REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Report on the Interim Evaluation of the Erasmus Mundus II Programme (2009-2013)
Date: 2012-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation in the field of education, education grant, higher education, student mobility, teaching quality

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.9.2012  
COM(2012) 515 final 

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

Report on the Interim Evaluation of the Erasmus Mundus II Programme (2009-2013) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

Report on the Interim Evaluation of the Erasmus Mundus II Programme (2009-2013) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 

BACKGROUND TO THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION ......................................... 3 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION............................................................................. 4 

The terms of the evaluation.......................................................................................... 4 

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

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

3.3.1.  The EM II novelties: .................................................................................................... 4 

3.3.2.  Other general findings.................................................................................................. 5 

3.3.3.  Relevance ..................................................................................................................... 6 

3.3.4.  Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 6 

3.3.5.  Sustainability................................................................................................................ 7 

3.3.6.  Efficiency ..................................................................................................................... 7 

3.3.7.  Programme management: design and structure ........................................................... 7 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

5. 

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION ................. 8 

Relevance general recommendations:.......................................................................... 8 

Effectiveness general recommendations:..................................................................... 8 

Sustainability general recommendations: .................................................................... 8 

Efficiency general recommendations:.......................................................................... 8 

THE COMMISSION’S CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 9 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  interim  evaluation  of  the  Erasmus  Mundus  II  (EM)  programme  was  launched  by  the 
European  Commission  following  the  requirements  of  the  Erasmus  Mundus  Decision  n° 
1298/2008/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  20081.  The 
purpose  of  this  evaluation  was  to  assess  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  sustainability  and 
efficiency of the programme, paying particular attention to the novelties introduced in phase 
II of the programme. This evaluation covered all three actions (Action 1, Action 2 and Action 
3) over the implementation period of 2009-2011.  

The  evaluation  was  steered  by  the  Steering  Group  drawn  from  Directorate-Generals  of  the 
European Commission (Education and Culture; Development and Cooperation - Europe Aid 
and Enlargement), the European External Action Service and the Education, Audio-visual and 
Culture Executive  Agency, all of them involved in the EM programme. The full text of the 
evaluation 
link: 
via 
be 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm 

obtained 

can 

the 

This Report on the  Interim  Evaluation is presented under  Article 13  of  the  EM  Decision. It 
draws on the findings of the Interim Evaluation of EM II regarding the results achieved and 
on  the  qualitative  aspects  of  the  implementation  of  the  programme.  It  puts  forward  the 
Commission’s  position  on  the  main  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  the  Interim 
Evaluation.These  conclusions  and  recommendations  are  based  on  extensive  surveys  and 
interviews of EM participants and key stakeholders. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

The  EM  II  (2009  –  2013)  programme  aims  to  enhance  the  quality  of  European  higher 
education,  to  help  improve  the  career  prospects  of  students  and  to  promote  dialogue  and 
understanding  between  peoples  and  cultures  through  international  cooperation  and  to 
contribute to the sustainable development of third countries in the field of higher education, in 
accordance with EU external policy objectives..  

EM has a budget of over €950 million, with arou nd €494 million allocated to Actions 1 and 3, 
taken  from  the  EU’s  education  budget,  and  €460  million  allotted  to  Action  2,  taken  from  a 
number of different funding instruments.  

Structure  of  the  programme:  EM  II  2009-2013  was  implemented  through  the  following 
actions:  

– 

– 

– 

Action 1: EM joint programmes of outstanding quality at masters and doctoral levels, 
including scholarships/fellowships to participate in these programmes;  

Action  2:  EM  Partnerships  between  European  and  Third  Country  higher  education 
institutions,  including  scholarships  and  fellowships  for  mobility  at  all  academic 
levels. This action replaces the former “External Cooperation Window” scheme;  

Action  3:  Promotion  of  European  higher  education through projects to  enhance  the 
attractiveness of Europe  as  an educational destination and a centre of excellence at 
world level. 

