Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Report on the Interim Evaluation of the Erasmus Mundus Programme 2004-2008
Date: 2007-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation policy, education grant, education policy, educational exchange, higher education, organisation of teaching, project evaluation, teaching quality, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 2.7.2007 
COM(2007) 375 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Report on the Interim Evaluation of the Erasmus Mundus Programme 2004-2008 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Report on the Interim Evaluation of the Erasmus Mundus Programme 2004-2008 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Background to the external evaluation......................................................................... 3 

The external evaluation ................................................................................................ 3 

The terms of the evaluation.......................................................................................... 3 

Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4 

The evaluator’s findings............................................................................................... 4 

3.3.1.  Financial aspects .......................................................................................................... 4 

3.3.2.  European added value .................................................................................................. 5 

3.3.3.  Relevance ..................................................................................................................... 5 

3.3.4.  Effectiveness and impact.............................................................................................. 5 

3.3.5.  Efficiency and cost-effectiveness................................................................................. 6 

3.3.6.  Utility, added value and sustainability ......................................................................... 7 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

Main recommendations of the external evaluation and comments from the 
Commission.................................................................................................................. 7 

Programme design........................................................................................................ 7 

Programme management.............................................................................................. 9 

Programme funding.................................................................................................... 10 

The Commission’s conclusions.................................................................................. 10 

Statistical Annexes on application and selection figures ......................................................... 12 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report is presented under Article 12 of the Decision 2317/2003/EC1 of 5 December 2003 
establishing  the  Erasmus  Mundus  Programme,  which  requires  an  interim  evaluation  of  the 
programme  to  be  carried  out.  It  puts  forward  the  Commission’s  position  on  the  main 
conclusions  and  recommendations  of  the  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Programme  that  can  be 
obtained  via  the  link:  http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm. 
These conclusions and recommendations are based on extensive surveys of Erasmus Mundus 
participants and key stakeholders, the detailed results of which form an annex to the Interim 
Evaluation report. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

Erasmus Mundus is a co-operation and mobility programme in the field of higher education 
intended  to  promote  the  European  Union  as  a  centre  of  excellence  in  learning  around  the 
world.  It  aims  to  support  the  development  of  top-quality  European  Masters  Courses  and  to 
enhance the visibility and attractiveness of European higher education in third countries. The 
programme has, as its strategic aims, to improve the quality of higher education in Europe and 
to promote intercultural understanding through co-operation with third countries.  

The  specific  aims  of  the  programme  are  to:  promote  quality  and  excellence  in  European 
higher  education;  encourage  the  incoming  mobility  of  third-country  graduate  students  and 
scholars;  foster  structured  co-operation  with  third-country  higher  education  institutions;  and 
improve the profile, visibility and accessibility of European higher education in the world. 

The  programme  has  four  main  Actions.  These  are:  Action  1  -  Erasmus  Mundus  Masters 
Courses, comprising integrated courses at masters level offered by at least three universities in 
three different European countries; Action 2 - Erasmus Mundus scholarships for students and 
scholars  from  third  countries;  Action  3  -  Partnerships  with  higher  education  institutions  in 
third  countries,  comprising  scholarships  for  students  and  scholars  from  EU  countries  for 
mobility towards third countries; Action 4 - Projects to enhance the worldwide attractiveness 
of European higher education. 

3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

3.1. 

The terms of the evaluation 

Following  a  call  for  tender2,  the  Centre  for  Strategy  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES)  was 
selected to carry out the evaluation. The scope of the interim evaluation was the period 2004-
2006,  during  which  a  number  of  calls  for  proposals  have  taken  place  to  implement  the 
programme.  While  Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Courses,  scholarships  and  “attractiveness 
projects”  (Actions  1,  2  and  4)  commenced  in  the  academic  year  2004-2005,  Partnerships 
(Action 3) began one year later in 2005-2006. 

1 

2 

OJ L 345 of 31.12.2003 
Invitation to Tender No EAC 34/06. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  aims  of  the  interim  evaluation  were  to:  address  the  relevance  and  utility,  efficiency, 
effectiveness, sustainability and Community Value Added of the programme; and provide the 
Commission with recommendations as to how the programme’s intervention logic, objectives, 
design, implementation arrangements, results and impact can be further improved. 

