The use of lump sums, the
reimbursement on the basis of
unit costs and the flat-rate financing
under the “Erasmus+” Programme
C(2013)8550 of 4 December 2013
Annex 1 of 13
ANNEX I INTRODUCTION
1.
Erasmus+ Programme – general overview
The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (the “Regulation”) establishing
“Erasmus+”: the Union Programme for education, training, youth and sport (the
“Programme”) shall apply for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020. As
indicated in the 2014 Annual Work Programme for the implementation of “Erasmus+”, the
Union Programme for education, training, youth and sport1, it shall contribute to the
achievement of major objectives in each of these areas. The Programme shall be implemented
jointly by the Commission, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (hereafter
“EACEA”) and National Agencies (hereafter “NAs”).
Building on previous experience in the Lifelong Learning Programme2 (“LLP”), Youth in
Action Programme3 (“YiA”) and Erasmus Mundus Programme4 ("EMP"), the Programme
aims at ensuring greater coherence, synergy and simplification, in view of a simpler and more
user-friendly approach. This is achieved for example by the streamlined architecture resulting
from the merger of seven programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 period, around three
key actions, which include a reinforced international dimension5:
• Key Action 1: Learning mobility of individuals
• Key Action 2: Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices
• Key Action 3: Support for policy reform,
as well as the Jean Monnet activities and specific actions in the area of sport. Furthermore, the
actions have been designed to focus clearly on building systemic impacts resulting from the
outputs and results of actions. Each Key Action is declined into a number of individual
actions to realise the targeted objectives.
Article 13 of the Regulation lays down a financial envelope for the entire duration of the
Programme. The largest part of the overall Programme budget shall be allocated for learning
mobility of individuals (Key Action 1), followed by the contribution to cooperation for
1
The 2014 Annual Work Programme for the implementation of “Erasmus+”, the Union Programme for
education, training, youth and sport, […].
2
Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing
an action programme in the field of lifelong learning (OJ L 327, 24.11.2006, p. 45).
3
Decision No 1719/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing
the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007 to 2013 (OJ L 327, 24.11.2006, p. 30).
4
Decision No 1298/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing
the Erasmus Mundus 2009-2013 action programme for the enhancement of quality in higher education and the
promotion of intercultural understanding through cooperation with third countries (OJ L 340, 19.12.2008, p.
83–98).
5
Participation of non-Programme Countries shall be funded under Heading 1 for some actions and few others
under Heading 2.As political agreement has not yet been reached for Heading 4, the current document refers
only to the participation of non-Programme Countries under Heading 1.
1
innovation and the exchange of good practices (Key Action 2) and for support for policy
reform (Key Action 3).
As indicated in the 2014 Annual Work Programme, the main objectives of the key actions are
as follows:
1.1. Key Action 1: Learning mobility of individuals
Mobility shall be strengthened and remain the core element across the Programme.
Learning mobility has the potential to raise the level of skills and competences of high
relevance to the labour market and society, increase awareness of cultural and linguistic
diversity, reinforce participation of young people in democratic life, promote the emergence
of a European lifelong learning area, and to enhance the modernisation and
internationalisation of education institutions, to the benefit of both the Union and, as regards
higher education and youth, Partner Countries. Joint Masters Degrees (JMD) shall also
contribute to the attractiveness of European higher education.
Staff mobility more particularly enhances the professional skills and competences of
professionals in the fields of education, training and youth, and improves their abilities to
respond to individual learners' needs and to deal with their social, cultural and linguistic
diversity. It also contributes to develop new and better teaching or training methods and
innovative approaches to learning, and to improve the skills and competences of those
managing and leading education institutions and youth organisations.
It promotes the formal recognition of skills and competences acquired through professional
development activities abroad, while developing a European dimension in education and
youth work.
In this framework, the Degree mobility at Master's level shall be supported through the
Student Loan Guarantee Facility ("the Facility").