Novelties  of  EM  II:  Under  Phase  II  the  scope  of  the  EM  programme  was  extended  by 
incorporating the following key new dimensions: 

1 

OJ 340 19.12.2008 p.83 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

Extending Joint Programmes to the doctoral level; 

Offering scholarships for European students; 

Integrating the “External Cooperation Window” scheme into the EM programme as 
Action 2 and widening its scope; 

Allowing  third  country  higher  education  institutions  to  participate  in  the  EM  Joint 
Programmes. 

3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

The terms of the evaluation 

3.1. 
Following  a  call  for  tenders2,  the  Public  Policy  and  Management  Institute  (PPMI)  was 
selected to carry out the evaluation. The scope of the interim evaluation was the period 2009 – 
2011,  during  which  a  number  of  the  call  for  proposals  to  implement  the  programme  took 
place.  

The interim evaluation focused on providing answers to the evaluation questions related to the 
relevance and utility, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and European Union added value 
of the programme. 

With respect to each of the evaluation questions, the interim evaluation has provided concrete 
recommendations  on  how  the  logic,  the  objectives,  the  design,  the  implementation  and  the 
results can be further improved from the perspective of the Commission, the beneficiaries and 
potential applicants. 

3.2.  Methodology 

The  applied  methodology  firstly  begins  with  a  set  of  45  evaluation  questions  and  sub-
questions/operational  questions.  To  answer  the  questions,  explicit  indicators  and  judgement 
criteria were defined.  

3.3. 

The evaluator’s findings 

3.3.1.  The EM II novelties: 

- The EM Joint Doctoral Programmes: 

The  Joint  Masters  and  Doctoral  programmes  funded  by  Action  1  had  considerable  added 
value by facilitating the success of graduates when looking for work and / or further research 
positions.  International  experience  and  intercultural  competence  could  be  regarded  as  the 
most  important  assets  that  distinguished  EM  students  from  other  graduates.  Inclusion  of 
doctoral  and  post-doctoral  co-operation  within  EM  II  has  been  one  of  the  most  successful 
innovations  of  phase  II,  attracting  the  participation  of  many  prestigious  higher  education 
institutions. 

- The new EM Action 2 

The  inclusion  of  Action  2  with  specific  objectives  related  to  third  country  cooperation  was 
made  within  a  programme  design  which  addressed  the  potential  conflict  between  the 
sustainable  development  of  third  countries  (Action  2)  and  the  promotion  of  excellence 
(Action  1).  In  this  way  the  EM  II  was  designed  to  prevent  "brain  drain".  This  new  action 
includes  two  strands:  one  for  developing  countries  (strand  1)  and  one  for  industrialised 
countries (strand 2). 

2 

Restricted  call  for  tender  under  the  Multiple  Framework  Contract  EAC/50/2009  for  evaluation, 
evaluation related support and impact assessment. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  interviews  with  institutional  and  individual  beneficiaries  as  well  as  the  case  studies 
suggest  that  the  cooperation  and  excellence  objectives  were  more  complementary  than 
contradictory.  Beneficiaries  from  third  countries  appreciate  the  large  positive  impact  of 
cooperation on the capacities of HEIs in their countries. However, the stakeholders from third 
countries emphasised the need for more reciprocal relationships between HEIs from EU and 
third countries. 

- Offering scholarships for European Union students 

Overall, this new phase of the EM Programme has offered added value for EU students when 
looking  for  work  or  further  research  positions  (as  it  was  only  for  third  country  students 
before). International experience and intercultural competencies are important EM assets now 
also offered to EU students. 

However,  within  Action  1,  the  grants  to  European  students  can  be  considered  the  least 
successful of the programme novelties (category B grants for EU students were not valuable 
enough to attract students). Furthermore, it is suggested that adequate information is crucial to 
attract European students.  