3.2.  Methodology 

The  methodology  included  desk  research  of  relevant  literature;  a  survey  of  institutions 
participating  in  Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Courses,  Partnerships  and  attractiveness  projects 
(Actions  1,  3  and  4),  and  of  participating  third-country  and  EU  students  and  scholars;  and 
interviews  with  key  stakeholders,  including  the  Commission,  the  Education,  Audiovisual  & 
Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), Erasmus Mundus National Structures and participants 
in the four Actions of the programme.  

3.3. 

The evaluator’s findings 

Overall,  the  Erasmus  Mundus  programme  2004-2008  appears  to  have  made  a  very  positive 
start.  The  programme  has  generated  genuine  enthusiasm  amongst  students  and  higher 
education  institutions  (“HEIs”)  alike,  suggesting  high  relevance  to  identified  needs.  The 
programme  was  perceived  by  HEIs  as  adding  value  in  a  number  of  ways,  for  example  by 
promoting  the  development  of  joint,  double  and  multiple  degree  awards  between  HEIs  in 
different  countries,  in  line  with  the  aims  of  the  “Bologna  process”  of  strengthening  the 
European dimension in education and promoting increased mobility. 

Erasmus  Mundus  has  also  begun  to  make  a  contribution  to  the  promotion  of  academic 
excellence  in  European  higher  education,  in  particular  by  encouraging  European  HEIs  to 
foster co-operation and joint working with other HEIs regarded as “world-class” in particular 
subject disciplines. Likewise, from the perspective of students, a wide range of benefits were 
identified,  including  the  personal  development  benefits  that  arise  from  exposure  to  new 
cultures  and  languages  and  the  academic  benefits  of  studying  on  a  Masters  Course  which 
demonstrates academic excellence.  

Looking  ahead,  participation  in  Erasmus  Mundus  was  also  viewed  as  potentially  bringing 
benefits  for  students  in  terms  of  their  future  career  development.  However,  given  that  the 
programme  only  commenced  in  2004,  its  impact  on  the  employment  prospects  of  potential 
students  will  need  to  be  assessed  through  longitudinal  studies  of  Erasmus  Mundus  graduate 
destinations (an initial tracking study will shortly be launched in this regard).  

3.3.1.  Financial aspects 

The Erasmus Mundus programme was allocated a budget of 230m euros for the period 2004-
2008.  Supplementary  financing  of  57.3m  euros  was  made  available  in  the  years  2005-2007 
through  the  “Asian  Windows”  as  well  as  8.8m  euros  in  the  year  2007  through  the  “ACP 
Window”  and  the  “Western  Balkans  Window”.  These  are  financial  envelopes  to  fund 
additional scholarships for students from specific countries which have been allocated through 
the  EU’s  external  aid  budget.  Consequently,  a  total  budget  of  296.1m  euros  is  available  for 
the programming period 2004-2008.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The overall financial envelope for the programme allowed the funding of a number of high-
quality courses and scholarships that was in line with initial expectations.3 However, demand 
for both courses and scholarships increased throughout the period under review and was of a 
sufficiently  high  level  to  justify  additional  funds  in  the  future.  For  example,  for  Erasmus 
Mundus Masters Courses and attractiveness projects (Actions 1 and 4) approximately 1 in 7 
applications  were  successful  between  2004  and  2006,  while  for  Partnerships  (Action  3) 
approximately two-thirds of applications were successful. In addition, in 2007 approximately 
1  in  7  applications  for  scholarships  (Action  2)  were  successful,  which  suggests  that 
competition among third-country students for these scholarships is high. Moreover, the easy 
absorption  of  the  “Windows”  suggests  that  a  bigger  financial  envelope  could  have  been 
absorbed without difficulty and with a significant increase in impact for the programme.  

