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 External ex-post Evaluation of the 3rd Phase of the Tempus Programme 2000-2006
Date: 2010-04-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CEFTA countries, CIS countries, EU programme, Mediterranean third countries, activity report, cooperation in the field of education, cooperation policy, higher education

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.4.2010 
COM(2010)190 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 External ex-post Evaluation of the 3rd Phase of the Tempus Programme 
2000-2006

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Report on the External ex-post Evaluation of the 3rd Phase of the Tempus Programme 
2000-2006 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

6. 

7. 

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

Background .................................................................................................................. 3 

Brief description of the programme ............................................................................. 4 

The evaluation work..................................................................................................... 4 

The evaluation conclusions .......................................................................................... 5 

Relevance ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Efficiency ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 6 

Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 7 

Sustainability................................................................................................................ 7 

Recommendations of the evaluators and Commission Comments .............................. 8 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 11 

EN 

2 

   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 External ex-post Evaluation of the 3rd Phase of the Tempus Programme 
2000-2006 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report is presented pursuant to article 12 of Council decision 1999/311/EC of 29 April 
1999. It puts forward the Commission position on the main conclusions and recommendations 
of  the  external  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  3rd  phase  of  the  Tempus  programme  (Tempus  III) 
at: 
be 
which 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/education/2009/tempusreport_en.pdf. 

found 

can 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

The  first  phase  of  Tempus,  adopted  in  19901  and  initially  covering  the  Central  and  Eastern 
European  Countries  (CEEC),  sought  to  contribute  to  socio-economic  reform  through  co-
operation between higher education institutions in the EU and in the Partner Countries. It was 
designed  to  promote  the  joint  development  of  new  curricula,  the  acquisition  of  new 
management  skills  by  academic  and  administrative  staff  and  the  opening  up  of  Partner 
Countries’ educational systems to civil society. 

The 2nd phase of the programme extended the geographical coverage of the programme and 
also increased its ambition and expectation levels. Specific national priorities were introduced 
which complemented the original «bottom-up» approach whereby initiative rested exclusively 
with  Universities.  This  evolution  allowed  the  programme  to  accompany  the  changes  in  the 
political  context  and  contribute  to  the  process  of  accession  of  the  CEEC  to  the  European 
Union.  

Two  innovative  aspects  were  then  introduced  to  the  3rd  phase  of  Tempus  (Tempus  III)  in 
20002.In addition to the tried-and-tested country-specific approaches, particular emphasis was 
placed  on  the  programme’s  capacity  to  encourage  regional  co-operation  and  more  explicit 
reference  was  made  to  the  need  to  ensure  consistency  and  complementarity  with  other 
Community  programmes,  and  also  to  create  synergies  with  other  forms  of  assistance  to  the 
partner countries.  

With the extension3 of Tempus III to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries, the 
programme  also  sought  to  promote  inter-cultural  dialogue  and  understanding  as  a  means  to 
secure sustainable growth, peace and stability and reinforce the intercultural and civil society 
dimension of the programme. 

1 
2 
3 

Council decision 90/233/EEC of 7 May 1990. 
Council decision 1999/311/EC of 29 April 1999. 
Council decision 2002/601/EC of 27 June 2002. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Tempus III came to an end in December 20064. The fourth phase of the programme began in 
2007  and  has  been  managed  by  the  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency 
since April 2009. 

3. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMME 

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

To achieve these objectives, Tempus III supported three types of projects: 

–  Joint European Projects (JEPs): multilateral projects designed to support efforts to develop 
and upgrade curriculum, retrain teachers, develop modern teaching and learning material, 
improve university management and contribute to building up the institutional tissue in the 
partner countries. 

–  Structural and Complementary Measures (SCMs): multilateral projects designed to support 
short  term  interventions  aimed  at  system  reform  and  linked  closely  to  partner  countries’ 
priorities. 

–  Individual Mobility Grants (IMGs): awarded to individuals to travel for work related to a 

particular reform process and academic cooperation. 

