Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the evaluation of the cooperation programmes between the European Community and the United States of America in the field of higher education and vocational education and training and between the European Community and Canada in the fields of higher education and training
Date: 2005-06-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canada, United States, cooperation agreement (EU), cooperation policy, higher education, vocational training

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 27.6.2005 
COM(2005) 274 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

on the evaluation of the cooperation programmes between the European Community 
and the United States of America in the field of higher education and vocational 
education and training and between the European Community and Canada in the fields 
of higher education and training 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

on the evaluation of the cooperation programmes between the European Community 
and the United States of America in the field of higher education and vocational 
education and training and between the European Community and Canada in the fields 
of higher education and training 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This communication has been established pursuant to article 7 of the agreement between the 
European  Community  and  the  United  States  of  America  signed  on  18  December  20001  and 
pursuant to article 7 of the agreement between the European Community and the Government 
of Canada signed on 19 December 20002. 

The  Final  Evaluation  report,  and  background  information  on  the  programme  will  be  made 
available to the general public on the following internet address: 
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm). 

2. 

THE COOPERATION PROGRAMMES 

2.1 

Aims 

The  overriding  aims  of  both  Programmes  are  to  contribute  to  the  promotion  of  greater 
understanding between the peoples of the European Union and those of the United States of 
America and of Canada, including broader knowledge of each other's languages, cultures and 
institutions3; and to improve the quality of human resource development in both the European 
Union and in the United States of America and Canada. 

2.2. 

Instruments of intervention 

The main instrument is the three-year consortia implementation project, which aims to benefit 
students through adding an international curriculum and cultural dimension to their studies via 
a combination of curricular innovation and study or training abroad. 

The EC/US programme also features support for one-year consortia preparatory projects and 
for  one-  or  two-year  complementary  activities.  Preparatory  projects  are  designed  to  enable 
institutions  with  little  or  no  international  experience  to  plan  and  develop  a  potential 
implementation  project. Complementary  activities  may  be  either  independent  or  related  to  a 
three-year  consortium  implementation  project  and  are  designed  to  provide  opportunities  for 

1 

2 

3 

Council decision no. 2001/196/EC on the conclusion and signature of the EC-US agreement, published 
in the OJ L71 of 13/3/2001 
Council  decision  no.  2001/197/EC  on  the  conclusion  and  signature  of  the  EC-Canada  agreement, 
published in the OJ L71 of 13/3/2001 
For the full set of objectives, see Article 3 of each of the current Agreements. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
international cooperation in multidisciplinary fields or to deal with issues of quality standards, 
credit recognition and accreditation. 

Each consortium must involve a minimum of six partners in total, with at least three European 
higher education or training institutions from three different Member States and at least three 
from  Canada  (EC/Canada  programme)  or  the  United  States  of  America  (for  the  EC/US 
Programme).  

In  addition,  the  EC/US  Programme  supports  the  Fulbright/European  Union  grant  scheme, 
which  provides  support  for  a  full  academic  year  or  a  one-semester  period  of  research, 
lecturing or study on European Union affairs or EC/US relations at an accredited institution in 
the United States of America or in the European Union. 

More details about the above instruments can be found in the Annexes to the Agreements4 and 
in the Guidelines5 accompanying the recent calls for project proposals. 

2.3. 

Funding and outputs 

The  European  Community  provides  funding  for  the  direct  use  of  European  Union  partners. 
The United States of America and the Government of Canada provide funding for the direct 
use of partners from their respective countries. Details of the financial support available in the 
current  funding  round  for  each  kind  of  intervention  instrument  can  be  found  on  each 
Programme's website6. 

Programme financing is done on the basis of an overall matching of funds between the parties 
to  each  Agreement.  The  European  Union's  annual  budget  for  the  EC/Canada  programme  is 
about 0.7 million euros, and for the EC/US programme, about 1.7 million euros. 

