
immediately or later in their careers. 

3.1.4.  Diversity demands organisation at European level 

European higher education is and needs to remain diverse with respect to languages, culture, 
systems  and  traditions.  At  the  same  time,  sufficient  compatibility  between  the  different 
national regulations is indispensable in order to avoid breeding confusion rather than adding 
opportunities  for  citizen  choice  and  mobility.  Cross-recognition  of  qualifications  and 
competencies  demands  a  minimum  level  of  organisation  at  European  level  in  the  form  of 
common references and basic standards.  

Creating  a  European  framework  for  higher  education  qualifications  has  been  a  major 
objective  of  the  Bologna  process15.  If  adopted,  the  proposal  submitted  to  Ministers  at  their 
forthcoming Bergen meeting will provide a common reference not only for all various types 
of bachelor, master and doctoral degrees, but also for “shorter” post-secondary qualifications 
around a notional level of 120 ECTS points. It would thus integrate into the comprehensive 

13 

14 
15 

Cf. Commission Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct 
for the Recruitment of Researchers - http://europa.eu.int/eracareers/europeancharter. 
Cf. idem. 
Cf. Ministers’ Communiqué, Berlin, 19 September 2003 - http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European Qualifications Framework (EQF) called for within the Lisbon Strategy to cover all 
types and levels of qualifications16.  

Quality depends primarily on a “culture of quality” and on an internal quality assurance (QA) 
within universities – all the more so when the university is close to the knowledge frontier. 
But  the  accountability  of  universities  to  society  also  requires  an  external  system  of  QA.  In 
Europe  this  should  be  done  through  a  network  of  QA  agencies  -  catering  each  for  a 
country/region  or  a  discipline/profession  –  agreeing  on  some  basic  criteria  in  order  to 
facilitate  the  cross-recognition  of  quality  seals  throughout  the  Union17.  Except  for  the  few 
which  have  built  up  their  own  brand  names,  Europe’s  universities  need  quality  seals  with 
international  credibility.  Failure  to  develop  such  seals  would  perpetuate  for  them  a 
competitive disadvantage. 

3.2. 

Governance: the need for better system and institutional management 

The  call  from  universities  for  more  autonomy  is  not  a  call  for  the  withdrawal  of  the  state: 
there  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  near-consensus  in  Europe  that  the  state  should  retain  or  even 
strengthen its responsibility for higher education.  

Universities  are  calling  for  a  fundamentally  new  type  of  arrangement  (or  “contract”)  with 
society,  whereby  they  are  responsible  and  accountable  for  their  programmes,  staff  and 
resources, while public authorities focus on the strategic orientation of the system as a whole.  

3.2.1.  Reinforcing public responsibility for higher education as a system 

Focusing on the strategic orientation of the whole system would allow the state to reinforce its 
public  responsibility  for  higher  education  in  the  knowledge  era  –  mainly  by  defining  a 
regulatory  framework  within  which  strategic  orientation  combined  with  autonomy  and 
diversity results in wider access and higher quality.  

In many countries this would mean a new approach in Ministries, with less ex ante checks and 
greater  ex  post  accountability  of  universities  for  quality,  efficiency  and  the  achievement  of 
agreed  objectives.  Neither  can  be  achieved  without  extensive  training,  in  order  to  enable 
university  managers 
in  a 
European/international perspective. 

to  plan  and  manage  change 

in  a  strategic  way  and 

3.2.2.  Enabling institutional modernisation strategies 

A majority of universities feel that their national regulations do not currently allow them to 
undertake  the  changes  necessary  for  their  future.  In  an  open,  competitive  and  moving 
environment,  autonomy  is  a  pre-condition  for  universities to be able to respond to society’s 
changing needs and to take full account for those responses.  

Universities should be responsible for: 

–  setting  specific  medium-term  priorities  (including  by  defining  types/areas  of 
research,  teaching  and  services  in  which  they  will  achieve  outstanding  quality) 
and targeting the collective effort of their staff towards achieving these; 

16 
17 

Joint Interim Report, Council document 6905/04 of 3 March 2004, § 231. 
The Commission’s draft Recommendation on QA in Higher Education - COM(2004) 642, 12.10.2004 - 
builds on exactly this principle. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  managing and developing their human resources (cf. Section 3.1.3); 

–  defining  their  curricula  -  subject  to  internal  QA  and  in  accordance  with  the 

common principles of the European Higher Education Area; 

–  professionally  managing  their  facilities  (owning,  running  and  developing  them), 
financial  resources  (including  budgets,  investment  and  borrowing)  and  external 
communication (image building). 