Beneficiary partner countries under Tempus are: 

–  Albania,  Bosnia and  Herzegovina,  Croatia, the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia, 

Montenegro, Kosovo under UNSC Resolution 1244, Serbia. 

–  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, the 

Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. 

–  Algeria,  Egypt,  Israel5,  Jordan,  Lebanon,  Morocco,  Occupied  Palestinian  Territory,  Syria 

and Tunisia. 

4. 

THE EVALUATION WORK 

The external ex-post evaluation aimed to gain more insight in the Tempus III programme, to 
provide  conclusions  and  concrete  recommendations  on  how  the  current  phase  could  be 
managed  to  better  address  any  identified  weaknesses  and  to  maximise  its  relevance  and 
impact, as well as exploit examples of good practice. 

4 

5 

The decision regarding the extension of the Tempus programme to the MEDA countries amended the 
duration of the programme so that the end date became the same for Tempus, Socrates and Leonardo da 
Vinci. 
Israel’s participation is possible on a self-funding basis only. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

THE EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS  

5.1. 

Relevance  

TEMPUS III remained relevant with respect to its global, specific as well as its operational 
objectives.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  socio-economic  and  democratic  transformation 
processes are still ongoing, in different forms, and the quality of higher education remains an 
important  issue  across  partner  countries.  The degree  of  relevance  of  each  specific  objective 
did  however  differ  from  country  to  country  depending  on  their  involvement  in  the  Bologna 
process and/or whether they had significant national-level higher education reform initiatives 
underway.  

The  relevance  of  TEMPUS  III  was  also  high  because  of  the  bottom-up  character  of  the 
programme,  allowing  the  formulation  of  national  priorities  and  taking  into  account  the 
different  stages  and  needs  of  the  transformation  process.  In  most  if  not  all  countries  the 
TEMPUS programme fitted very well into national policies, although in some cases missing a 
clear strategic goal orientation. 

The  overall  mixture  of  programme  approaches  was  a  relevant  means  of  achieving  the 
programme’s  expected  results,  outcomes  and  impacts  and  with  this  variety  in  actions 
TEMPUS  achieved  its  specific  objectives,  although  this  was  more  clear  for  objectives 
regarding  curricula  reform  or  management  training  for  instance  than  for  strengthening 
democracy, which is particularly difficult to assess. 

Aside from its relation to the Bologna process, which further strengthened the relevance of the 
programme, and the European higher education modernisation agenda, TEMPUS also in other 
respects was not an isolated cooperation programme. It had a clear role in other EU policies, 
although the evaluation showed that this was open to improvement, in particular with regards 
to  the  complementary  role  between  TEMPUS  and  Erasmus  Mundus  when  the  latter  was 
launched  in  2004  and  which  gained  special  relevance  when  the  IMGs  were  removed  from 
TEMPUS. It was also clear from the objectives of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 
and  the  European  Neighbourhood  and  Partnership  Instrument  that  TEMPUS  can  play  a 
distinct  role,  for  instance  regarding  strengthening  (higher  education)  institutions  and 
promoting  understanding  between  and  rapprochement  of  cultures  and  human  resources 
development, although its specific role appeared to be underexposed.  

Aside from its role to the EU external policy programmes, TEMPUS can be claimed to have a 
complementary  function  to  the  Sixth  Framework  Programme  for  promoting  European 
research and technological development. Complementarities can be found e.g. with the Marie 
Curie Actions, that are open to the nationals of third countries willing to work in Europe and 
to public and private/commercial organisations active in research willing to join Marie Curie 
international  consortia.  For  the  relation  between  these  two  programmes,  the  evaluation 
concluded that if academic education and academic research are to benefit to the full of each 
other,  the  complementarity  or  expected  synergy  between  education  reform  programmes 
should get more attention than it received up till now. 

5.2. 