EC/US programme 
(except Fulbright/EU) 

Year 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Totals 

EU Funding 
(in Mio 
€)Budget line 
15 02 03 (ex 
B7-830) 
1,5 

1,6 

1,6 

1,9 

6,6 

US Funding (in 
Mio USD) 

Number of 
projects 

Number of EU 
institutions 
involved in 
projects*  

Number of US 
institutions 
involved in 
projects* 

2,0 

2,2 

2,1 

2,3 

8,6 

13 

13 

12 

13 

51 

33 

40 

40 

41 

154 

38 

40 

37 

39 

154 

4 
5 

6 

See footnotes 1 and 2. 

Canada Guidelines: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/eu-canada/call/guidecan_en.pdf 
US Guidelines: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/eu-usa/call/guideus_en.pdf  

See "How much financial support is available?" sections in: 
Canada Programme EU website: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/eu-canada/canada_en.html 
US Programme EU website: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/eu-usa/usa_en.html  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
EC/Canada programme 

Year 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Totals 

EU Funding 
(in Mio €) 
Budget line 15 
02 03 (ex B7-
830) 
0,7 

0,7 

0,8 

0,8 

3,0 

Canadian 
Funding (in 
Mio CAN$) 

Number of 
projects 

Number of EU 
institutions 
involved in 
projects* 

1,2 

1,2 

1,2 

1,2 

4,8 

6 

6 

6 

6 

24 

23 

21 

19 

21 

84 

Number of 
Canadian 
institutions 
involved in 
projects* 
25 

26 

19 

19 

89 

* Some institutions may participate in more than one project. 

Year 

2001 

2002/2003 

2004 

Totals 

Fulbright/European Union scheme 

Grant amount 

Number of grantees 

60.000 

129.000 

100.000 

289.000 

9 

11 

8 

28 

3. 

THE EVALUATION  

Further to a call for tender published in April 20047, the contract for the interim evaluation of 
the  EC/US  and  EC/Canada  cooperation  programmes  in  higher  education  and  training  was 
awarded  to  the  company  Ecorys  NEI  (from  The  Netherlands)  in  September  2004.  The 
evaluation  work  started  in  October  2004  and  was  carried  out  over  a  period  of  five  months 
until the end of February 2005. The Commission received the Final Evaluation Report on 4 
March 2005. 

With regard to the methodology, the evaluators gathered the data for their assessment through 
documentary  evidence  and  desk  research  (programme  documentation,  applications,  reports 
and databases), surveys, interviews in the European Union, in the United States of America 
and in Canada, and via focus groups and case studies. 

4. 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION 

The  independent  evaluation  concluded  that  the  programmes  are  a  powerful  tool  for 
establishing long-term transatlantic partnerships in higher education and vocational training. 
The  evaluators  observed  that  almost  all  the  projects  succeeded  in  establishing  student 
exchanges  based  on  shared  or  mutually  developed  curricula.  The  programmes  have  given  a 
tremendous stimulus to the participating institutions, faculty and students to build long-term 
relations  with  US  and  Canadian  partners,  and  have  significantly  improved  cross-cultural 

7 

Call for Tender no. EAC/24/04 published in the O.J. 2004-S 77-065229 of 20/04/2004 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
knowledge  and  skills  of  participants  at  all  levels.  The  evaluators  concluded  that  the 
programmes  have  a  large  unexploited  potential  that  can  be  fulfilled  only  with  a  significant 
increase in the budgetary resources available. The Commission agrees that there is scope to 
further exploit the potential of these programmes. 

4.1. 

Intervention logic 

The  evaluators  concluded  that  the  programmes  in  their  current  format  are  coherent  and  are 
working well and that, in general, all the assumptions on which the programmes' intervention 
logic  is  built  appear  to  be  valid.  The  evaluators  considered  the  programmes  to  be 
complementary  to  other  relevant  interventions.  No  major  external  factors  appear  to  have 
influenced  the  results  of  the  programmes  in  recent  years  with  the  exception  of  the  negative 
influence of 9-11 on the willingness of US students to study abroad. The Commission shares 
the evaluators’ analysis on this point. 

