REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the Interim Evaluation of External Cooperation Agreements in Higher Education, Training and Youth with the United States of America and Canada
Date: 2011-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canada, United States, cooperation agreement (EU), educational exchange, higher education, student mobility, vocational training

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.10.2011 
COM(2011) 653 final 

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

on the Interim Evaluation of External Cooperation Agreements in Higher Education, 
Training and Youth with the United States of America and Canada 

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

on the Interim Evaluation of External Cooperation Agreements in Higher Education, 
Training and Youth with the United States of America and Canada 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  Report  has  been  established  pursuant  to  Article  7  of  the  Agreements  between  the 
European  Community  and  the  United  States  of  America  signed  on  4  December  20061  and 
between  the  European  Community  and  the  Government  of  Canada  signed  on  18  December 
20062 in the areas of higher education, training and youth3. It puts forward the Commission 
position on the main conclusions and recommendations of the interim evaluation of these two 
Agreements. This evaluation can be found at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm. 

While recognising the evaluation’s results, unfortunately, due to budget constraints, both the 
U.S.  and  Canadian  authorities  decided  to  cancel  all  current  and  future  calls  for  bilateral 
projects between now and 2013 when both Agreements will come to an end. In its comments 
to  the  evaluators’  recommendations  in  section  5,  the  Commission  takes  due  account  of  this 
unexpected turn of events. 

2. 

THE COOPERATION AGREEMENTS 

2.1. 

Aims 

Both  Agreements  serve  educational,  people-to-people  and  public  diplomacy 
purposes. They contribute to quality education and training in the European Union, 
through  fostering  cooperation  with  the  United  States  and  Canada.  The  Agreements 
seek to impact in two areas: 

(1)  promotion of intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding; and 

(2)  development  of  skills  and  competences  relevant  to  the  knowledge-based 

economy. 

2.2. 

Instruments of Intervention 

The  main  actions  carried  out  under  the  Agreements  are  multi-institutional 
transnational partnerships that 

1 
2 
3 

Council decision no. 2006/910/EC (OJ L 346 of 9 December 2006, p. 33). 
Council decision no. 2006/964/EC (OJ L 397 of 30 December 2006, p. 14). 
Youth = EU-Canada Agreement only. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

involve higher education and/or training institutions from both North America 
and the EU, 

cooperate  to  develop  joint  curricula  at  Bachelor/Master  level  including 
joint/double degrees and 

promote transatlantic mobility of both students and faculty. 

Actions specifically undertaken in the framework of the EU-US Agreement are: 

(1) 

the  ATLANTIS  programme  with  three  sub-actions:  (i)  Transatlantic  Degree 
Projects  (TD);  (ii)  Excellence  in  Mobility  Projects  (EIM);  and  (iii)  Policy-
oriented Measures (POM); 

(2) 

the Schuman-Fulbright grant scheme; 

(3) 

the OCEANS alumni association4; and 

(4) 

technical support measures, including annual Policy Forums and studies. 

Actions specifically carried out under the EU-Canada Agreement are: 

(1) 

the EU-Canada programme consisting of higher education and training actions, 
notably  Transatlantic  Exchange  Partnerships  (TEP)  and  Transatlantic  Degree 
Partnerships (TDP); 

(2)  youth actions, in particular youth roundtables; and 

(3) 

complementary  actions,  notably  the  EU-Canada  Study  Tour  and  Internship 
Programmes and the OCEANS alumni association. 

More  details  about  these  instruments  and  background  documents  can  be  obtained 
from the Commission’s websites5. 

2.3. 

Funding and Outputs 

As a general rule, the European Union provides funding for the direct use of EU institutions, 
scholars  and  students  while  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Government  of  Canada 
provide funding for the direct use of institutions, scholars and students from their respective 
countries. 

The  European  Union's  budget  allocation  for  the  ATLANTIS  programme  was  EUR 23.2 
million for the 2006-10 period and for the EU-Canada programme was EUR 5.1 million for 
the 2007-10 period6. Programme financing is done on the basis of a matching-funds principle 
between the parties to each Agreement, meaning that the EU budgets are in the end doubled 
by matching funds provided by the respective US and Canadian authorities. 