Efficiency 

In  general  the  funding  levels  for  TEMPUS  III  were  considered  too  low  for  its  ambitious 
objectives.  Considering  the  large  challenges  in  the  eligible  countries,  the  fact  that  the  total 
budget  was  spent  and  that  funding  levels  have  been  insufficient  to  fund  all  relevant  and 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
quality  proposals  was  considered  a  factor  for  under-funding.  The  funding  levels  for  the 
projects in general appeared to be sufficient.  

TEMPUS  was  perceived  as  a  cost-effective  programme  compared  to  (technical  assistance) 
cooperation  programmes  and  its'  multilateral  nature  made  the  policy  instrument  in  essence 
cost-effective, although the degree differed per instrument.  

Respondents were generally satisfied with the rigour of the selection process. Their only main 
concern was the perceived strong technical focus where the weight given to the national needs 
and priorities on the ‘ground’ could have been increased. 

The  monitoring  process  improved  considerably  since  the  mid-term  evaluation  and  the  only 
remaining  weakness  identified  concerned  the  limited  feedback  (to  all  consortium  members) 
on field monitoring.  

The National Tempus Offices (NTOs), National Contact Points (NCPs) and EU Delegations 
fulfilled  supportive  roles  to  the  programme  and  its  participants.  The  evaluation  however 
showed that the way in which these actors fulfilled their respective roles varied considerably 
in the different countries and left room for improvement. 

5.3. 

Effectiveness 

TEMPUS III made an important overall contribution to the development of higher education 
systems, including to the five specific action lines of the ‘Bologna Process’. This achievement 
included  ‘core’  higher  education  goals  such  as  curriculum  development,  development  of 
comparable  and  compatible  degrees  organised  in  a  three-cycle  structure,  quality  assurance, 
recognition  of  foreign  degrees,  reform  of  higher  education  structures  and  establishments  as 
well as development of skills profiles – although more so at the level of individual institutions 
than at the national policy level, where the duration and possibilities offered by SCMs and the 
inaccessibility of senior policy-level actors sometimes resulted in more indirect effects. 

Depending  on  the  actual  content  of  projects  and  the  characteristics  of  higher  education 
systems  TEMPUS  also  contributed  to  a  broader  societal  relevance  of  higher  education,  for 
instance  by  establishing  or  improving  the  links  between  higher  education,  enterprises, 
research  and  innovation.  TEMPUS  III’s  bottom-up  nature  and  the  high  level  of  people-to-
people  contact  definitely  helped  to  promote  understanding  between  and  rapprochement  of 
cultures but the contribution to the development of ‘free and flourishing civil societies’ and 
the role of NGOs would need to be clarified.  

Teachers  are  those  who  mainly  benefited  from  their  involvement,  notably  through  contacts 
with  foreign  colleagues,  greater  awareness  of  other  cultures  and  EU  institutions,  improved 
training  and  the  morale-boosting  impact  of  career  development  and  mobility  opportunities. 
Students  also  benefited  –  through  access  to  new  learning  materials/methods,  improved 
qualifications  and  greater  awareness  of  other  cultures  –  though  less  so  in  terms  of  the 
enhancement of their employability, where effects were more indirect. 

Participation was geographically balanced. EU higher education institutions viewed increased 
internationalization  as  the  biggest  benefit  from  involvement  in  TEMPUS  III,  with  financial 
considerations rarely the sole reason for taking part and in some cases, the reason why they 
participated  less  and  why  participation  remained  relatively  concentrated.  The  geographical 
coverage  within  Partner  Countries  was  balanced,  with  most  higher  education  institutions 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
involved.  Non-university  bodies  (e.g.  Ministries  or  accreditation/training  bodies)  were 
generally  involved  although  the  level  of  involvement  was  not  always  as  widespread  or  as 
prominent as expected.  

'brand'  emerged 

The  size,  scope  and  unique  nature  of  TEMPUS  III  meant  that  an  identifiable,  quality 
TEMPUS 
in  Partner  Countries  –  particularly  among  university 
administrators,  participating  faculty  staff  and  national  higher  education  actors,  but  perhaps 
less  so  among  students  and  other  staff.  In  EU  Member  States,  the  ‘brand’  was  less  pre-
eminent,  with  it  often  in  competition  with  national  cooperation  or  support  programmes  for 
third countries.  