Attracting  European  students  to  Action  2  mobility  was  also  a  challenge.  However, 
interviewed  representatives  of  partner  institutions  in  Action  2  strand  2  (industrialised 
countries)  strongly  believed  that  mobility  to  and  from  industrialised  third  countries  should 
remain  in  future  EM  programmes  because  it  supports  excellence  and  offers  great 
opportunities to build relationships with HEIs in major economies across the world. 

- Allowing third country HEIs to participate in Action 1 of the Programme as full partners 

This novelty offered opportunities to HEIs in third countries to share within consortia a cross-
European design of joint programmes.  

Cooperation  between  EU  and  non-European  HEIs  is  hindered  by  the  diversity  of  national 
higher education systems. The participation of non-European HEIs in the EM programme is 
made  difficult  by  regulations,  governance  issues,  limited  resources  and  specific  features 
relating  to  various  subject  areas.  Non-EU  HEIs  and  EU-partners  have  addressed  obstacles 
linked  to  the  diversity  of  national  systems,  administrative  issues,  consortium  coordination, 
award  or  joint  diplomas  and  the  diversity  of  costs  of  education  across  the  consortium.  In 
general terms, the challenges were overcome on an ad-hoc basis, but more systemic measures 
to address them will be needed in the future. 

In EM II, institutional beneficiaries were enthusiastic about the impact the programme had in 
strengthening  the  international  ties  between  European  and  third  country  institutions. 
Examples  have  clearly  demonstrated  the  capacity  of  the  programme  to  be  useful  in 
internationalising  the  higher  education  systems  of  the  participating  countries  (increasing  the 
international inter-institutional cooperation opportunities). 

3.3.2.  Other general findings 

This Interim Evaluation was useful in learning more about the ultimate objectives of EM II 
beneficiaries: 

– 

– 

– 

Action 1 beneficiaries argued that excellence in teaching and research was the main 
objective of their selected projects. 

The  beneficiaries  of  Action  2  –  Strand  1  emphasised  co-operation,  mobility  and 
capacity building. 

The  stakeholders  participating  in  Action  2  –  Strand  2  suggested  that  academic 
excellence was the central motivation of the involved institutions. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
The  EM  programme  contributed  to  strengthen  Europe's  competitive  advantage  in  higher 
education by helping higher education systems to offer a more homogeneous image under the 
joint programmes.  

The  objectives  of  EM  II  were  in  line  with  EU  Policy  initiatives  and  political  priorities. 
However in the future EM II could further strengthen its focus on the employability of young 
people which is emphasised in Europe 2020. The programme provides valuable career skills 
for graduates but actual employability remained uneven across regions and subject areas. 

3.3.3.  Relevance  

The objectives of EM II remained highly relevant even if the needs faced by the target groups 
and stakeholders were quite diverse. Both joint programmes (action 1) and mobility (Action 
2)  contribute  to  promoting  excellence,  capacity  building  and  developing  international  co-
operation. 

The  beneficiaries  from  third  countries  emphasised  the  potential  of  the  programme  to 
contribute  to  the  capacity  building  of  their  HEIs.  The  risk  of  “brain  drain”  from  third 
the 
countries  remained,  but  stakeholders  from  third  countries  also  suggested 
developmental  element  could  be  strengthened  by  ensuring  more  balanced  and  reciprocal 
relationships between participants from the EU and third countries.  

that 

EM II was closely linked with and complemented the other EU Programmes, namely: LLP, 
Tempus, Alfa, Edulink and Marie Curie Actions. 

3.3.4.  Effectiveness 

Although  the  programme  contributed  to  EU  strategic  policies,  its  impact  on  the  Bologna 
process  was  mixed  and  varied  across  different  countries.  The  contribution  was  very 
significant  in  some  third  countries,  notably  in  Neighbourhood  countries,  and  particularly  in 
the  field  of  legislation  necessary  for  the  recognition  of  joint  degrees  and  credit  recognition 
mechanisms. However, it is recognised that additional effort should be made on these issues 
within the EU and in third countries.  