3.3.2.  European added value 

One of the core elements of the Erasmus Mundus programme is the requirement to include a 
strong  transnational  dimension  to  Masters  Courses,  with  mobility  in  a  minimum  of  two 
different  EU  countries  being  an  integral  component.  Participants  and  stakeholders  therefore 
rated  Erasmus  Mundus  highly  in  respect  of  Community  Value  Added.  The  close  coherence 
between  Erasmus  Mundus  and  the  objectives  of  the  Bologna  process  (for  example,  through 
the promotion of the European dimension in education, mobility, joint degrees and European 
co-operation on quality assurance) also suggests Community Value Added. 

3.3.3.  Relevance4 

The policy context has not changed radically since the proposal was drawn up for the 2004-
2008  programming  period.  The  intervention  logic  therefore  remains  relevant  both  from  a 
policy  perspective  (strengthening  co-operation  with  third  countries  in  the  field  of  higher 
education, fostering intercultural dialogue, promoting  the  development of integrated courses 
leading  to  the  award  of  joint,  double  or  multiple  degrees  at  European  level  in  line  with  the 
aims of the Bologna process) and in meeting the identified needs of programme beneficiaries 
(higher  education  institutions  and  students  and  scholars  from  both  Europe  and  third 
countries).  

There  are  strong  linkages  between  Erasmus  Mundus  and  the  Lisbon  strategy,  notably  the 
Education and Training 2010 agenda, and the Bologna process, which emphasises the need to 
open  up  education  and  training  systems  to  the  wider  world  as  part  of  the  Community’s 
response to the challenges and opportunities presented by globalisation. Europe must compete 
in an environment where the number of international students is growing rapidly and where 
competition for these students is intensifying.  

3.3.4.  Effectiveness and impact5  

Outcomes to the end of 2006 were as follows: 80 Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses (Action 
1); 2325 scholarships for incoming third country students (Action 2); 19 Partnerships (Action 

3 
4 

5 

For figures see section 3.3.4. below. 
Extent to which the Programme objectives are relevant to the needs of higher education in Europe. 
Extent to which objectives set are achieved. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3);  23  attractiveness  projects  (Action  4).6  Participation  rates  in  the  programme  so  far  have 
been broadly in line with expectations, with the exception of Partnerships (Action 3), where 
participation was lower than anticipated. 

Erasmus  Mundus  has  made  some  progress  in  beginning  to  develop  more  structured  co-
operation  in  higher  education  between  the  EU  and  third  countries,  although  the  low 
participation rates in Partnerships (Action 3) suggest that more still needs to be done in this 
area.  In  terms  of  improving  the  accessibility  of  European  higher  education,  in  particular  by 
enabling highly qualified graduates and scholars from all over the world to study and/or teach 
in the EU, the scholarship scheme (Action 2) has greatly facilitated access to, and increased 
the attractiveness of, European higher education for high calibre students from third countries. 

With  regard  to  the  promotion  of  intercultural  understanding,  Erasmus  Mundus  has  been 
successful in encouraging cultural exchange of experiences. This process has been assisted by 
the  fact  that  there  was  a  very  good  distribution  of  nationalities  among  third-country 
scholarship holders. Moreover, students from third countries identified cultural and linguistic 
benefits as being more important than the benefit to their future career prospects. However, 
students  from  third  countries  have  to  date  benefited  more  from  the  programme  than  EU 
students  due  to  the  more  limited  financing  scope  for  the  mobility  of  EU  students.  The 
experience  of  students  -  academically,  culturally  and  linguistically  -  is  much  richer  in 
Erasmus  Mundus  courses  where  there  is  a  good  balance  between  European  (including  host 
country)  and  international  students,  as  opposed  to  courses  that  are  dominated  by  non-
European students. 

Erasmus  Mundus  has  also  had  a  positive  impact  on  those  EU  countries  where  there  was 
previously  no  legal  framework  for  the  accreditation  of  joint,  double  or  multiple  degrees 
involving partners in different EU countries. Even where joint degree accreditation problems 
remain,  Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Courses  have  implemented  effective  double  or  multiple 
degree  structures  which  have  permitted  genuine  integration  and  co-operative  study  to  take 
place. Joint degrees also help make the EU labour market more transparent and accessible to 
European students.  