1.2. Key Action 2: Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices
In response to the growing need for more innovative approaches in education and youth
policies, the Programme shall provide strengthened support to cooperation projects aimed at
developing, transferring and implementing innovative practices. Actions that address better
alignment of skills to the needs of the labour market should be a priority. Fostering
entrepreneurial skills and attitudes, developing multilingualism, as well as being able to use
ICT collaboratively and creatively and being able to create, use and share digital content
openly is critical.
The Programme shall also support actions to improve equity in education, training and youth,
including actions to improve access to and strengthen the quality of early childhood education
and care, to combat early school leaving, to promote the inclusion of young people with fewer
2
opportunities and to ensure adults' basic skills and skills for employment. There is a strong
focus on strengthening innovative partnerships between educational institutions and business,
building the relevance between the labour market and the education and training environment.
Innovative partnerships can bring together different types of organisations, including regional
and local authorities, with different fields of education, training and youth. They shall be
encouraged to foster more integrated lifelong learning approaches, improved recognition and
validation of non-formal and informal learning, more efficient use of resources and higher
quality mobility schemes.
On the international side, the emphasis is on supporting partner countries in modernising their
higher education systems - with a special focus on neighbourhood countries - and developing
youth work through capacity building measures.
1.3. Key Action 3: Support for policy reform
The activities in support of policy reform are targeted at the achievement of Europe 2020
strategy goals and of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and
training (ET 2020) and Youth Strategies. In this context, they are expected to help improve
the effectiveness of education and training systems as well as youth policies in fostering
growth and employability by strengthening the impact of the open methods of coordination in
education, training and youth. They aim at reinforcing the existing – in particular countryspecific - knowledge and evidence base to corroborate the policy rationales, including the
cooperation with international organisations. They aim at facilitating holistic policy
approaches – in particular lifelong learning – by developing and promoting European
networks and tools fostering the transparency and recognition of skills and qualifications on
all education and training levels. This includes school education, higher education, vocational
education and training (VET), adult learning, as well as skills and competences acquired
through non-formal and informal learning. They also support activities encouraging the active
participation of young people. They aim at promoting policy dialogue both for policy makers
and stakeholders, and with partner countries. Finally, they aim at raising awareness of the
results of policy and programme activities in the areas of education, training and youth with
different groups, and at disseminating such results with a view to generating significant
impacts at individual, institutional and systemic level.
1.4. Jean Monnet activities
The Jean Monnet activities stimulate teaching and research on European Union in the
Member States and worldwide, notably in enlargement and neighbourhood countries.
The activities focus on a twofold objective: for individuals, to foster the participation of a new
generation of teachers and researchers from higher education institutions to deepen interaction
with academia and civil society; for institutions, to create a systemic impact by extending
teaching relevant Union matters in faculties and courses where European Union studies are
not traditionally taught.
3
As to the geographical coverage, special attention shall be given to strategic regions and
countries not yet sufficiently involved in European studies.
The think tank capacity of the Jean Monnet community shall be reinforced by supporting
Union governance and policy-making, conferences, seminars and gathering of high level
academics to boost the reflection on themes relevant for our society.
1.5. Sport
In the field of sport, the Programme aims at tackling cross-border threats to the integrity of
sport, such as doping, match fixing and violence, as well as all kinds of intolerance and
discrimination; promoting and supporting good governance in sport and dual careers of
athletes; and promoting voluntary activities in sport, together with social inclusion, equal
opportunities and awareness of the importance of health-enhancing physical activity through
increased participation in, and equal access to sport for all.
2.
Simplified grants in Erasmus+
In addition to the streamlined structure, the Commission has committed to improve and
simplify the programme management rules. In this respect, one single programme guide6 will
outline the implementing rules for beneficiaries for all sectors. In conformity with Article 124
of the Financial Regulation the Commission committed in the Multiannual Financial
Framework 2014-20207 to make an extensive use of simplified form of grants in Erasmus+.