3.3. 

Funding: the need for higher and more efficient investment 

Given overlong study durations, high drop-out rates and/or graduate unemployment, investing 
more in the current system could be perceived as unproductive, or even counter-productive. 
Yet  combined  under-funding  and  system  rigidities  are  so  acute  in  some  countries  that  they 
impede the reform process at universities, who are thus trapped in a vicious circle.  

To  attract  more  funding,  universities  first  need  to  convince  stakeholders  -  governments, 
companies,  households  –  that  existing  resources  are  efficiently  used  and  fresh  ones  would 
produce added value for them. Higher funding cannot be justified without profound change: 
providing for such change is the main justification and prime purpose for fresh investment. 

3.3.1. 

Investment priorities for the modernisation of higher education 

A  major  message  from  universities  is  that  reforms  of  the  scope  of  those  needed  in  Europe 
cannot be introduced in a sustainable way without (targeted) fresh resources18. These reforms 
require specific staff time, training, ICT development, etc. and hence specific funds - on top 
of those for ongoing activities.  

Additional funding should primarily provide incentives and means to those universities (they 
exist in every system) and to those groups/individuals (they exist in each university) that are 
willing  and  able  to  innovate,  reform  and  deliver  high  quality  in  teaching,  research  and 
services.  This  requires  more  competition-based  funding  in  research  and  more  output-related 
funding in education. 

3.3.2.  Contributions from students and industry  

The debate on social and private returns from higher education has highlighted its role as an 
investment benefiting both the individual (through higher income and status) and society as a 
whole  (through  higher  employment  rates,  lower  social  costs  and  later  retirement19).  It  has 
been shown that free higher education does not by itself suffice to guarantee equal access and 
maximum enrolments. This casts the much debated issue of tuition fees in a fresh perspective. 
In the consultation, those universities arguing for higher fees suggested that a major benefit 
would  be  higher  quality  education.  Some  analysts  also  point  out  that  tuition  fees  could  in 
practice provide better access for students from lower income groups if the incremental funds 
were  recycled  into  a  sound  student  aid  system20.  Given  the  differences  between  national 
systems, there can be no uniform response to this issue: each Member State needs to choose 
the approach best suited to its circumstances.  

18 
19 
20 

Cf. Stakeholders Consultation and Trends IV survey of Bologna reforms, EUA, March 2005.  
Commission Staff Working Paper, Section II. 
Conference of 10 February 2005, sessions on funding. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European  universities  also  need  to  become  more  attractive  partners  for  industry.  Lasting 
partnerships  are  a  condition  for  structured  staff  exchanges  and  for  curricular  development 
responding to industry’s need for well trained graduates and researchers. But the development 
of  commercially  relevant  training/retraining,  research  and  consultancy  services  demands 
investment over some years before these activities start paying for themselves – all the more 
so  if  public  subsidies  are  correspondingly  reduced.  This  means  that  the  development  of 
sustainable partnerships with industry may well hinge (initially, at least) on the availability of 
tax incentives.  

4. 

PRIORITIES FOR ACTION 

The  main  directions  for  the  modernisation  of  universities  in  Europe  have  been  identified. 
Ministers will refine them at their upcoming meeting in Bergen within the Bologna process. 
Within the Lisbon Strategy, the priority must now be on immediate action consisting in a mix 
of university initiative, national enabling action and European support. 

4.1. 

Unleashing universities’ potential within the national context 

Reforms of universities’ status, internal organisation or funding have been undertaken already 
in  several  Member  States.  The  Lisbon  Strategy,  however,  challenges  governments  to  go 
further  by  establishing  a  new  partnership  with  universities,  moving  from  State  control  to 
accountability to society, and investing in the modernisation of the knowledge sector. 

4.1.1.  Enabling universities to change 

The  Commission  urges  all  Member  States  to  take  action  ensuring  that  their  regulatory 
frameworks  enable  and  encourage  university  leadership  to  undertake  genuine  change  and 
pursue strategic priorities. 