Less positive was the fact that certain European countries were underrepresented in terms of 
the  number  of  projects  in  which  their  institutions  participated,  an  imbalance  that  the 
Commission  is  looking  for  ways  to  address.  The  Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Courses  cover 
practically  all  academic  disciplines,  although  there  is  a  clear  preponderance  of  engineering 
and natural science courses. 

3.3.5.  Efficiency and cost-effectiveness7 

The Commission and the EACEA were regarded by the National Structures and HEIs running 
Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Courses  as  having  done  a  very  good  job  in  overseeing  the 
programme’s  implementation  to  date.  Communication  and  information  flows  in  particular 
were regarded highly favourably as regular and informative. Responses to queries from HEIs 
have  normally  been  dealt  with  promptly  and  useful  feedback  and  comments  have  been 
provided  to  consortia  on  their  reports.  The  overall  high  levels  of  satisfaction  in  respect  of 

6 

7 

By the end of the programme in 2008, the following final outputs are anticipated: 105 Erasmus Mundus 
Masters  Courses  (Action  1),  6000  scholarships  for  incoming  third  country  students  (Action  2),  50 
Partnerships (Action 3) and 50 attractiveness projects (Action 4). 
Extent to which the desired effects are achieved at a reasonable cost. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
programme  management  by  students  and  HEIs  alike  suggests  that  the  programme  has  been 
managed both efficiently and effectively by the Commission and the EACEA. 

The  use  and  the  level  of  unit  costs  and  lump  sums  applied  for  the  implementation  of  the 
programme were largely considered cost-effective, helping the programme to reach its aims at 
the lowest possible costs. However, the evaluation suggests that universities participating in 
Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Courses  and  European  students  are  under-funded  in  the  current 
programme.8 

3.3.6.  Utility, added value and sustainability9 

Quite a large number of Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses supported through the programme 
were pre-existing courses that have been modified to fit into the Erasmus Mundus framework. 
The programme seems to have encouraged HEIs to modify their existing high-quality courses 
through  co-operation  and  joint  curriculum  development  with  HEIs  in  other  European 
countries  offering  the  same  subject  discipline  and  able  to  meet  the  requisite  academic 
excellence criteria at European/international level. 

The  research  suggests  that  most  of  these  courses  could  not  have  continued  in  their  present 
form without funding from the Erasmus Mundus programme. While this suggests low levels 
of sustainability, looked at from another perspective it suggests that European money is being 
used to promote activities that would not otherwise be able to take place on the same basis. 

Another issue is whether students and scholars (particularly those from third countries) would 
have participated in the programme without financial support. In this context, 95% of third-
country  students  stated  that  they  could  not  have  participated  in  the  programme  without  the 
scholarship. This suggests high levels of additionality. 

4. 

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION AND COMMENTS FROM 
THE COMMISSION 

The  main  recommendations  of  the  evaluator  are  presented  in  bold,  while  the  Commission’s 
answer is in italics. 

4.1. 

Programme design 

Recommendation 1 

Scholarships should be awarded to EU students to participate in the Erasmus Mundus 
programme  on  a  competitive  basis.  There  is  a  need  to  ensure  that  EU  students 
participate on a more equal footing with their counterparts from third countries. 

The Commission agrees with this recommendation, as a way of facilitating intra-EU mobility 
for EU students and encouraging stronger participation by students from EU countries. It will 
examine  possible  measures  to  improve  the  position  of  EU  students,  while  also  striving  to 
ensure complementarity with the Erasmus programme. 

8 

9 

Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses receive a yearly lump sum of 15,000 euros. EU students receive a 
scholarship of 3,100 euros for a study period of three months at a third-country HEI. 
Extent to which positive effects are likely to last after an activity has ended. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Recommendation 2 

The Erasmus Mundus programme should - finance permitting - be extended to the PhD 
level  both  at  the  level  of  courses  and  in  respect  of  scholarships.  Issues  around  quality 
assurance in respect of PhD programmes will need to be carefully thought through. The 
French co-tutelle model should serve as a model in this regard. Particular care should be 
taken to avoid duplication with Marie Curie research scholarships. 