The Lifelong Learning Programme, Youth in Action Programme and Erasmus Mundus
Programme which preceded Erasmus+ already have a history of using some of the current
simplified forms of grants, mainly lump sums and unit costs. However, in an effort to promote
greater harmonisation and simplification, to the extent possible, the proposed use of real costs
is limited to an absolute minimum, mainly to contribute to the additional costs of persons with
special needs and other limited exceptional costs for which there is currently insufficient data
available to develop a simplified grant model. Simplified form of grants shall also be applied
to areas which were previously budget based (e.g. travel costs) for actions implemented under
both direct and indirect management.
These simplified forms of grant shall cover all educational and training sectors, including
Higher education (hereafter “HE”), School education (hereafter “SE”), Vocational education
and training (hereafter “VET”), Adult education (hereafter “AE”) and Youth under different
activities. Unit costs shall be widely used in Key Action 1 as the biggest share of the overall
programme budget is allocated to learning mobility.
The Commission has given priority to implementing simplified forms of grants in those
activities that are high volume, benefit most from automation through the use of e-forms, are
6
7
Erasmus+ Programme guide, […].
Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, […].
4
appropriate for implementation in the context of indirect management and provide
transparency for final participants.
All activities where the unit cost model applies are further described in the annexes to the
present decision.
While a maximum effort has been made to establish a harmonised approach and grant rates
for different target groups and activities in Erasmus+, we have to take due account of genuine
differences and needs in some areas, leading to a differentiated approach. This is the case
particularly for the Learning Mobility action, where both past practice and objective
differences require some variations in order to observe the below listed principles and prevent
a major impact on mobility numbers or budget absorption.
By nature, simplified forms of grant are contributions to the underlying costs and not an exact
reimbursement of real costs for an individual beneficiary and/or the grants of an individual
country for any single action. While great efforts have been invested to minimise negative
impacts on any Programme Country8, it cannot be avoided that a changed approach results in
different consequences for different countries. As required by the Financial Regulation the
impact of the new grant models and rates shall be closely monitored in order to be able to
address any undesirable side effects. Intermediate reviews and check-up/control mechanisms
are foreseen in order to ensure that the approved methodology is up to date throughout the
whole programme period.
The establishment of the simplified form of grants takes account of the following principles:
•
The most appropriate form of simplified grant is used depending on the implementation
context. The level of simplified grant is based mainly on historical real cost data and real
grant data reflecting the beneficiaries and their environment.
•
The average Union contribution to costs is far below the maximum Union co-financing
rate, which ensures the compliance with the co-financing and no-profit principles.
•
Fair and equal treatment of beneficiaries is guaranteed.
•
Attractiveness of actions to enhance participation is ensured.
•
Incentive for the beneficiary to use resources economically is provided as the
contribution is based on pre-established amounts.
The use of lump sums, unit costs and flat-rate funding in the Programme will considerably
simplify the calculation of the grant amounts in comparison to the 'traditional' system of
basing the amount of the grant on a detailed budget of eligible costs per cost category. At a
later stage, it shall decrease the workload of the contracting authority and speed up the
payment procedure. It is likely to reduce also errors on the part of the beneficiaries, thus
resulting in lower financial corrections and error rates.
8
Programme Country: country with a National Agency; Partner Country: all other countries participating in the
Erasmus+ Programme.
5
In summary this approach provides simplification through:
• greater predictability for grant beneficiaries who can take the pre-established rates into
account when submitting their applications making the actions more attractive;
• greater focus on outputs rather than inputs, placing more emphasis on the quality and level
of achievement of measurable objectives;
• reduced administrative burden at application and payment stage reducing overheads for
NAs and facilitating productivity gains;
• simplified reporting requirements (no certification or formal financial statement to be
provided by beneficiaries);
• greater facilitation of the ex-post analysis and further limitation of the risk of error;
• consistency across actions in the Programme where appropriate making it easier for
beneficiaries participating in more than one action to manage their budgets;
• less complex funding rules contributing to easier readability of Programme Guide.