4 
5 

6 

www.oceans-network.eu. 
EU-US Agreement: http://ec.europa.eu/education/eu-usa/doc1901_en.htm. 
EU-Canada Agreement: http://ec.europa.eu/education/eu-canada/doc1688_en.htm. 
Due to the late adoption of the Agreement, no EU-Canada call for proposals was published in 2006. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
The  ATLANTIS  programme  has  permitted  so  far  a  total  of  5 034  individuals  and  317 
institutions to participate in 67 mobility projects. 

The  EU-Canada  programme  has  permitted  so  far  a  total  of  2 804  individuals  and  195 
institutions to participate in 37 mobility projects. 

The  Schuman-Fulbright  grant  scheme  is  co-funded  by  the  EU  with  an  amount  of 
EUR 320 000 per year7 and has had so far a total of 83 participants. 

3. 

THE EVALUATION 

The  contract  for  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  EU-US  and  EU-Canada  Agreements  was 
awarded to the company ECOTEC/ECORYS in March 2010. The evaluation was carried out 
between  March  2010  and  January  2011.  The  Commission  received  the  Final  Evaluation 
Report on 15 June 2011. 

With regard to the methodology, the evaluators gathered the data for their assessment through 
discussions  with  North  American  stakeholders  in  Washington,  DC  and  Ottawa;  discussions 
with European Commission  officials  and staff  from  the Education, Audiovisual and Culture 
Executive  Agency  (EACEA)  and  the  Belgian-Luxembourg  Fulbright  Commission  in 
Brussels; in-depth interviews with 95 project partners and coordinators (and students) from 20 
thematic  project  cases  including  visits  to  each  of  the  projects  concerned;  an  online  survey 
with  project  partners  and  coordinators,  which  generated  209  responses;  online  surveys  of 
students and Schuman-Fulbright grantees, which generated 53 and 57 responses respectively; 
a telephone survey of 5 rejected applicants; and a review of relevant documentation. 

4. 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION 

The  results  of  the  evaluation  are  generally  very  positive,  having  analysed  the  degree  of 
relevance  of  the  Agreements  to  needs;  the  extent  to  which  they  overlap,  complement  or 
conflict with other policies and actions; the effectiveness of the Agreements in meeting their 
intended objectives and effects, and their added value; their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, 
and  the  effectiveness  of  management  arrangements  and  other  operational  issues  such  as 
dissemination  and  exploitation  of  project  results;  and  the  extent  to  which  the  activities  that 
have been supported are sustainable. 

4.1. 

Relevance to Needs 

The evaluators concluded that the Agreements are highly relevant in responding to a 
set  of  needs  that  are  important  and  increasingly  significant:  globalisation  and  the 
parallel process of internationalisation in education. The Agreements' objectives are 
found 

– 

to be broad-ranging and flexible, enabling governments to pursue a variety of 
political and economic goals; 

7 

Except for 2006 when the EU co-funding amounted to EUR 260 000. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

to  provide  an  on-going  platform  for  discussion  at  a  time  of  increasing 
complexity  and  competition,  protecting  activity  which,  experience  elsewhere 
shows, can be very fragile; 

to  provide  opportunities  for  new  'players'  to  enter  the  international  education 
arena; and 

to  offer  the  chance  for  institutions  to  engage  in  the  most  sophisticated  and 
leading-edge  forms  of  international  partnership  in  the  form  of  multi-
institutional cooperation and joint/double degrees. 

4.2. 

Complementarity with other Policies and Actions 

The evaluators found that the programmes do not overlap or conflict with the wide 
range of EU initiatives in the fields of international cooperation, mobility, education 
and  training  with  which  the  Agreements  share  some  similar  features.  On  the 
contrary,  the  Agreements  are  unique  in  a  number  of  ways,  especially  due  to  their 
nature as international bilateral Agreements and the benefits derived from this form 
of  institutionalised  cooperation  under  public  international  law.  While  the  activities 
supported  by  the  Agreements  are  comparatively  small  in  size  in  the  context  of  the 
volume of international cooperation routinely undertaken in this sector between the 
EU,  the  US  and  Canada,  they  are  notwithstanding  offering  a  wide  range  of 
opportunities. Only when it comes to the field of youth (Canada only), the evaluators 
to  assess 
implementation  which  made 
concluded  a 
complementarity. 

it  difficult 

lack  of 

4.3. 