The  Commission  agrees  with  this  recommendation  as  a  way  of  enabling  Europe  to  retain 
excellent students and researchers from third countries as well as of creating links between 
higher  education  and  research.  It  will  examine  the  “co-tutelle”  model  when  deciding  on 
future  measures,  while  also  taking  care  to  establish  synergies  with  Marie  Curie  research 
scholarships and networks. 

Recommendation 3 

Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Courses  should  be  encouraged  not  only  to  develop  co-
operation  with  higher  education  institutions  in  third  countries  but  to  enable  these 
institutions to become fully fledged partners in the course itself. This could be achieved 
by bringing Masters Courses and Partnerships (Actions 1 and 3) together under a single 
umbrella. 

The Commission agrees in principle with this recommendation and will examine appropriate 
measures for the future. However, quality assurance is a complex exercise when it comes to 
HEIs  located  in  third  countries.  It  is  important  to  ensure  that  the  wishes  of  participating 
European HEIs and the structure of their academic programmes are fully respected. 

Recommendation 4 

The  Atlantis  and  the  EU-Canada  Cooperation  Programme  (and  likewise  pilot  projects 
with Japan, Australia and New Zealand) should be combined with the Erasmus Mundus 
programme  so  as  to  improve  the  coherence  of  the  Commission’s  approach  to 
strengthening  co-operation  in  the  field  of  higher  education  between  the  EU  and  third 
countries.  From  a  promotional  and  awareness-raising  perspective,  there  would  be 
advantages  in  using  Erasmus  Mundus  as  the  single  brand  through  which  institutional 
co-operation  and  student  and  scholar  mobility  between  the  EU  and  third  countries  is 
promoted.  This  would  also  have  a  significant  positive  effect  on  the  visibility  of  the 
programme and the coherence of Community activities in the field.  

this  recommendation 

The  Commission  considers 
the  EU-US 
Cooperation  Programme  (Atlantis),  which  was  recently  renewed,  has  a  wider  remit  than 
Erasmus  Mundus,  with  joint  masters  courses  being  only  one  part  of  the  programme. 
Combining  all  Community  higher  education  activities  with  an  external  dimension  into  a 
single integrated programme could, however, be an option after 2013.  

interesting.  However, 

Recommendation 5 

Consideration should be given to providing Erasmus Mundus students with placement 
opportunities  on  a  more  systematic  basis.  This  would  also  contribute  significantly  to 
raising  the  profile  of  the  programme  among  employers  and  wider  stakeholders. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
However, undertaking a placement should not be made compulsory since this would not 
necessarily be appropriate in the case of all Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses.  

The  Commission  welcomes  this  recommendation  and  will  encourage  Erasmus  Mundus 
Masters Courses to offer placements to their students, where appropriate. A flexible approach 
to this issue, as suggested by the evaluators, seems adequate. 

4.2. 

Programme management 

Recommendation 6 

The National Structures should continue to be financed largely by the Member States in 
order  to  avoid  a  full  EU  Agency  structure  at  national  level  (which  does  not  appear  to 
enjoy support amongst National Structures). Nevertheless, some EU financing should be 
made available to help co-finance promotional activities by the National Structures since 
their workload is likely to increase significantly in the next programming period due to 
the  projected  increase  in  the  programme  budget.  The  Commission  should  make 
provision  for  restricted  calls  for  proposals  on  a  thematic  basis  to  enable  the  National 
Structures  to  finance  specific  initiatives  they  wish  to  support,  such  as  marketing  and 
promotional activities etc. Consideration could be given in the new programming period 
to  giving  the  National  Structures  a  formal  role  in  contributing  to  the  monitoring  of 
Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses.  

The  Commission  agrees  with  this  recommendation.  The  role  of  National  Structures  in 
carrying  out  specific  information,  promotion  or  dissemination  activities,  as  well  as 
monitoring of projects, should be reinforced.  