3.
Management modes in Erasmus+ actions implementing simplified forms of grants
All programme actions within Key Action 1, with the exception of large-scale volunteering
projects and Learning mobility International (Joint Degrees), shall be implemented by
National Agencies (NAs) through indirect management mode in accordance with Article
58.1(c) of the Financial Regulation.
Key Action 2 shall be implemented partly through indirect management by NAs - for the
programme action Strategic partnerships - and partly through direct management by the
Commission/EACEA - for programme actions Capacity building in the field of youth and
Partnerships between the world of work and education and training institutions (Knowledge
Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances).
The funds under Key Action 3 shall be implemented by the Commission/EACEA for the most
part and indirectly by NAs in regards to small-scale activities under programme action
Structured dialogues in the field of youth.
Jean Monnet activities shall be implemented through direct management by EACEA.
6
4.
Implementation of the simplified grant system and actions concerned
After a comprehensive analysis of representative data from the previous programme period
the following unit costs, lump sums and flat-rate financing are proposed for implementation
under the three complementary Key Actions in the Erasmus+ Programme.
Table n°1: Use of simplified forms of grants across the Programme (general overview)
Annex Item
Form
Applied in Key Action
Unit cost per person per distance
band
Key Action 1: Learning
mobility of individuals –
staff in HE/SE/VET/
AE/Youth, learners in
VET/Youth and large-scale
volunteering projects
Key Action 2: Capacity
building (Youth)
Key Action 3: Structured
dialogue (Youth)
Key Action 3: Eurydice
network
II
Travel costs
support
Jean Monnet activities
Unit cost band 2 for distances from
100 km up to 1.999 km
Key Action 2: Strategic
partnerships :
Unit cost band 3 for distances from
2.000 km
- Transnational Project
meetings
- Transnational
learning/training/teaching
activities
Key Action 2: Knowledge
Alliances and Sector Skills
Alliances (embedded
mobility)
7
Annex Item
III
Individual
support
Form
Applied in Key Action
Unit cost per person per day or per
month within a range defined by
the Commission. Rates
differentiated for staff and students
Key Action 1: Learning
Mobility of Individuals staff in SE/AE/HE/VET and
learners in VET
Unit cost per person per day or per
month per host country. Rates
differentiated for long-term and
short-term activities, between
Programme and Partner countries
Key Action 1: Learning
Mobility of Individuals in
Youth (volunteers)
Average unit cost/person for 3 days
if eligible for Band 2 travel and 4
days for those eligible for band 3
travel
Key Action 2: Strategic
partnerships - Transnational
Project meetings
Average unit cost/person per day or
per month. Rates differentiated for
staff and students and for long-term
and short-term activities
Key Action 2: Strategic
partnerships - Transnational
learning/training/teaching
activities
Key Action 2: Capacity
Building (Youth)
Key Action 2: Knowledge
Alliances and Sector Skills
Alliances (embedded
mobility)
Unit cost per person differentiating
between groups above and below
100 participants
IV
Unit cost per person per day or per
Organisational month per host country
support
Key Action 1: Learning
Mobility of Individuals staff in SE/VET/HE/AE and
learners in VET/HE
Key Action 1: Learning
Mobility of Individuals
(Youth), large-scale
volunteering projects
Key Action 2: Capacity
Building (Youth)
Key Action 3: Structured
Dialogue (Youth)
8
Annex Item
V
VI
VII
Form
Applied in Key Action
Unit cost per person per course
Key Action 1: Learning
Mobility of Individuals (>1
month VET learners, >2
months for youth volunteers
(EVS)
Non-online
linguistic
support
Course costs
support
Project management and
Implementation
Key Action 2: Strategic
Partnerships Transnational
learning/training/teaching
activities > 2 months
Unit cost per person per day capped Key Action 1: Learning
at 10 days
Mobility of Individuals (SE
and AE staff)
Unit cost per participating
organisation per month
differentiating between coordinator