4.2. 

Relevance 

The  evaluators  found  that  the  programmes  continue  to  be  relevant  to  the  goals  of 
strengthening  transatlantic  cooperation  and  improving  the  quality  of  education  and  training 
systems  in  the  European  Union.  The  official  objectives  are  mainly  subscribed  to  by  project 
partners,  participating  students  and  other  stakeholders,  especially  so  with  regard  to  the 
objectives of “promoting closer mutual understanding” and “improving the quality of human 
resource  development”.  The  evaluators  concluded  that  the  programmes  offer  ample 
possibilities  for  lifelong  learning,  although  the  small  budget  limits  the  possibility  of  fully 
exploiting their potential. The evaluators found, however, that not all official objectives of the 
programme are perceived to have the same importance by the participating institutions.  

4.3. 

Effectiveness 

The  evaluators  concluded  that  the  outcomes  and  impacts  of  the  programmes  were  fully 
consistent with their objectives. However, the evaluators found the size of the programmes to 
be too small to produce systemic impacts. The evaluators also pointed out that the programme 
management by the European Commission is experienced as “bureaucratic”.  

The programmes contributed to the enhancement of the quality of the education received by 
undergraduate  and  graduate  students  and  by  trainees,  and  generated  considerable  cross-
cultural  understanding  among  participants  at  all  levels.  Most  of  the  exchange  students  and 
staff  share  their  personal  experiences  with  friends  and  family  in  the  home  country  thereby 
promoting  cross-cultural  transatlantic  understanding  on  a  broader  scale.  The  programmes 
have  led  to  increased  possibilities  for  the  participating  students  to  work  in  an  international 
environment. Evaluators concluded that students’ participation in the transatlantic exchanges 
will improve their international careers. 

The  financial  support  granted  to  the  higher  education  and  vocational  training  institutions 
participating  in  the  programmes  has  given  tremendous  impulse  to  the  creation  and 
intensification of transatlantic contacts.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
4.4. 

Efficiency 

The  programmes  are  considered  to  be  cost  effective,  especially  considering  the  very  high 
preparatory  and  organisational  costs  related  to  the  set  up  of  a  transatlantic  partnership  with 
institutions  from  several  Member  States.  The  evaluators  found  that  the  budget  per  project 
appears to be just sufficient to realise a project's activities. Efficiency gains could be achieved 
by  better  separating  preparatory  grants  and  full  implementation  projects  and  by  providing 
funding  for  student  and  staff  mobility  only  to  projects  that  are  at  a  more  advanced  stage  in 
developing a framework of cooperation, such as an unambiguous institutional backup, a good 
working  network,  or  an  agreement  on  credit  recognition  and  on  student  selection  and 
preparation procedures.  

The  evaluators  also  highlighted  the  need  for  the  Commission  services  to  compare  the 
performance  of  the  projects  on  a  more  structured  basis  and  suggest  the  introduction  of  a 
software/internet-based monitoring system. 

The Commission agrees in part with the evaluators. Greater efficiency would be achieved by 
raising the standards at application level and providing funds for projects that are capable of 
demonstrating at the time of selection that they are in an advanced stage of cooperation. There 
is little evidence to suggest that preparatory grants do enhance projects’  quality. As regards 
the  internet-based  monitoring  system,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  scale  of  the 
programmes  does  not  justify  the  introduction  of  such  a  tool.  This  can  only  be  envisaged  as 
part of developments undertaken for other Community programmes in the fields of education 
and training. 

4.5. 

Utility and sustainability 

The  evaluators  concluded  that  the  programme  has  yielded  substantial  and  potentially  long-
lasting  benefits  to  the  individuals  and  institutions  involved.  Current  project  partners’  plans 
and results from older projects indicate that the projects are largely sustainable, although not 
all the activities are continued in the same way. Lack of alternative sources of funding after 
the end of the project is an obstacle to continued student mobility. 