Recommendation 7 

There is a need for the European Commission to turn its attention to quality assurance 
once  Erasmus  Mundus-branded  Masters  Courses  are  actually  up  and  running.  Self-
evaluation should remain the fundamental starting point for ensuring continuous course 
quality.  In  addition,  a  representative  sample  of  Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Courses 
should,  over  the  lifetime  of  each  programming  period,  be  subject  to  external  quality 
assessment.  This  work  could  be  carried  out  by  external  quality  assurance  bodies  that 
have  had  previous  experience  in  assessing  the  quality  of  academic  content  and  the 
integration of courses (preferably of courses delivered on a transnational basis). 

The  Commission  agrees  with  the  need  to  ensure  the  quality  of  Erasmus  Mundus  Masters 
Courses  and  is  already  tackling  this  issue  under  the  current  programme.  In  2007,  the 
Commission will elaborate - in co-operation with external experts in the field - guidelines on 
good practice in Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses. Following a self-assessment exercise, a 
sample  of  courses  will  be  visited  by  external  experts,  within  the  context  of  a  peer-review 
exercise,  with  a  view  to  establishing  indicators  of  good  practice  and  disseminating  these  to 
current and to potential future beneficiaries.  

Recommendation 8 

The  comitology  principle  for  Erasmus  Mundus  scholarships  (Action  2)  should  be 
discontinued  in  order  to  speed  up  the  finalisation  of  the  selection  process.  This  could 
accelerate the scholarship award decision by as much as 6-8 weeks. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The Commission shares the concern of the evaluators about the current comitology procedure 
for selection decisions on scholarships, since these decisions are taken purely by universities 
according to criteria based on academic merit. The Commission will examine this issue when 
suggesting the design for a future programme. 

4.3. 

Programme funding 

Recommendation 9 

Looking  to  the  next  programming  period,  the  scholarship  level  for  third-country 
students  should  not  be  reduced  from  the  current  level  of  21,000  euros  per  year. 
However, the Commission should also continue to monitor the scholarship level of other 
renowned scholarship schemes, such as the Fulbright, Chevening and DAAD (German 
Academic  Exchange)  scholarships.  A  universal  scholarship  amount  should  continue  to 
be given with no differentiation either on the basis of where a given student decides to 
study or on the grounds of their country of origin. This is the only equitable approach 
and  other  approaches  do  not  seem  workable.  Common  tuition  fees  determined  by 
individual Masters consortia should be retained in respect of Erasmus Mundus Masters 
Courses. 

The Commission agrees with this recommendation in order to maintain globally competitive 
levels of funding  for  Erasmus Mundus scholarships. As regards the common tuition fee, the 
Commission believes that this is an essential element of an integrated study programme and 
intends  to  continue  supporting  common  tuition  fees  as  an  obligatory  element  of  joint 
programmes. 

Recommendation 10 

In  the  next  programming  period,  the  amount  of  finance  allocated  to  each  Erasmus 
Mundus Master consortium should be increased to reflect the true cost of administering 
an integrated Masters Course on a cross-border basis. 

The  Commission  itself  has  seen,  through  monitoring  of  the  programme,  that  the  current 
annual grant of 15,000 euros given to universities generally underestimates the costs of joint 
programmes. It will take this recommendation into account when planning for the next phase 
of the programme, in full respect of the Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rules.  

5. 

THE COMMISSION’S CONCLUSIONS 

The  Commission  shares  the  overall  assessment  of  the  evaluator  that  the  Programme  has 
provided an important contribution to the internationalisation of European higher education. 
Erasmus Mundus has been a relevant and efficient tool for European HEIs in helping them to 
find  a  response  to  globalisation.  The  results  of  this  interim  evaluation  show  that  the 
programme  is  meeting  its  political  and  operational  objectives,  and  the  objectives  of  Article 
149 of the Treaty. 