Overall, the programme contributes significantly to strengthening the international orientation 
of  participating  institutions,  but  the  process  should  be  seen  in  the  context  of  a  wider 
international collaboration and should take into account different situations within HEIs. The 
programme has been understood as a "soft power" initiative to change attitudes and views of 
policy-makers and stakeholders. In some cases, EM II participants already had longstanding 
commitments to international cooperation.  

Overall,  on  the  topic  of  difficulties  encountered,  the  evaluation  identified  three  sets  of 
obstacles related to mobility: 1) obstacles relating to the diversity of national higher education 
systems;  2)  obstacles  relating  to  the  design  of  the  programme;  3)  obstacles  relating  to  the 
administrative  burden  and  co-financing  (EM  consortia  normally  entrust  centralised 
administration  and  management  to  their  coordinating  institutions.  These  institutions  try  to 
ensure administrative and financial effectiveness, which includes the identification of possible 
co-funding sources). 

3.3.5. 

Sustainability 

The  participating  institutions  were  typically  highly  internationalised  and  had  staff  members 
responsible for international project management, but nearly half of the beneficiaries reported 
lacking  human  resources  to  cope  with  the  joint  EM  project  workload.  The  participating 
institutions  were  generally  prepared  for  the  phasing  out  of  EU  funding,  but  they  hoped  it 
would be gradual.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
The EM label allowed institutions, which are outstanding in their field but not internationally 
prestigious, to access external funding and gain easier recognition of their courses. Allowing 
previous beneficiaries to retain the label after the end of the funding period would increase the 
sustainability of their courses. 

Programme  promotion  and  results  exploitation  could  improve  the  sustainability  of  EM 
projects.  The  EMA  (EM  Alumni  Association)  is  particularly  motivated  and  active  in 
promoting  the  programme  and  developing  the  EM  graduate  identity.  Their  dissemination 
activities mostly took the form of  programme  promotion  rather than  promoting  Europe as a 
study destination. 

3.3.6.  Efficiency 

The programme was efficiently implemented. The evaluation shows the following programme 
efficiency details: 

- Most of  the planned  outputs of the programme are set to be achieved by 2013 with lower 
costs than initially anticipated. 

-  Outputs  of  the  programme  were  being  produced  with  analogous  or  even  lower  costs  than 
those of similar scholarships schemes. Overall, the analysis suggests that achieving the same 
results  with  less  funding  was  not  problematic  because  the  programme  was  implemented 
efficiently in terms of budget and outputs produced.  

- In the second phase of EM, relevant administrative tools, such as the calculation of incurred 
costs  based  on  lump  sums,  have  been  put  in  place.  Although  the  number  of  activity  reports 
was  reduced  during  the  programme  implementation,  the  beneficiaries  assessed  their 
participation in EM as burdensome.  

3.3.7.  Programme management: design and structure 

The programme beneficiaries assessed positively the preparation and implementation of EM 
projects,  except  for  the  extensive  administrative  workload.  Beneficiaries  suggested  that 
further  simplifications  were  possible  (e.g.  activity  reports),  including  replacement  of  the 
annual re-application approach.  

Project monitoring and evaluation was primarily quantitative. For the future, the potential of 
the EM Quality Assessment Project (EMQA) may also be applied to better assess the quality 
of joint programmes with the involvement of field experts.  

The  beneficiaries  were  satisfied  with  the  services  of  the  Executive  Agency  (EACEA),  and 
information and guidance provided by the National Structures, the National Tempus Offices 
and  the  EU  Delegations.  Although  the  mechanisms  for  project  selection  were  efficient,  low 
success  rates  for  some  Actions  and  strands  reduced  the  trust  of  the  target  groups  in  the 
transparency of project selection.  

The division of responsibilities between DGs in the implementation of actions 1 and 2 as well 
as the absence of a single Committee in charge of the whole programme does not contribute 
to  the  development  of  synergies  between  the  Actions  of  the  programme.  However, 
weaknesses  in  strategic  coordination  are  to  some  extent  offset  by  good  coordination  at  the 
operational level as the administration of all actions is under the responsibility of a single unit 
within  the  Executive  Agency  (EACEA  –  Education,  Audio-visual  and  Culture  Executive 
Agency).  