The programmes are considered to take proper account of subsidiarity. A number of bilateral 
arrangements  between  universities  on  the  two  sides  of  the  Atlantic  exist.  However,  the 
programmes bring in a multilateral European Union dimension that bilateral agreements lack. 
Furthermore,  administering  the  programme  at  European  Union  level  permits  economies  of 
scale. 

4.6. 

Fulbright/European Union scheme 

The  Fulbright/European  Union  scheme  is  a  small  but  important  component  of  the  overall 
EC/US  programme.  The  evaluators  concluded  that  the  grant  scheme  plays  a  role  in 
strengthening political and cultural ties between the European Union and the United States of 
America.  Most  of  the  European  Union  participants  come  from  institutions  specialising  in 
European integration studies. However, the evaluators highlighted that the Fulbright/European 
Union  scheme  is  relatively  unknown  among  national  academic  institutions.  Grantees  of  the 
Fulbright/European Union scheme appear to be satisfied with the opportunities given and the 
support received. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
5. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The evaluators’ recommendations (in italics) are outlined below, together with the comments 
of the Commission. 

5.1. 

Intervention logic 

(1) 

As  the  equal  importance  of  all  the  objectives  is  not  yet  recognised,  we  recommend 
prioritising the Programmes' six official objectives (in terms of the specified goals of 
the  Programmes).  Particular  consideration  should  be  given  to  reformulating  or 
suppressing the objective regarding e-learning and distance learning. 

The Commission agrees to this recommendation. 

5.2. 

Relevance 

(2) 

Participation of Canadian students is now restricted to undergraduate and graduate 
students  up  to  the  age  of  30.  Taking  lifelong  learning  into  consideration,  this  age 
restriction  should  be  eased.  Accordingly, 
team  recommends 
reconsidering the age criterion of the Canadian programme. 

the  evaluation 

The age-criterion is imposed by Canadian regulations.  

(3) 

Furthermore, we recommend widening the scope of the Programme to post-graduates 
as there is a need for exchange of post-graduates. 

This  widening  would  dilute  the  impact  of  the  programmes  by  reducing  the  already  scarce 
resources available for exchanges of undergraduate and graduate students. 

5.3. 

Effectiveness 

(4) 

a)  To  better  attune  project  planning  to  the  actual  project  period,  we  recommend 
extending  the  possibilities  for  one-year  preparatory  projects,  preferably  as  an 
integrated  part  of  the  consortia  projects.  b)  Furthermore,  we  recommend  that  the 
management  of  the  Programmes  clearly  enunciates  its  position  on  'no-cost'  project 
extensions as soon as possible. c) Moreover, serious consideration should be paid to 
enabling successful projects to apply for follow-up mobility funding. 

In  the  light  of  experience,  the  Commission  agrees  that  multi-annual  funding  should  go  to 
projects  that  can  demonstrate  having  a  solid  framework  for  cooperation  including 
unambiguous  institutional  backup,  a  good  working  network,  and  an  agreement  on  credit 
recognition  and  on  student  selection  and  preparation  procedures.  This  can  be  achieved  by 
tightening selection and award criteria. 

(5) 

To  increase  the  Programmes'  sphere  of  influence  (in  accordance  with  the 
Programmes'  ambitions),  we  recommend  substantial  increases  in  the  Cooperation 
Programmes' budget. 

The Commission takes note of this recommendation that should also be matched by a similar 
commitment on the side of the United States of America and Canada.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(6) 

As  many  projects  encounter  similar  problems  in  organising  their  activities,  we 
recommend that good practices be made available to applicants and project partners, 
for instance via the Internet. These good practices should provide information on such 
subjects  as  organising  language  training  and  cultural  preparation,  coordinating 
educational  settings,  structures  and  time  schedules  of  participating  institutions. 
Special attention should be given to successful dissemination and follow-up activities. 

The Commission agrees with this recommendation. 