5.4. 

Impacts 

Notwithstanding  significant  variation  at  the  regional,  country  and  even  individual  higher 
education  institution  levels,  TEMPUS  III  made  an  important  contribution  to  modernise  and 
make teaching more responsive to societal and labour market needs. Many new curricula were 
developed,  often  responding  to  highly  specific  and  previously  unmet  labour  market  needs. 
However,  some  time  will  be  required  before  a  ‘critical  mass’  of  graduates  trained  through 
TEMPUS III can deliver a clear impact on the labour market at national level. 

It  had  also  a  significant  impact  on  individuals  contributing  to  introduce  a  culture  of  change 
and  motivate  in  particular  young  staff  to  support  and  perform  the  reforms  needed.  It 
contributed  to  change  mentalities  and  to  make  them  open  to  changes  and  innovations 
providing at the same time new career perspectives to those involved. 

Impact  in  terms  of  higher  education  decision-makers  utilising  skills  developed  through 
TEMPUS  III  to  influence  their  respective  institutions  was  positive  at  the  higher  education 
institution level. Numerous decision-makers took part in projects and many of these will be 
able to play a future role in reforms of their own institutions. At the national level, TEMPUS 
III  was  not  able  to  engage  as  actively  with  policy-makers,  which,  as  a  group,  also  often 
experience  high  staff  turnover.  This  meant  that  although  TEMPUS  III  was  able  to  generate 
significant results at the level of individual institutions in domains such as quality assurance 
or  general  university  governance,  influencing  national  legislation,  except  in  the  candidate 
countries where there were a number of obvious examples, was more indirect in nature with 
the programme feeding into policy discussions rather than bringing about direct changes.  

TEMPUS III helped create more internationally-oriented and flexible HEIs, as a platform on 
which  individual  HEIs  can  further  professionalise  in  the  future.  These,  together  with  the 
related impacts at the level of individual staff, were probably the single biggest impact of the 
programme.  It  also  made  an  important  contribution  to  the  long-term  convergence  process 
between  Partner  Countries  and  EU  higher  education  standards  and  practices  –  most  notably 
encapsulated within the Bologna Process and the wider HE reform agenda. Finally, TEMPUS 
III had a significant impact on establishing or rekindling regional co-operation among Partner 
Countries across all regions and made an important, yet often overlooked, impact in terms of 
strengthening co-operation within individual Partner Countries.  

5.5. 

Sustainability 

Many  benefits  and  outcomes  of  the  programme  were  sustainable.  The  experience  or  the 
knowledge  gained  in  the  projects,  increased  knowledge  of  a  study  area,  improved  working 
practice,  improved  teaching  and  management  skills, greater awareness  of  other cultures and 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
EU  institutions,  new  curricula,  together  with  a  more  innovative  culture  in  the  institutions 
remained  after  the  projects  finished.  The  results  of  SCMs,  due  to  their  very  nature  of 
providing support to structural reform,  were  less tangible but  the majority of policy outputs 
were still in use in the organisations involved. 

In  many  cases  the  programme  encouraged  sustainable  partnerships  in  higher  education, 
involving  EU  and  partner  countries  in  various  degrees  depending  on  the  character  of  the 
project, with academic cooperation continuing after the end of the project. 

An important contribution for follow-up funding was made by the involved institutions: half 
of  the  partners  continued  their  related  activities  by  way  of  own  funding  sources  such  as 
national  budgets,  other  multilateral  or  bilateral  sources  and  external  fund  raising.  In  this 
respect, there appeared to be a high level of financial commitment by the various stakeholders 
involved  to  continue  the  activities  and  networks  that  were  put  in  place.  The  stakeholders 
would need to feel more incentivised however to cooperate more actively in the dissemination 
of results and the promotion of achievements which tends to be limited due to the competition 
between HEIs. 