Such frameworks should cover at least three essential aspects: 

–  regulations and incentives for system modernisation within the European context, such as 
the conjunct of Bologna reforms and the adjustment to the common references defined at 
EU level, e.g. for the EQF, the validation of non-formal learning, the European Charter for 
Researchers  and  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  their  recruitment  or  the  building  up  of  QA/ 
accreditation with European credibility; 

–  multi-annual  agreements  between  the  state/region  and  each  university,  setting  out  agreed 
strategic  objectives,  the  commitment  of  university  leadership  to  deliver  on  them,  and  the 
amount of fixed and contingent public funding that will be provided; 

–  empowering  universities  effectively  to  take  and  implement  decisions  by  way  of  a 
leadership team with sufficient authority and management capacity, enough time in office 
and  ample  European/international  experience.  This  is  all  the  more  important  given  the 
positive link between the quality of universities’ leadership and output21. 

21 

Conference of 10 February 2005, sessions on governance. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.1.2.  Ensuring a sufficient level of total funding 

Ensuring that no higher education system in Europe is left behind for want of sufficient total 
resources is a major public responsibility. The EU does not need to replicate the US system, 
where  competition  for  academic  stars  has  led  to  salary  inflation.  But  the  Commission 
estimates that even in a modernised university system, a total investment of some 2% of GDP 
(cf. US: 2.7%) is the minimum required for knowledge-intensive economies.  

The Commission urges national decision makers in all ministries to acknowledge that closing 
the  severe  funding  deficit  in  higher  education  is  a  core  condition  for  achieving  the  Lisbon 
Strategy. The mix of public and private, and of basic, competitive and output-related funding, 
will,  however,  remain  different  between  countries,  given  the  great  diversity  of  cultures, 
economies and university traditions.  

Clearly, European universities need to attract a much higher share of funding from industry; 
but  they  must  recognise  that  this  will  only  happen  in  partnerships  where  both  sides  find  an 
interest, and start preparing themselves for more of these.  

The  Commission  therefore  invites  Member  States  to  ensure  that  fiscal  rules  enable  and 
encourage partnerships between business and universities, and that universities are able to use 
such funds in ways which will provide continuing strength.  

A wide range of possibilities exists between the two poles of grant-supported free education 
and  full-cost  tuition  fees.  In  any  case  the  principle  of  equal  opportunity  must  be  ensured. 
Where  tuition  fees  are  introduced,  a  substantial  part  of  the  funds  should  be  redistributed  as 
income-contingent  grants/loans  aimed  at  guaranteeing  access  for  all,  and  as  performance-
related scholarships aimed at encouraging excellence. Differential fees and grants systems can 
be used to ensure the  attractiveness  of courses with the highest social value, e.g. to prevent 
labour shortages in some areas and graduate unemployment in others; this should go as far as 
compensating certain categories by treating them as professionals in training, e.g. early career 
researchers completing a PhD. 

The  Commission  invites  Member  States  to  consider  whether  their  current  funding  model 
(with or without substantial tuition fees, grants and/or loans) effectively guarantees fair access 
for all qualified students to the maximum of their capacities. 

4.2. 

Answering universities’ call for more support from Europe 

Reforms  and  funding  are  primarily  the  responsibility  of  the  state,  regions  and  universities 
within the national context. Nonetheless, the Commission intends to respond to the call from 
universities for more support from Europe in three main ways. 

4.2.1.  Mobilising all sources of EU funding for the modernisation of universities 

Higher education is not just the sum of its education, training and research activities. It is also 
a  fundamental  economic  and  social  sector  in  its  own  right,  in  need  of  resources  for 
redeployment. The EU has supported the conversion process of sectors like the steel industry 
or  agriculture;  it  now  faces  the  imperative  to  modernise  its  “knowledge  industry”  and  in 
particular its universities.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
But  higher  education  is  not  currently  among  the  main  beneficiaries  of  European  structural 
funds and European Investment Bank loans. Yet, co-funding or long-term loans would make 
it possible to reduce or spread over time the cost of investment in higher education, whether 
for  tangible  and  intangible  infrastructures,  training  programmes  or  regional  knowledge 
clusters.  