Effectiveness 

The evaluators found that the Agreements have made contributions in respect of all 
their intended objectives, but have made less progress than anticipated in respect of 
providing  opportunities  for  policy  discussion  and  exchange,  and  in  Canada,  in  the 
youth field. The Agreements have substantially benefitted the students participating 
in  the  programmes  in  their  personal  and  professional  development  (soft  skills, 
language  proficiency,  intercultural  competences  and  competences  useful  in  the 
global  labour  market  and  international  work  environments).  The  Agreements  were 
found  to  be  of  major  benefit  also  to  the  staff  and  professionals  as  well  as  to  the 
institutions  involved  in  the  projects,  in  particular  in  terms  of  setting  up  and 
maintaining  international  networks,  increasing  profile  and  reputation,  building 
capacity to operate internationally and creating "change agents" who can cascade the 
positive outcomes throughout the respective institutions. 

4.4. 

Added Value 

The evaluation concluded that the bilateral funding aspect of the Agreements had a 
significant added value at a strategic level and that the Agreements fill a clear "gap in 
the market" for the funding of international cooperation between the EU and the US 
or  Canada.  Most  partners  and  coordinators  believe  their  projects  to  be  of  higher 
quality,  more  useful  and  more  worthwhile  as  compared  to  other  international 
cooperation programmes in the field. The Agreements were found to stand as models 
for  other  industrialised  countries,  not  the  least  due  to  the  fact  that  they  champion 
high-quality  student  mobility,  promote  the  use  of  innovative  approaches  to 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
curriculum development, transparency and portability and that they provide a means 
to shape the nature of international cooperation. 

4.5. 

Efficiency 

The evaluators found that while more data is needed to make a full assessment of the 
efficiency  of  the  programmes,  in  comparison  to  e.g.  the  Erasmus  Mundus 
programme and as a result of the matching funds principle, the average EU budget 
per  exchanged  student  was  significantly  lower  under  the  Agreements,  speaking  for 
the  cost-efficiency  of  the  Agreements.  However,  the  extremely  small  budget 
available in the EU-Canada case presents a significant handicap in fulfilling all of the 
Agreements' objectives. 

4.6. 

Sustainability 

The evaluators concluded that there is a strong continuation of partnerships formed 
under the Agreements: half of the project partners and coordinators maintain contacts 
after completing their projects, and three quarters of the Schuman-Fulbright grantees 
continue to cooperate with colleagues from their host institutions, usually in research 
activities.  However,  at  project  level,  while  coordinators  expect  to  continue 
cooperation owing to their significant personal investment into the project, due to a 
current  constraint  on  institutions'  resources,  a  full  continuation  of  activities  after  a 
project's  life-cycle  is  uncommon,  and  businesses  are  still  a  rare  source  of  funding, 
especially amongst EU participants. 

4.7. 

Promotion, Dissemination and Exploitation 

The importance of achieving wider effects beyond the immediate projects themselves 
was  clearly  pointed  out  by  the  evaluators.  However,  certain  obstacles  in  achieving 
this  result  were  identified,  most  notably  as  to  what  concerns  a  presumed  lack  of 
visibility  and/or  renown  of  the  programmes  (with  the  exception  of  the  Schuman-
Fulbright grant scheme), as well as a clear brand name (Canada only). The evaluators 
further concluded that the publicity for the Agreements and the dissemination of the 
results  could  be  improved.  They  also  stated  that  the  annual  Project  Directors' 
Conference  should  be  maintained  as  an  important  forum  offering  opportunities  for 
cross-fertilisation  between  different  projects  and 
institutions.  The  vertical 
communication of the results of the POMs to stakeholders should be improved. The 
potential  benefits  of  the  OCEANS  alumni  association  in  respect  of  promotion  and 
dissemination  were  accentuated  by  the  evaluators.  The  potential  for  exploitation  of 
results  within  institutions  was  evaluated  as  high,  while  the  evaluators  already  took 
into account the strong degree of exploitation between institutions. 

5. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

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

5.1. 