Indeed, 323 HEIs in Europe and third countries and 2,325 third-country students participated 
in  the  programme  from  2004  to  2006,  underlining  their  overall  satisfaction  -  and  even 
enthusiasm  -  for  the  programme.  The  Commission,  when  proposing  the  future  Erasmus 
Mundus programme, will pay due respect to the criticism voiced that the programme has been 
less successful with respect to European students. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
The Commission will take the results of this interim evaluation into account when proposing 
the  new  Erasmus  Mundus  programme  for  beyond  its  current  programming  period  of  2004-
2008.  It  will  base  its  proposal  for  the  new  Erasmus  Mundus  programme  which  will  be 
presented  in  June  2007  on  the  recommendations  made  by  this  evaluation,  which  happen  to 
coincide with findings of surveys which were conducted outside the scope of this evaluation 
but during the same timeframe. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
STATISTICAL ANNEXES ON APPLICATION AND SELECTION FIGURES 

HEIs participating in Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses (2004-2006) 

EU + 
EFTA/EEA 
Countries 

Austria 
Belgium 
Cyprus 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece  
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 
Total 

HEI instances of 
participation in 
EM Masters 
Courses applying 
to EM (1) 

HEI instances of 
participation in 
EM Masters 
Courses selected 
under EM (1) 

HEIs participating 
in EM Masters 
Courses selected 
under EM 

Success 
rate in 
% 

23 
110 
0 
48 
54 
20 
40 
367 
248 
34 
57 
39 
277 
19 
26 
6 
16 
123 
100 
131 
10 
17 
383 
103 
203 
2 
0 
46 
2502 

6
16
0
9
12
3
7
50
41
4
8
6
33
0
0
1
1
26
10
20
1
2
44
21
37
0
0
11
369

4
7
0
4
7
2
5
40
30
4
3
5
20
0
0
1
1
14
6
11
1
2
23
11
23
0
0
8
232

26.09 
14.55 
0.00 
18.75 
22.22 
15.00 
17.50 
13.62 
16.53 
11.76 
14.04 
15.38 
11.91 
0.00 
0.00 
16.67 
6.25 
21.14 
10.00 
15.27 
10.00 
11.76 
11.49 
20.39 
18.23 
0.00 
0.00 
23.91 
14.75 

(1) These figures include double or multiple participation by the same HEIs in various applications. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
HEIs participating in Erasmus Mundus “Attractiveness Projects” (Action 4) 
(2004-2006) 
HEI instances of 
participation in 
EM Action 4 
projects selected 
under EM (1) 

HEI instances of 
participation in 
EM Action 4 
projects applying 
to EM (1) 

HEIs 
participating in 
EM Action 4 
projects selected 
under EM 

EU + 
EFTA/EEA 
Countries 

Success 
rate in % 

Austria 
Belgium 
Cyprus 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece  
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 
Total 

24 
42 
3 
19 
15 
13 
37 
76 
65 
15 
25 
3 
85 
8 
20 
1 
5 
36 
36 
26 
19 
10 
69 
29 
59 
1 
1 
16 
758 

3
4
1
2
4
4
10
11
9
1
2
1
6
2
3
0
1
9
4
3
2
0
10
5
8
0
1
7
113

3
4
1
2
3
3
7
10
7
1
2
1
6
2
3
0
1
7
4
3
2
0
9
4
7
0
1
7
100

12.50 
9.52 
33.33 
10.53 
26.67 
30.77 
27.03 
14.47 
13.85 
6.67 
8.00 
33.33 
7.06 
25.00 
15.00 
0.00 
20.00 
25.00 
11.11 
11.54 
10.53 
0.00 
14.49 
17.24 
13.56 
0.00 
0.00 
43.75 
14.91 

(1) These figures include double or multiple participation by the same HEIs in various applications. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Student scholarships 

Number of 
student 
applications 
received 

Erasmus 
Mundus 
scholarships 
awarded 

“Window” 
scholarships 
awarded 

Total number 
of 
scholarships 
awarded 

Success rate 
in % 

2004-05 
2005-06 
2006-07 
2007-08 
2008-0910 

Total 

n.a. 
3030 
5500 
12 766 

n.a. 

21 296 

140
455
741
1198

1890

4424

0
353
636
606

45

1640

140
808
1377
1804

1935

6064

n.a. 
26.67 
25.04 

14.13 

n.a. 

19.39 

10 

Forecast 

EN 

14 

   EN