and other partners
Key Action 2: Strategic
Partnerships
Capped at 10 partners per project
VIII
Intellectual
output support
Unit cost per person per day per
category of staff per group of
countries
Key Action 2: Strategic
Partnerships: Intellectual
outputs
Key Action 3: Eurydice
network
IX
ƒ
Student scholarship amount: 1) Key Action 1: Joint Masters
unit cost per scholarship holder Degrees
resident
of
a
Programme/Partner Country as
contribution to travel and
installation costs; 2) unit cost
per month as contribution to
subsistence costs; 3) max. unit
cost per year as contribution to
participation costs
ƒ
Lump sum amount covering
Management costs of the
consortium delivering the JMD
Joint Masters
Degrees
support
9
Annex Item
Form
ƒ
X
XI
Sector Skills
and Knowƒ
ledge Alliances implementation support
ƒ
Eurydice
support
Applied in Key Action
Intellectual output support Key Action 2: Knowledge
(implementation support): Unit Alliances and Sector Skills
cost per person per day per Alliances
category of staff per group of
countries
Travel costs support (embedded
mobility): Unit cost per
participant per distance band
Individual support (embedded
mobility):
Average
unit
cost/person/day.
Rates
differentiated for staff and
students
ƒ
Participation
in
common Key Action 3: Eurydice
activities: Unit cost per person network
per day per category of staff per
group of countries
ƒ
Participation
in
Network
meetings
unit
cost
per
participant per day per hosting
country
ƒ
Unit cost per distance band for
working meetings
ƒ
Translation into English of the
description of the education
system in Eurypedia: unit cost
per standard number of pages
ƒ
Translation
of
Eurydice
completed studies into the
national language: unit cost per
standard number of pages
ƒ
Integration of new members
into the Network (to be
integrated with Intellectual
output support): Unit cost per
person per day per category of
staff per group of countries
10
Annex Item
XII
Jean Monnet
support
Form
Applied in Key Action
ƒ
Teaching activities in Jean Jean Monnet activities
Monnet Chairs and Modules: 1)
unit cost per hour per country
covering teaching costs; 2) flatrate top-up for additional
academic
activities;
final
amount subject to a cap.
ƒ
Jean Monnet Projects: 1)
national conference costs (unit
cost per participant per day); 2)
participation
of
non-local
participants in project events
(unit cost per distance band for
travel plus unit cost per day for
subsistence); 3) contribution to
peripheral costs (lump sum).
The sum of these items is
subject to a cap.
The documents in the following annexes outline the justifications and methodologies for each
simplified form of grant under the above-mentioned grant items and their implementation in
the relevant actions. The relevant unit costs, lump sums and flat-rates together with the
maximum grant amounts per action shall be published in the Erasmus+ Programme Guide
applicable as from 1st January 2014.
Under the new simplified funding system, individual budget items shall be combined in grants
to beneficiaries following the models in Annex XIII.
5.
Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs of control
The extended use of simplified forms of grants under the Programme may imply certain risks
of fraud and irregularities. Therefore, having effective internal control procedures for fraud
prevention and reporting of irregularities is particularly important. The following procedures
shall apply to all actions in Erasmus+ where lump sums, unit costs and flat-rate funding will
be introduced.
Each action in the Erasmus+ Programme has been conceived to focus on performance based
tangible outputs and results. The achievement of these results is a requirement to qualify for
payment.
11
As a generic management principle the Commission follows a set of internal control standards
for effective management. These standards set out the minimum requirements for the internal
control activities and ensure that operational activities are effective and efficient, legal and
regulatory requirements are met, financial and other management reporting is reliable and
assets and information are safeguarded. The general compliance of EACEA with Commission
internal control standards is guaranteed.