Relevance 

(1)  The  Agreements  remain  highly  relevant  to  needs  in  HE,  and  the  adoption  of 
joint/double degrees in 2006 shows its ability to remain at the leading edge of 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
developments.  The  non-implementation  of  these  activities  within  the  EU-
Canada  Agreement  means  that  the  Agreement's  full  potential  is  not  being 
realised.  Priority  should  be  given  to  implementing  these  aspects  of  the 
Agreement in the remaining period to 2013. 

The Commission and its Canadian counterparts took the necessary steps to encourage 
and  implement  joint/double  degree  projects  in  the  bilateral  call  in  2010.  As  a 
consequence, one grant was given to a Transatlantic Degree Partnership in the area 
of forestry. 

(2)  The Agreements are well tuned to the needs of HE, but less so to the needs of 
VET.  Greater  attention  needs  to  be  given  to  how  to  adjust  the  Agreements  to 
better fit with  the needs of the  sector; promoting the  Agreements  more to  the 
VET sector will not, alone, ensure greater interest and take-up. 

The Commission has repeatedly discussed with its transatlantic counterparts ways to 
better cater for the needs of the VET sector  through the annual calls for  proposals. 
These discussions have led to the ease of some of the programme requirements for 
VET institutions. 

(3)  Quality  is  taken  for  granted  by  participants  and  programme  administrators. 
The Erasmus Mundus programme has sought to develop quality as part of the 
programme's 'brand value' which is developed and ensured by the participants 
themselves;  a  similar  approach  is  recommended  for  projects  under  the 
Agreements, especially in respect of joint/double degrees. 

While  agreeing  with  the  tenor  of  this  recommendation,  the  Commission  points  out 
that it is based on a fairly small and thus not fully representative sample of students’ 
feedback.  The  quality  of  projects  and  their results/outputs  is,  in  general,  very  high. 
However,  the  Commission  will  look  into  how  to  further  advance  the  quality  of 
projects  implemented  under  both  Agreements.  As  a  first  step,  it  will  make  sure, 
through  the  EACEA,  that  all  partners  involved  in  bilateral  projects  are  aware  and 
make  use  of  the  Erasmus  Mundus  quality  assurance  handbook  and  self-assessment 
tool.8 

5.2. 

Effectiveness 

(4)  Canada  lacks  a  means  for  regular  discussion  and  exchange  of  experience  on 
policy  issues.  Whilst  the  division  of  responsibilities  between  federal  and 
provincial governments may make it difficult to set up a mechanism similar to 
the  US  one,  renewed  efforts  should  be  made  to  realise  the  goal  of  holding 
regular events on issues of mutual interest. 

The Commission takes note of this recommendation. Through various channels, the 
Commission  has  been  exploring  ways  of  entering  into  a  meaningful  and  mutually 
beneficial policy dialogue with Canada in the areas of education, training and youth. 
This has been effective so far at the level of pan-Canadian associations in the areas of 
higher  education,  vocational  education  and  training  as  well  as  international 

8 

Available for free at: http://www.emqa.eu. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
education. The Commission will continue its efforts targeting in particular the federal 
and provincial levels in Canada. 

(5)  The Agreements have made contributions to EU objectives in important areas, 
but  have  made  less  progress  than  anticipated  in  respect  of  providing 
opportunities for policy discussion and exchange, and, in Canada, in the youth 
field. Both these areas should be made a strategic priority in the latter half of 
the  life  of  the  Agreements.  In  Canada,  a  swift  decision  should  be  taken  as  to 
what  extent  the  youth  field  is  a  strategic  priority  which  deserves  to  be 
implemented  during  the  last  years  of  the  current  Agreement.  In  the  event  of 
continuing inactivity, EU budget allocated to this area should be re-allocated 
to other parts of the programme in order to prevent waste of resources. 

Whilst  policy  discussion  and  exchange  are  less  developed  yet  with  Canada  (see 
comments  to  recommendation  (4)),  the  Commission  and  the  US  Department  of 
Education have already organised two Education Policy Forums: in 2009 on higher 
education  reforms  and  university-business  cooperation,  and  in  2010  on  quality  in 
higher education, schools and teacher development and skills for tomorrow. In 2011, 
another  Forum  is  planned  discussing  the  21st-century  student,  qualifications 
frameworks and student learning. 

With  regards  to  the  youth  field  and  Canada,  the  Commission  and  its  Canadian 
interlocutors have taken steps to implement a series of actions. In light of this recent 
development, a re-allocation of funds seems no longer necessary. 