The Commission therefore invites Member States to make the fullest possible use of the EU’s 
financial  instruments  to  develop  their  knowledge  sector.  Structural  and  rural  development 
funds  offer  possibilities  to  stimulate  the  modernisation  of  higher  education  via  sectoral 
measures. Higher education is also a priority sector for the EIB and further expansion of its 
lending is desirable. 

4.2.2. 

Strengthening cooperation within “Education & Training 2010” 

The  “Education  &  Training  2010”  work  programme  recognises  the  extreme  importance  of 
modernisation  in  higher  education22  -  over  and  above  the  reforms  called  for  in  the  Bologna 
process which, a fortiori, are also important for achieving the Lisbon Objectives.  

The Commission will make full use of all tools available in the work programme to underpin 
Member  States’  efforts  to  modernise  their  universities,  e.g.  by  supporting  exchange  of  best 
practice, surveys and studies, mutual learning between policy makers, etc. Indicator analysis 
can  also  help  measure  performance  in  terms  of  funding  and  outputs23,  but  the  Commission 
does not propose specific European benchmarks in higher education.  

The  proposed  Integrated  Lifelong  Learning  Programme24  for  2007-2013  will  also  be  linked 
more  closely  to  the  Union’s  policy  priorities,  in  particular  by  stimulating  mobility  and 
university-industry cooperation. 

Two major objectives for 2006 are to adopt the planned European Qualifications Framework 
(EQF) and to begin implementing the Recommendation on quality assurance (once adopted) 
which  introduces  important  new  tools,  such  as  a  European  register  of  agencies  meeting 
standards  defined  at  European  level25.  The  Commission  also  plans  to  support  a  number  of 
new EU-wide accreditation initiatives in specific disciplines in 2005. 

4.2.3. 

Investing in outstanding quality/excellence 

The Commission aims to respond to the call to invest more efforts and money in outstanding 
quality,  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring  that  the  terrain  from  which  excellence  emerges 
remains  open  and  fertile  throughout  the  Union.  Two  key  conditions  for  success  are  to 
overcome insularity and to support less-advanced regions to build up high quality in specific 
types/areas of activities. 

A  main  priority  will  be  postgraduate/doctoral  schools  and  networks  of  European  and 
worldwide calibre, in their dual function as the peak of higher education and the first career 
stage for researchers. The Commission will examine the possibility of providing more support 
to  such  schools  and  their  students/researchers,  provided  they  meet  certain  criteria  such  as: 

22 
23 
24 
25 

Joint Interim Report, § 1.1.2.  
Commission Staff Working Paper, Section IV. 
Cf. COM(2004) 474, 14.7.2004. 
Cf. COM(2004) 642, 12.10.2004. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
critical mass; interdisciplinarity; a strong European dimension; backing from regional/national 
authorities  and  direct  involvement  of  industry;  identified  and  declared  areas  of  excellence. 
Specific  support  may  be  envisaged  for  joint  or  “European”  doctorates  and  for  quality 
assurance or accreditation at doctoral level.  

The Marie-Curie programme for the career development and mobility of researchers26 or the 
European  University  Institute  in  Florence  (where  the  Commission  will  support  a  pilot  post-
doctoral programme) already provide significant support at this level.  

The  Commission  is  exploring  ways  to  take  forward  its  proposal  for  a  European  Institute  of 
Technology. It needs to combine a clearly world-class reputation with a European identity and 
to underpin knowledge as a key to growth and jobs. It should be based on a network bringing 
together the best minds and companies and spreading innovation throughout Europe.  

4.3. 

Backing needed for urgent action 

This  Communication  will  be  complemented  by  the  Commission’s  forthcoming  Action  Plan 
on  University-based  Research27.  Together,  these  two  documents  will  create  a  timely 
opportunity  for  ensuring  that  the  modernisation  of  universities  receives  adequate  priority  in 
the EU’s financial and policy instruments for the period 2007-2013.  

The Commission invites the Council to adopt a Resolution backing its call for a new type of 
partnerships  between  state  and  universities  and  for  sufficient  investment  to  enable  the 
modernisation  of  higher  education.  The  Commission  also  hopes  that  the  European  Council 
and  the  European  Parliament  will  explicitly  support  the  agenda  for  change  outlined  in  this 
Communication. 

26 
27 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/mariecurie-actions/action/fellow_en.html 
Action Plan on University-based Research, mostly based on the Report from the Forum on University-
based Research.  

EN 

12 

   EN