In order to reduce the risk of fraud and irregularities linked to the use of simplified forms of
grant, a detailed set of minimum requirements for the internal control system of National
Agencies has been defined based on the requirements resulting from the Financial Regulation
for indirect management as well as based on cost-benefit analysis of the relevant controls9
implemendeted by National Agencies under the LLP and YiA.
In addition, an assessment of the expected level of risk of error shall be carried out and
subsequent fraud prevention and protection measures shall be adopted. Reporting and control
shall focus on the realisation of the supported activity and the achieved results rather than on
the eligibility of costs incurred, reducing the workload and scope for error of both programme
participants and managing bodies. The whole monitoring system is set up in a manner so as to
ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the controls. The possibility for ex post controls
shall be extended which can further guarantee sufficient quality of the outputs.
Considering that a large proportion of the budget for Erasmus+ will be allocated to learning
mobility actions and that these grants will take the form of unit costs, flat-rates or lump sums,
it can be anticipated that this will allow to keep or even further reduce the already low error
rate for the Programme overall. Detailed control requirements are set per type of action based
on a risk analysis considering the grant level, the complexity of the action, the number of
partners and the recurrence of the beneficiary as well as taking into consideration the reduced
risk resulting from the simplification.
The following risk based indicative control measures are part of the internal control system
for the actions to be managed by National Agencies:
− On-the-spot system controls of recurrent beneficiaries and beneficiaries of multiple
grants (including financial on-the-spot control of last closed agreement if applicable)
− On-the-spot controls during action of non-recurrent beneficiaries
− Routine controls of final reports
− Desk controls of supporting documents
− Ex post on-the-spot financial controls
Specific control objectives shall be adopted for particularly small countries with very limited
numbers of participants under a given action, to avoid that the same beneficiaries have to
undergo in depth controls on a yearly basis because of the quantitative minimum
requirements.
9
These are set out in the National Agency Delegation agreement signed by each National Agency and in the
National Agency Guide.
12
The Commission can have a high level of confidence in this control system as it builds on past
experience. The aggregate multiannual error rate for the implementation of LLP and YiA
through NAs was 0,9% for 2012 which was below the 2% materiality threshold. A small
number of suspected frauds (number/amount) have been reported during the period 20072013 indicating that the procedures are effective in both limiting and capturing irregularities.
6.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
All methodologies described in the subsequent annexes to the present decision comply with
the principles of no-profit, co-financing and absence of double financing as required by the
Financial Regulation.
Co-financing:
A maximum rate of co-financing is foreseen for all the actions of the Programme.
Historically, the rate of co-financing of individual actions under LLP, YiA and EM has been
significantly below this rate. As part of the assessment for defining the methodology and
levels of the proposed simplified forms of grants, they have been systematically compared to
past grants awarded as well as to the real costs reported. This analysis has indicated that the
proposals are close to the real grants previously awarded and thus co-financing rates are far
below the maximum allowed. H owever, as in the current LLP programme rates for many
budget items have been set within a range, comparisons are based on average values.
Monitoring of co-financing rates will be more direct in the future as most simplified forms of
grants are fixed.
Simulations have been carried out for each simplified form of grant individually at level but
also by country and by sector (where several sectors are concerned by the same unit cost) to
ensure that there is no structural or significant isolated deviation from the historical levels of
grant, thus ensuring the co-financing principle is respected.
In cases it has been decided to use a single proxy cost to contribute to the eligible costs (e.g.
staff costs in Sector Skills and Knowledge Alliances) rather than a basket of individual unit
costs as a measure of simplification. This has followed an analysis of the typical budget
structure of similar projects in the past which showed that the cost represented by the unit cost
is structurally the dominant (average 75% of total eligible costs) eligible cost but that other
eligible costs are systematically necessary for achieving the objective of the action. This
ensures that even if 100% of the unit cost is applied, the overall financing rate shall not
exceed the maximum rate for the Programme.