(6)  Stronger linkages should be explored under the EU-US Agreement between the 
Policy Forums and the Policy Oriented Measures to better realise the potential 
synergies,  and  to  ensure  that  the  findings  from  the  POMs  are  considered  at 
EU/national level. 

The Commission agrees with this recommendation and is looking into concrete ways 
of increasing synergies between, and disseminating more widely the results of, both 
the Policy Forums and POMs. 

(7)  The  benefits  of  participation  need  to  be  made  more  widely  available  to  less 
experienced  and  smaller  institutions,  especially  in  the  VET  field.  Greater 
promotion  should  take  place  to  target  these  institutions,  e.g.  through  the 
development  of  a  good  practice  guide 
the  VET  sector. 
Consideration  should  be  given  to  putting  in  place  a  mechanism  to  assist 
inexperienced  projects 
to  undertake  a  project  development  phase. 
Furthermore,  certain  under-represented  institutions  could  be  given  priority 
under the yearly calls for proposals, and efforts should be made to identify and 
support previously successful participants from under-represented institutions 
to  become  'champions'  to  promote  participation  in  their  sectors.  For  VET, 
consideration  should  be  given  to  preparing  a  brochure  of  successful  VET 
projects to target this sector specifically. 

targeted  at 

The  Commission  partially  agrees  with  this  recommendation.  Efforts  were  made  to 
facilitate  access  of  VET  institutions  under  past  annual  calls  for  proposals  (see 
comments  to  recommendation  (2)):  these  calls  made  provisions  for  supporting  a 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
diverse  range  of  institutions  or  for  new  and/or  not-yet  funded  institutions  to  be 
selected on a priority basis. 

The Commission points out, however, that all applicants need to be treated equally 
which  means  that  assistance  mechanisms  may  not  be  geared  towards  one  kind  of 
applicants  only.  The  EACEA  put  in  place  several  support  tools  for  potential 
applicants,  notably  multiannual  programme  guides,  FAQs,  project  compendia  and 
functional  mailboxes  where  questions  that  may  have  arisen  during  the  application 
phase could be addressed to. In addition, the Commission launched EVE9, the single 
information  point  on  European  education,  training,  culture  and  youth  projects 
showcasing  thousands  of  projects  and  their  results,  notably  from  the  two 
Agreements.  This  tool  for  the  dissemination  and  exploitation  of  project  results  is 
open  to  the  wider  world  and  could  be  used  as  a  source  of  inspiration  for  less 
experienced or smaller institutions. 

(8)  Four  years  after  the  renewed  Agreement  [with  Canada]  was  launched  there 
are  very  few  concrete  outcomes  to  show  in  the  youth  field,  and  very  little 
momentum  has  been  built  up.  Greater  priority  needs  to  be  given  to  action  in 
the field to make it a reality.  

The Commission only partially agrees with this recommendation. Following a slow 
start,  the  youth  field  has  gained  momentum  since  2009.  See  comments  to 
recommendation (5). 

5.3. 

Efficiency 

(9)  More  structured  communication  processes  on 

information  needs  and 
monitoring  should  be  put  in  place,  for  instance  by  making  better  use  of  the 
inter-service meetings between the Commission and the EACEA. 

The  Commission  agrees  with  this  recommendation  and  will  look  into  organising 
more regularly inter-service meetings with the EACEA. 

(10)  More  use  should  be  made  of  up-to-date  reporting  tools,  or  at  least 
standardised  formats,  to  improve  the  efficiency  for  the  project  partners  and 
coordinators,  as  well  as  for  the  EACEA  in  gathering  information/data.  It  is 
recommended that a standard format be put into place for registering students 
and potential alumni at the moment of selection. 

The  EACEA  has  already  started  to  review  its  reporting  tools.  In  particular,  a  new 
web-based  mobility  database  should  be  ready  for  roll-out  in  early  2012.  It  is 
anticipated that this new tool will specifically improve the tracking of students and 
alumni. 

(11)  A structured meeting cycle between the European Commission (DG EAC) and 
the  Belgium/Luxemburg  Fulbright  Commission  should  be  put  in  place,  to 
exchange qualitative information on the Schuman-Fulbright grant scheme and 
the (possible) synergy with the other actions under the Agreement with the US. 