There is a need to appoint a single committee (including representatives from DG EAC, DG 
DEVCO  and  other  Directorates-General  and  Services  of  the  European  Commission)  for 
Programme,
steering 

post-2013 

the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
4. 

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION  

General recommendations 

4.1. 

Relevance: general recommendations:  

According to the general evaluation recommendations, relevance may be reinforced through 
more  balanced  programme  objectives  and  strengthened  links  between  EM  and  other  EU 
programmes in the field of higher education. 

4.2. 

Effectiveness: general recommendations:  

In  order  to  improve  effectiveness,  the  evaluation  recommendations  are  addressed  to  the 
following main issues: employability; programme balance between objectives for excellence, 
capacity  building  and  geographical  participation;  involving  employers;  helping  the  visa 
process; and mapping best practices. 

In  relation  to  employability,  the  programme  activities  could  be  more  open  to  international 
mobility  and  cooperation  in  the  field  of  vocational  education  provided  by  higher  education 
institutions for training highly qualified professionals.  

Retain  and  strengthen 
the  balance  between  Programme  objectives  for  excellence, 
development  of  capacity  and  geographical  representation.  Incentives  should  be  provided  to 
include a wider range of institutions from candidate and potential candidate countries in the 
Programme and strengthen their capacities, in order to ensure balanced mobility. 

Good  practices  for  involving  employers  should  be  fostered,  and  outreach  activities  in 
candidate and potential candidate countries are needed.  

Since  the  main  barriers  are  related  to  administrative  issues,  it  is  important  that  DG  EAC 
continues  to  support the European Commission's action to facilitate  the visa  process for the 
beneficiaries  of  European  mobility  programmes,  currently  enforced  through  the  issue  of 
directives. 

Good practices should be mainstreamed to applicants and beneficiaries.  

4.3. 

Sustainability: general recommendations:  

Ensuring sustainability is a big concern shared by the EM beneficiaries. Recommendations on 
sustainability are related to a better use of the limited EU funding. Sharing good practices and 
a more integrated programme may be useful as well. 

While there is a risk of dependence on EU funding, it is also true that applications for funding 
from other instruments requires deepening and expanding academic networks and thus helps 
excellent courses and partnerships to mature. 

It  is  important  to  share  good  practices  to  help  partners  strengthen  their  recognition 
mechanisms and save resources spent on their development.  

4.4. 

Efficiency: general recommendations:  

In  accordance  with  the  Interim  Evaluation's  recommendations,  programme  efficiency  could 
be enhanced by linking the financial allocations to each action with clearly identified policy 
objectives, which take into due consideration the specific needs of different world regions in 
the definition of the subject priorities, level of intervention – undergraduate, masters, PhD - 
degree  vs.  credit  mobility,  etc.;  improving  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  future  projects; 
and streamlining programme promotion.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Reconsider the balance among various actions and their strands in the post-2013 programme 
in  line  with  clearly  identified  policy  objectives  and  with  a  view  to  maximise  success 
opportunities. 

Improve the monitoring and evaluation of future projects by better balancing quantitative and 
qualitative  assessment  and  by  involving  field  experts  in  the  monitoring  visits  and  project 
evaluation.  Continue  the  EM  Quality  Assessment  Project  and  better  link  it  to  project 
monitoring.  

Streamline  programme  promotion  across  different  Actions  under  the  post-2013  programme, 
while maintaining the current institutional framework that involves the Executive Agency, the 
National Structures and the EU Delegations.  

5. 

THE COMMISSION’S CONCLUSIONS  

The Commission shares the overall assessment of the evaluator that the programme EM II has 
provided  strong  support  and  made  an  important  contribution  to  the  internationalisation 
process of the European Higher Education Area. 