6. 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATORS AND COMMISSION COMMENTS 

The  evaluation  report  makes  a  series  of  recommendations,  which  are  listed  below  together 
with the Commission comments. 

Recommendation 1 – Strengthen strategic programme orientation.  

The Commission agrees that policy dialogue can certainly be reinforced. In Tempus IV, a lot 
of effort has been deployed to strengthen the dialogue with ministries. Ministries are setting 
the  national  priorities  themselves,  through  the  Delegations  and  following  consultation  with 
stakeholders at national level. Ministries are also consulted on the shortlist of projects to be 
funded. A group of Higher Education Reform Experts, endorsed by the Ministries, has been 
established  in  the  partner  countries  and  these  experts  are  an  important  link  between  the 
academic  world  and  policy-making  and  are  in  many  cases  involved  in  advising  their 
Ministers. Last but not least, the performance indicators on the basis of which projects have to 
report have recently been reviewed and will facilitate linking the monitoring of the projects to 
the national strategic frameworks. 

Recommendation  2  –  Improve  effective  synergy  with  Erasmus  Mundus  and  other 
Community actions and encourage links with research 

The Commission has undertaken a considerable effort to conceive TEMPUS IV and Erasmus 
Mundus  in  a  complementary  perspective  (institutional  cooperation/reform  vs.  promotion  of 
mobility).  The  NTOs  now  have  an  explicit  mandate  and  related  tasks  to  promote  Erasmus 
Mundus,  and  other  EU  higher  education  initiatives.  Updates  on  Erasmus  Mundus  are  a 
standard  item  of  regular  NTO/NCP  meetings  and  Erasmus  Mundus  is  investing  more  and 
more to keep NTOs systematically informed about developments.  

Encouraging links with research policies and programmes, and especially to the Marie Curie 
Actions,  that  aim  at  the  international  mobility  of  researchers  and  the  development  of  their 
careers, is also one of the Commission's priorities. A specific theme of activities in Tempus 
IV is to support the development of the knowledge triangle in partner countries and a study 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
has  just  been  launched  to  take  stock  of  doctoral  studies  in  neighbouring  countries,  which 
includes also elements linked to research policies and programmes. 

In  fact,  the  recommendation  regarding  complementarity  should  not  be  limited  to  Erasmus 
Mundus  and  Research  but  should  also  cover  the  other  bilateral  support  in  higher  education 
that the Commission is making available in many partner countries through the Delegations 
mainly  (budget  support,  sector  programme).  Equally,  it  should  also  refer  to  relevant 
programmes covering other regions, namely EDULINK, which has been designed to promote 
regional and multilateral networking between HEIs in African, Caribbean and Pacific Group 
of  States  (ACP)  and  the  EU,  and  Nyerere,  which  promotes  academic  mobility  in  the  same 
region.  Linking  existing  regional  initiatives  to  country  based  policy  dialogue  in  the  area  of 
education should be part of the recommendation. 

Recommendation 3 –Reconsider level of funding in view of TEMPUS objectives 

The Commission agrees that there are sufficient high quality projects which could justify an 
increase in budget, in particular given that there is a very high demand for the programme (1st 
Tempus IV call: 530 proposals received/76 projects selected – 2nd call: 610 received/69 selected). 
The selection rate is very low at around 12%. Many very good projects cannot be funded because of 
budget constraints. The absorption capacity of Tempus is very high. 

Individual  project  budgets  have  increased  in  TEMPUS  IV.  A  limited  number  of  the  first 
generation of TEMPUS IV projects will be completed at the end of 2011. It may be useful to 
investigate  whether  all  the  project  funds  have  been  spent  and  to  eventually  reconsider  the 
individual project budgets in the light of future financial perspectives for the programme. It 
would also be important to reflect on the idea that increased funding could also be considered 
at the level of all involved regions in order to avoid large imbalances between countries (such as the 
Russian Federation) and regions (for instance the Mediterranean countries). 