9 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/eve/index_en.htm. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In particular, the EC should be provided with regular qualitative information 
on the grantees, such as their geographical spread and their subjects. 

A format for providing DG EAC with quantitative data on the grantees should 
be discussed and agreed. 

The  Commission  agrees  with  this  recommendation.  Concrete  measures  will  be 
initiated to obtain qualitative information on the Schuman-Fulbright grant scheme in 
a  structured  and  regular  way  in  view  of  creating  synergies  with  other  actions 
implemented under the Agreement with the US and other EU programmes. 

(12)  A pragmatic and feasible approach should be developed to monitor the (real) 
inputs and outputs of the projects, in order to make cost-effectiveness visible, 
and  a  set  of  simple  criteria  should  be  formulated  for  assessing  cost-
effectiveness more qualitatively. 

The Commission takes note of this recommendation, but also stresses the evaluators’ 
finding that “there is a good prima facie case that the Agreements do not give cause 
for  concern  with  regards  to  cost-effectiveness”.  Given  the  relatively  small  budgets 
allocated  to  both  Agreements  and  individual  projects,  it  may  in  fact  be  more  cost-
effective  to  develop  such  a  pragmatic  and  feasible  approach  in  the  framework  of  a 
larger  EU  programme  and  then  apply  it  mutatis  mutandis  to  bilateral  projects.  It 
should be noted that the EACEA has put in place a desk and field monitoring system 
to  assess  the  project  implementation  against  the  plans  outlined  in  the  agreed  work 
programmes. 

(13)  An inventory should be made of the most common (legal) obstacles and applied 

solutions and disseminated to all new applicants. 

The Commission agrees with the gist of this recommendation, but points out that it 
already published in 2008 a good practice guide offering practical tips and tricks for 
designing  and  implementing  a  successful  bilateral  project10.  Furthermore,  in  the 
framework of the 2007 POM project entitled “Transatlantic Degree Programs (TDP) 
Inventory  project”11,  a  publication  was  developed  addressing  in  particular  the 
challenges  and  opportunities  in  developing  joint  and  double  degree  programmes. 
This publication was distributed free-of-charge to all project promoters and partners 
at the Project Directors Conference in Berlin in October 2010. The Commission will 
look  into  how  to  best  complement  and  consolidate  the  available  information  and 
disseminate it as widely as possible to interested audiences. 

5.4. 

Sustainability 

(14)  Maintain the principle of own investments by the participating institutions, to 
maintain the commitment of parties involved during and after financing. 

The Commission has no intention to modify this principle. 

10 
11 

http://ec.europa.eu/education/external-relation-programmes/doc1949_en.htm. 
http://www.tdp-project.de. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(15)  Encourage  more  involvement  and  investment  by  partners  outside  the 

educational sector. 

Since  the  inception  of  the  programmes  and  in  order  to  improve  relations  between 
education  and  training  organisations  and  the  world  of  work,  the  Commission  has 
encouraged  consortia  to  associate  organisations  such  as  enterprises,  trade  unions, 
industry and business groups, NGOs, publishers, government departments, chambers 
of  commerce  and  research  institutes  to  the  project  work.  Such  organisations  may 
among others provide internships, offer professional advice and expertise, and help a 
project  attain  the  national  and  international  visibility  necessary  for  it  to  succeed 
beyond the funding. 

(16)  Create  the  possibility  for  innovative  ‘continuation’  applications  besides  the 
EIM  action,  with  the  requirement  that  new  partners  should  be  included  – 
preferably from countries less represented in the Agreements. 

While the Commission takes note of this recommendation, it will not follow up on it 
due to the cancellation of bilateral calls for proposals by both the U.S. and Canadian 
authorities. 

5.5. 

Promotion, Dissemination and Exploitation 

(17)  The  status  of  the  Agreements  should  be  reinforced  in  the  EU,  in  order  to 
achieve  the  same  brand  as  ATLANTIS  in  the  US.  The  Commission  should 
encourage  the  publicity  of  activities  under  the  Agreements,  for  instance  by 
supporting the invitations of project coordinators to high status stakeholders to 
participate in their activities. 