Furthermore, a cap is set for contributions to costs of actions such as Jean Monnet Projects or
Key Action 2 Strategic partnerships to add further assurance to ensuring co-financing. The
cap has been set with reference to simulated budgets compared to past budgets at a lower
level than the simulated total costs. Indeed, the simulations indicate that the average amount
of the Union contribution under all grant items is far below the maximum Union co-financing
13
rate10, thus ensuring naturally the respect of the co-financing principle. The overall cofinancing rate of overall grants by action is even lower than the individual ones because it
takes account of eligible costs which do not receive a contribution (e.g. under the Intellectual
output support a contribution to staff cost shall be made, but the eligible communication costs
shall not be taken into account).
The co-financing is verified via increased ex ante controls at selection phase (at the time when
the grant level is established). Detailed guidelines and additional trainings in this respect shall
be provided to the management body staff.
Financing on the basis of unit costs, flat-rate and lump sums where an analysis of the cost
base has been made ex ante introduces an incentive for the beneficiary to use resources as
economically as possible, as the final grant is based on the pre-established rates in function of
the nature and implementation of the action, without further adjustments of the grant amount
based on actual expenditure. Moreover, applying pre-established rates, offers advantages in
terms of transparency, predictability and equal treatment between beneficiaries.
No-profit:
In some cases, the unit costs, flat-rates and lump sums are not awarded as individual grants
but as components of one single grant. Simulations have been carried out in order to ensure
that the proposed methodologies result in unit costs/flat-rates/lump sums and overall grant
amounts that are on average comparable to but below the current real costs and/or real grants
given (taking account of at most the maximum level of co-funding), which ensures that the
grants remain attractive as well as respecting the no-profit principle. The simulations indicate
that this is the case also where the reimbursement of certain real costs is foreseen as these
refer only to additional eligible costs which are distinct from the eligible costs covered by the
unit costs, flat-rate or lump sums.
As described above, both individual grant items and global grant awards (where relevant)
respect the co-financing principle. In some cases there exist complementary sources of
financing to that of the Union (e.g. some individual mobility actions). When the Union
contribution is set within a range (e.g. Individual support), the external sources of financing
are one of the factors which shall be specifically taken into account when setting the level of
the unit cost within the defined range specified by the Commission. For example, in sending
countries where little or no external co-funding is available, the Commission shall specify that
the top of the range should be applied. In addition, the nature of the actions as detailed in the
Work Programme excludes the possibility of generating revenues through the action.
Consequently, the simplified forms of grants outlined in the following annexes respect the noprofit rule.
10
The maximum Union co-financing rate is mentioned in the 2014 Annual Work Programme.
14
Absence of double funding:
As the table in Annex XIII indicates, there is no overlap between eligible costs. Unit costs
refer to specific individual eligible costs in many cases (e.g. travel, staff costs). Where this is
not the case, care has been taken to ensure that double funding is avoided by requiring
additional outputs. For example the contribution to travel and subsistence costs for
Transnational learning/training/teaching activities in Key Action 2 Strategic partnerships is
only available in certain specific cases justified by the objective of the action.
In the present Programme, double funding is prevented already effectively by preventive
controls at selection stage, by National and Executive Agencies and the Commission. The
Programme draws clear division lines between actions and avoids that similar activities can be
undertaken under different actions by the same participants. Furthermore, double funding is
avoided by identifying all categories of eligible and ineligible costs related to the supported
activities. Cost categories per grant item are detailed in each individual annex.
In this respect, as from 2014 applicant organisations shall register in the Participants portal
under the Unique Registration Facility/Participant Data Management (URF/PDM). Use of this
unique identity shall facilitate checking of multiple applications and prevent the potential of
double funding.
Control of participants in learning mobility will also be possible via the Mobility Tool
application that contains details of all mobility participants in mobility projects of the
Erasmus+ Programme.
7.
Update of the approved methodology
The simplified grants shall be under constant monitoring to ensure their appropriateness. In
particular any impacts on grant attractiveness would be quickly brought to the Commission’s
attention by National Agencies and other stakeholders, the underlying causes assessed and if
necessary addressed. The rates shall also be monitored and if necessary updated by simple
mechanisms.