(7) 

a)  We  recommend  redesigning  the  administrative  procedures  in  order  to  relieve 
project partners of the administrative burden as much as possible. b) Furthermore, we 
think  that  a  team  of  programme  managers  could  enhance  the  effectiveness  of 
communications  with  project  partners.  A  possible  solution  involves  appointing 
account managers to a specified number of projects.  

The management of the programme is governed by the provisions of the Financial Regulation. 
The Commission has allocated additional staff to the programmes in 2004. 

5.4. 

Efficiency 

(8) 

a)  We  recommend  allocating  additional  resources  to  manage  the  Programmes,  for 
instance by appointing an executive agency for the Programmes. b) Furthermore, we 
recommend  adapting 
the 
academic/educational  years.  c)  The  institutions  should  be  informed  of  the  decision 
regarding  their  proposal  at  least  six  months  before  the  start  of  the  academic  and 
educational  year  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  projects.  Consequently,  the  project 
selection procedure should start six months earlier as well.  

the  Programmes'  procedures 

the  calendar  of 

to 

The  recourse  to  an  executive  agency  is  not  appropriate  given  the  political  significance  of 
cooperation between partner administrations. As for the timetable, the suggestion to start the 
selection procedure 6 months earlier will be taken into consideration. 

(9)  We recommend focusing efforts on fully integrating the preparatory projects and the 
three-year  projects.  Winning  a  grant  for  a  preparatory  project  should  result  in  a 
higher chance of being granted support for a three-year project. This will encourage 
institutions to undertake sufficient preparatory activities. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  preparatory  grants  have  contributed  to  enhancing  the  quality  of 
projects. 

(10)  The  current  monitoring  method  fails  to  allow  efficient  project  comparison.  We 
recommend refining and strengthening the existing software-based monitoring system, 
preferably  via  the  Internet.  The  monitoring  systems  in  the  US  and  Canada  are  good 
examples  as  they  enable  the  comparison  of  projects  on  a  regular  basis  and  the 
exchange  of  information  on  good  practices.  The  use  of  questionnaires  in  monitoring 
should also be considered. 

The Commission agrees and is studying how best to implement this recommendation.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
5.5. 

Utility and sustainability 

(11)  We  recommend  taking  existing  previous  contacts  into  consideration  in  the  project 
selection  process.  However,  this  recommendation  merits  caution  as  selecting  only 
projects  involving  the  participation  of  previous  contacts  may  limit  the  Programmes' 
accessibility and may discourage institutions to apply. 

While  priority  is  given  to  new  projects  and  to  institutions  that  have  never  received  funding 
under  the  programme,  institutions  that  have  participated  in  previously  funded  projects  are 
indeed eligible in each new call for proposals.  

(12)  We  recommend  incorporating  sustainability  into  the  project  plan.  A  suitable  way  of 
doing this would be to require a sustainability plan to be included in the final report. 
The sustainability plan should clearly indicate which activities are to be pursued, how 
they are to be effected and an indication of the resources involved. 

The Commission agrees to this recommendation. 

(13)  The evaluation demonstrates that the availability of student mobility grants is by far 
the  most  important  factor  in  fostering  the  sustainability  of  projects.  We  therefore 
recommend  an  additional  grant  for  student  mobility,  which  will  enable  successful 
projects to continue exchanging students. 

Most  projects  have  demonstrated  that  they  are  sustainable  in  that  the  cooperation  links 
established  through  the  programmes  are  maintained  after  the  project  in  question  has  been 
completed.  This  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  activities  continue  in  exactly  the  same 
manner. Mobility, for example, may be reduced or discontinued due to lack of funding.  

(14)  We recommend disseminating good practices on additional funding. This can be done 
in  several  ways,  including  presentations  made  during  the  annual  conference, 
compiling a handbook or database of examples, which is made available via the EC. 

The  Commission  agrees  with  this  recommendation.  The  Commission  has  contracted  out  a 
feasibility  study  on  the  sustainability  of  international  cooperation  projects  in  the  fields  of 
higher education and vocational training. The results of this study will be available at the end 
of 2005. 

5.6. 