Recommendation 4 – Enrich quality of project proposals  

Over  recent  years,  the  Commission  has  been  investing  heavily  in  the  training  of  NTOs  and 
NCPs  in  terms  of  project  preparation  skills.  Information  on  past  projects  is  made  available 
more  and  more  systematically  (website,  during  conferences  and  other  events  –  project 
compendia, studies with good practice from projects). 

Recommendation 5 - Improve the effectiveness of field monitoring  

An updated field monitoring approach has been developed for Tempus IV. Three objectives 
of monitoring have been defined: preventative (early stages of project), advisory (mid-term) 
and  control  (ex-post).  Quantitative  targets  have  been  fixed  with  a  strong  accent  on  the 
preventative  function  meaning  that  all  newly  selected  projects  should  be  visited  during  the 
first six months. Debriefings on the spot are organised and feedback is systematically given to 
contractors allowing them to improve their project.  

In  addition  to  these  instruments,  Result  Oriented  Monitoring  visits  are  also  undertaken  to 
projects in many of the countries. 

Recommendation 6 - Give greater support to the NCPs in New Member States 

The most important actors in the new Member States, in terms of sharing their experience of 
recent  beneficiaries  of  the  programme,  are  the  universities.  Universities  from  Poland, 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Slovenia, the Czech Republic and the Baltic States have been particularly active in TEMPUS 
III  and  continue  to  be  very  engaged  in  TEMPUS  IV.  Considering  funding  opportunities  for 
the NCPs, who are the Information Points in the Member States, is not possible. 

Recommendation 7 - Better define the involvement of the EU Delegations to improve the 
(structural) dialogue with the national authorities on higher education 

The involvement of the EU Delegations is probably the area where there has been the most 
improvement  over  the  last  years.  The  Delegations  are  associated  during  all  steps  of  the 
programme’s  implementation.  They  are  involved  in  the  consultation  of  Ministries  for  the 
programme priority setting, consulted on the short-listed projects, invited to the information 
days and associated in the field monitoring of projects. They are the prime interlocutor for the 
contacts  with  Ministries  and  are  also  involved  in  the  group  of  Higher  Education  Reform 
Experts and are associated to their activities. 

Recommendation 8 – Continuation of TEMPUS-like projects after accession to the EU  

The  instrument  for  cooperation  in  higher  education  for  EU  Member  State  institutions  is  the 
Lifelong  Learning  (Erasmus)  Programme  and  higher  education  institutions  in  the  candidate 
countries  automatically  become  eligible  for  participating  in  Erasmus  when  they  become 
Member  States.  The  Commission  is  investing  many  efforts  in  preparing  the  candidate 
countries  for  their  participation  in  the  Lifelong  Learning  programme  and  proposes,  in 
addition, to include a session on post-Tempus in the Tempus Information Days (as is already 
taking place in Croatia). 

Recommendation  9  –  More  emphasis  on  best  practices  –  information  on  linkages  with 
the labour market and civil society 

University-enterprise cooperation is one of the priority themes under Tempus  IV. More and 
more projects are taking place in this area and the involvement of business is encouraged in 
the  call  for  proposals  (multi-actor  partnerships).  This  is  a  concrete  result  flowing  from  the 
Amman  conference  on  university/enterprise  cooperation  in  2007  (see  also  the  report  on 
"Linking the world of works and education through Tempus6"). 

Recommendation 10 – Give more priority to management reform projects  

Governance  reform  is  one  of  the  explicit  priority  themes  under  Tempus  IV  and  more  and 
more projects are tackling this issue. A study on university governance was finalised in 2009, 
based on Tempus best practice in this field, and policy developments taking place both in the 
EU  and  in  the  partner  countries.  In  2010,  three  policy  seminars  will  take  place  in  Ukraine, 
Kazakhstan and Morocco, engaging experts and policy makers in discussions on how to make 
university governance more transparent and efficient.  