The  programme  remains  highly  relevant  in  promoting  excellence,  international  cooperation 
support, mobility and academic capacity building. During this first half of the EM programme 
(2009  –  2011),  the  programme  has  shown  effectiveness  in  strengthening  the  international 
orientation  strategy  of  participating  institutions,  providing  as  well  sustainability  to  strategic 
networking  activities.  The  Interim  Evaluation  of  EM  reveals  a  programme  which  has  been 
efficiently implemented with a very good cost/benefit ratio. 

The  3  programme  Actions  have  provided  outstanding  outcomes  for  HEIs,  students  and 
scholars from EU MS and third countries. Action 1 has contributed to improving excellence 
in teaching and learning and to supporting institutional networking.  

The EM II Action 2 Partnerships have been relevant in supporting international cooperation in 
the  field  of  higher  education  and  quite  efficient  in  including  third  country  institutions  as 
members of international partnerships supporting academic mobility. 

EM  II  Action  3  has  been  effective  in  giving  coherence  and  sustainability  to  the  whole 
programme. 

EM II was designed to include 4 novelties to overcome several deficiencies, shortcomings and 
weakness  observed  in  the  previous  phase  (2004  –  2008).  Even  if  the  novelties  need  further 
improvements,  the  overall  result  is  highly  positive,  notably  in  the  integration  of  the  new 
Action  2,  the  more  active  participation  of  third  country  partners  in  consortia  and  in  the 
scholarships offered for European Union students.  

The  Commission  notes  the  findings  of  this  evaluation  in  favour  of  further  improvements 
which could be made in the second half of the programme and beyond.  

In  particular,  the  Commission  welcomes  recommendation  4.1  to  reinforce  relevance  by 
strengthening links between EM and other EU programmes in the field of higher education. 
This  recommendation  very  much  reflects  the  preferred  option  identified  in  the  Impact 
Assessment  on  the  International  Dimension  of  the  Higher  Education  Actions  of  the  future 
Integrated  Programme  for  the  period  2014-2020.  That  option  (based  on  which  the 
Commission  drafted  its  proposal  for  the  future  integrated  Erasmus  for  All  programme  for 
Education,  Youth  and  Sport)  aims  to  strengthening  objectives  and  impact  through 
concentration and streamlined architecture. The use of this option in the design of the future 
integrated programme should create the necessary links within internal programmes (between 
Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus) and between external and internal policies and programmes in 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
the higher education field (Erasmus Mundus, Tempus, EDULINK, Alfa, Atlantis, etc.). It is 
also  expected  to  reinforce  links  between  mobility  and  partnerships  (including  capacity 
building and policy support measures) and provide support to increase the overall quality and 
relevance  of  higher  education,  enhancing  the  links  between  policies  and  programmes, 
accompanying  universities  in  their  internationalisation  strategy  and  the  modernisation  of 
higher education in non-EU countries together with the development of their human capital. 

The  Commission  also  agrees  on  recommendation  4.2  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the 
programme  by  allowing  for  a  better  balance  between  excellence  and  capacity  building 
(notably  linking  the  financial  allocations  to  each  action  with  clearly  identified  policy 
objectives,  reflecting  different  world  regions'  needs);  further  involving  employers;  and 
helping to improve – as far as possible – the visa process. 

On recommendation 4.3, the Commission has already been supporting (and will continue to 
do  so)  sustainability  through  different  initiatives,  such  as  the  establishment  of  the  Erasmus 
Mundus brand name and the implementation of a cluster regrouping all the best sustainability 
practices under Erasmus Mundus. 

Regarding  recommendation  4.4,  the  Commission  agrees  on  the  need  to  improve  the 
monitoring and evaluation of projects and streamline the programme's promotion (with a view 
to enhancing the current institutional framework that involves the Executive Agency, National 
Structures  and  the  EU  Delegations).  This  will  be  done  in  the  framework  of  the  future 
integrated  programme,  using  the  tools  produced  in  its  current  phase,  notably  under  the  EM 
Quality Assessment Project. 

EN 

10 

   EN