Fulbright/European Union scheme 

(15) 

If  the  EC  strives  for  greater  diversity  in  terms  of  professional  and  institutional 
background,  the  selection  of  subjects  should  be  less  strict  and  a  broader  focus  on 
European academic institutions should be considered. We recommend increasing the 
visibility  of  the  Fulbright-EU  Programme,  for  instance,  by  publishing  the  call  for 
proposals in academic journals. 

The scope of this action is defined in the Annex to the EC/US agreement. The suggestion of 
the evaluators will be taken into account in view of the possible renewal of the agreement to 
cover  more  broadly  matters  of  interest  to  EU/US  relations.  The  Commission  recognises  the 
need for enhanced promotion of the Fulbright/EU scheme. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(16)  For the purpose of monitoring and evaluation, the Fulbright Commission should ask 
grantees to provide better insight as to what they produced during and after their time 
abroad.  Output  (e.g.  articles,  books,  etc.)  in  response  to  participation  in  the  scheme 
should be listed in a database. 

The Commission agrees with this recommendation. 

(17)  We  recommend  introducing  a  minimum  stay  abroad  of  six  months  (one  semester). 
Return  on  investment  appears  to  be  limited  when  scholars  are  sent  out  for  only  a 
period of three or four months. 

The  requisite  of  a  period  of  stay  abroad  for  at  least  one  semester  should  be  applied  as  a 
priority but not as an eligibility criterion. 

(18)  As  grantees  seem  generally  unaware  of  its  existence,  we  recommend  improving  the 

visibility of the Fulbright-EU Programme alumni organisation. 

The Commission sees the value of this recommendation.  

(19)  Fulbright-EU Programme grantees should establish follow-up connections with their 
host  institution.  An  option  would  be  to  provide  additional  subsidies  to  EU  and  US 
institutions  for  arranging  ongoing  exchange  of  (postgraduate)  academics.  A 
connection  with  the  current  plan  for  mobility  grants  under  the  EU-US  Cooperation 
Programme could be considered. 

While the first part of the recommendation has some value, the Commission believes that this 
cooperation  scheme  should  maintain  its  specificity  and  be  reserved  to  provide  grants  for 
individuals, not to institutions.  

(20)  While there are concrete signs that the financial resources for grantees might not be 
sufficient to cover the costs of professional activities abroad, we recommend a study to 
assess whether the financial resources provided to Fulbright-EU Programme grantees 
are sufficient. 

The  Commission,  together  with  the  US  authorities,  will  evaluate  the  adequacy  of  the 
Fulbright-EU programme grants. 

(21)  Given  the  success  of  the  Fulbright/EU  Programme,  we  recommend  increasing  the 
programme's  budget  to  augment  the  annual  number  of  academic  exchanges.  This 
increase should be contingent on an overall reinforcement of the EU-US Cooperation 
Programme. 

These recommendations could be taken into account in a future EC/US programme agreement 
and  are  contingent  upon  a  significant  overall  reinforcement  of  the  EC-US  cooperation 
programme. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  interim  evaluation  confirms  the  relevance  of  the  EC/US  and  EC/Canada  programmes, 
which  have  been  successful  in  providing  a  strong  stimulus  to  transatlantic  cooperation  in 
higher education and vocational training. The evaluators concluded that the great majority of 
projects  were  successful  in  implementing  the  planned  curriculum  development  and  student 
mobility  activities  and,  more  importantly,  that  the  programmes  have  each  been  effective  in 
creating  long  lasting  institutional,  professional  and  people-to-people  links  over  the  Atlantic. 
They have thus contributed both to improving mutual understanding and to the quality of our 
higher education and vocational training systems.  

The  evaluators  have  made  a  number  of  suggestions  to  improve  certain  aspects  of  the 
programmes but found no major shortcomings. Many of these suggestions concern the future 
rather than the present programmes. The Commission has already taken action with regard to 
some  of  the  suggestions  and  will  take  many  of  them  into  consideration  in  the  manner 
indicated above. 

EN 

11 

   EN