Recommendation  11  –  Give  more  attention  to  accessibility  (equal  opportunities)  of  the 
projects.  

Equal opportunities are mentioned explicitly as a quality criterion in the Tempus IV call for 
proposals and can be mentioned more clearly during the Tempus Information Days. 

6 

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus/doc/linking.pdf 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Recommendation  12  -  Support  additional  ambitions  of  projects  such  as  in  the  case  of 
joint degrees or double diplomas 

The Commission will explore the kind of additional ambitions and investigate the problems 
that projects might encounter. The EC Delegation in Moscow has recently launched a study 
on double degrees in the Russian Federation and this study will no doubt raise issues which 
can be further investigated. 

Recommendation 13 – Improve both dissemination and use of project results  

Dissemination is a quality criterion for the assessment of proposals and is also a major point 
of consideration during project monitoring. A lot has been done in this area in recent years. 
Thematic studies on university-enterprise cooperation, quality assurance and governance have 
been  carried  out  and  followed  up  by  thematic  seminars  with  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders 
attending.  Project  compendia  are  established  and  are  continuously  updated  and  particularly 
successful projects are invited to share their experiences in different fora. 

7. 

CONCLUSION 

The  TEMPUS  Programme  remains  highly  relevant  with  respect  to  its  main  objective  of 
promoting reform and modernisation of higher education at institutional level. The activities 
have  at  various  levels  contributed  to  reforms  that  otherwise  would  probably  not  have  been 
carried out, or gained momentum at a much slower pace. At the same time it is clear that in 
many countries further progress in reforming the higher education sector is  still needed and 
that important challenges in reforming higher education structures are still ahead or have just 
started.  Tempus  represents,  for  quite  a  number  of  partner  countries,  the  sole  window  for 
cooperation  with  other  institutions  in  other  countries  and  it  is  the  only  working  cooperation 
programme that the EU (and Member States) can offer to some of the countries. 

The  intervention  logic  and  the  basic  management  mechanisms  to  support  this  process  have 
been fully confirmed, and significant enhancements have been introduced to the latest phase 
of the programme, Tempus IV.  

The originality and the success of the programme lies very much in the "bottom-up", demand 
driven approach where the higher education institutions undertake their own initiatives within 
a  call  for  proposals  with  a  large  framework  of  possibilities,  as  well  as  the  strong  focus  on 
institutional  cooperation.  The  high  level  of  people-to-people  contact  has  helped  to  promote 
understanding between and rapprochement of cultures. These characteristics should be kept. 
Tempus,  through  its  multilateral  nature,  the  project  approach  and  its  management 
mechanisms, has proven to be a very cost-effective policy instrument, in particular compared 
to other classical technical assistance interventions.  

It is clear that Tempus projects are typically particularly strong in terms of their relevance to 
the reform and upgrading of partner countries’ higher education systems, their impact on the 
individuals, professions, contents, methods, improved qualifications, internationalization, and 
the  organisation  of  studies  and  the  institutions  involved.  The  outcomes  of  the  projects  are 
sustainable,  maintained,  built  upon  and  exploited  within  the  institutions.  Tempus  is  an 
instrument that the academic community in the partner countries can test, use and exploit to 
support their needs, and to feed into developments at national level and beyond that, within 
the wider Bologna higher education community. Tempus is an identifiable and quality brand 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
within the partner countries. It is also a highly respected programme  within  the EU and the 
Member States institutions. 

The  programme  continues  to  attract  a  high  level  of  interest  and  many  very  good  quality 
applications, which however cannot be funded due to budgetary constraints. The Commission 
could  consider  the  possibility  of  increasing  the  funding  for  all  the  regions  covered  by  the 
programme  as  far  as  the  financial  framework  permits  and  without  prejudice  of  other 
cooperation priorities, in order to fully support the very ambitious objectives and challenges 
in higher education and the significant developments underway in the international academic 
community.  

EN 

12 

   EN