The  EU-Canada  programme  would  benefit  from  a  higher  profile,  in  order  to 
increase  the  reach  of  the  programme  and  the  potential  for  generating  wider 
impacts. To succeed in this, more innovative actions need to be implemented, 
and  the  introduction  of  a  title  like  ATLANTIS  to  help  in  publicity  and 
marketing is recommended, e.g. MAPLE (Mobility for transatlantic Promotion 
of  Learning  Exchanges)  or  CHAMPLAIN  (Collaboration 
for  Higher 
transatlantic Mobility Promotion, Learning And International Networks). It is 
also  recommended  that  the  OCEANS  network  is  canvassed  for  views  on  a 
possible name, perhaps through a small competition. 

While  the  Commission  recognises  the  need  for  enhanced  promotion  of  the 
Agreements  in  the  EU,  it  will  not  follow  up  on  this  recommendation  due  to  the 
cancellation of bilateral calls for proposals by both the U.S. and Canadian authorities. 

(18)  A  draft  dissemination  plan  should  be  included  in  the  interim  report  of  the 
project  coordinators.  In  the  case  of  POM  projects  a  communication  plan 
should  be  drafted  at  the  start  of  the  project,  making  use  of  press  releases. 
Targets  for  dissemination  should  include  government  officials  and  other 
projects.  A  requirement  to  develop  a  dissemination/visibility  plan  could 
already be part of the application. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Together  with  the  EACEA,  the  Commission will look into how best to address the 
issues  of  communication,  dissemination  and  visibility  of/by  projects  and  their 
results/outputs to relevant stakeholders. 

(19)  Stakeholders  at  intermediate  and  higher  levels  (national  organisations  of 
university/VET  institutions  of  the  countries/states  involved,  international 
organisations,  ministries  and  other  relevant  stakeholders)  should  be  more 
closely  involved  in  POMs,  at  least  being  kept  informed  of  the  start,  progress 
and results of these projects. 

Besides  mandatory  sustainability  and  dissemination  strategies,  the  Commission 
already  encouraged  POM  promoters  to  include  relevant  stakeholders  as  project 
partners and invited them to disseminate systematically results to these organisations 
and bodies. 

(20)  The  OCEANS  network  has  the  potential  to  make  a  significant  contribution  to 
promotion  and  dissemination  of  the  Agreements.  They  should  be  actively 
encouraged  and  supported  in  this  role  by  the  EC  and  the  US  and  Canadian 
federal authorities. 

The Commission takes note of this recommendation. 

(21)  The  Project  Directors'  Conference  is  the  only  major  opportunity  for  the 
community  of  participants  to  come  together  and  exchange  views.  It  is 
important that it is maintained. 

The  Commission  fully  agrees  with  this  recommendation.  However,  as  no  new 
bilateral  projects  will  be  selected  in  the  foreseeable  future,  the  need  for  organising 
such a conference has diminished.. 

(22)  Stimulate  exploitation  between  educational  institutions  by  offering  an  on-line 
tool  for  Q&A  on  multi-institutional  cooperation.  Such  a  tool  should  both 
enable  interested  parties  or  ‘new’  applicants  to  learn  from  the  lessons  of 
predecessors  in  applying  and  implementing  projects  and  to  disseminate 
results/outputs. 

See comments to recommendations (2) and (13). 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  Commission  shares  the  overall  assessment  of  the  evaluators  that  the  Agreements  are 
highly relevant and fulfil their broader and more specific goals, especially so in the context of 
the EU developing its wider role in the world, as well as the objectives of Articles 165 and 
166 TFEU. 

The Agreements do not overlap nor conflict in significant ways with a wide range of relevant 
EU initiatives and offer substantial and tangible benefits for students, faculty and institutions. 
The interest from stakeholders in the Agreements is increasing steadily, with the numbers of 
applications substantially going  up in both 2009 and 2010. Most of the activities would not 
have occurred without funding from both the EU and the US or Canada. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
As the Agreements are comparatively cost-efficient due to their bilateral funding aspect which 
has  a  significant  added  value  at  a  strategic  level,  they  stand  as  a  model  to  follow  for  other 
industrialised and high-income countries. 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  Commission  deplores  the  sudden  end  of  the  main  cooperation 
activities implemented under both Agreements. 

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

EN 

13 

   EN