The assessment of some methodologies was developed on the basis of statistically robust
datasets of real costs. However, the lack of real cost data in the future require the use of other
similar objective means in order to keep the approved methodologies up to date.
As method of revision, the Commission shall organise a mid-term review of unit costs/flatrates/lump sums compared to real costs. This shall be conducted through a consultancy study
including surveys of samples of beneficiaries.
15
Annex 2 of 13
ANNEX II Travel costs support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to eligible travel costs i.e. travel costs from home to the venue of the project
and return, including accompanying person when necessary1, incurred by beneficiaries under
the Programme, Key Action 1 - Learning mobility of individuals, Key Action 2 – Cooperation
and innovation for good practices, Key Action 3 – Support for policy reform and Jean Monnet
activities shall take the form of unit costs.
The simplified grant system in the form of unit costs covers the eligible travel costs for the
following activities:
Key Action 1:
− mobility for Vocational education and training (VET) learners and staff
− mobility for School education (SE) staff
− mobility for Adult education (AE) staff
− mobility of individuals and groups of young people, youth volunteers and youth
workers
− mobility for Higher education (HE) staff
− large-scale volunteering projects
Key Action 2:
− Strategic partnerships:
• transnational project meetings
• transnational learning/teaching/training activities
− Capacity building (Youth)
− Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances - embedded mobility (See Annex X)
Key Action 3:
− Youth Structured Dialogue
− Eurydice network (See Annex XI)
Jean Monnet activities (See Annex XII)
The amounts of the unit costs to be used shall be calculated in accordance with the method
described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
Utilisation of unit costs considerably simplifies, streamlines and reduces the time needed for
the financial management of projects, both at Commission, Executive Agency and National
Agency as well as at beneficiary levels. It is thus much more cost-effective and economically
sound than item-based budgeting, especially as the actual amounts disbursed are calculated on
the basis of the number of mobilities linked to specific results produced by the projects. This
1
Costs related to the needs of disabled persons shall be covered by the Special needs support.
1
category of costs has been funded under the Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (LLP)
and the Youth in Action Programme 2007-2013 (YiA) for the past 7 years, consequently, the
Commission has sufficient data sources of real costs on which to base its assessment. Until
now travel costs have been reimbursed on the basis of real costs except for HE student
mobility. As this type of cost is incurred by several thousand people each year, this results in a
high administrative burden with the corresponding risks in terms of error.
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
See section 1 of Annex I Introduction and Annex XIII Budget models on the nature of the
supported actions under K ey Action 1, K ey Action 2, K ey Action 3 and Jean Monnet
activities.
Mobility under K ey Action 1 is intrinsic to the main results of the action (e.g. a student or
staff member needs to travel to another country to take part in the learning activity which is
the object of the action). The use of simplified forms of grants under Key Action 1 is of great
importance since the largest portion of available funds in the new programme period shall be
allocated to these actions. Through a single grant application, the coordinator of a mobility
project shall be able to apply for several individuals (including large groups of learners and/or
staff) to participate in mobility activities across Programme Countries. Some mobility
activities may involve Partner Countries as well. At the application stage, individual
participants do not need to be identified. If the grant is awarded for a number of mobility
activities, these may take place at different times within the overall period of the mobility
project. The applicant organisations should conceive their project in line with the needs of
participants and according to their internal plans of internationalisation, capacity building and
modernisation.
In K ey Action 2, K ey Action 3 and Jean Monnet mobility is a necessary component for
certain forms of cross border cooperation (e.g. project meetings, transnational
learning/training/teaching activities) to take place; however, it is not considered as the main
objective of the actions. Nevertheless, a contribution to travel costs based on unit costs shall
equally facilitate long term partnership planning and strength the mobility level of
stakeholders.
The LLP and YiA real cost based approach for reimbursement of travel costs leads to a high
workload for both the beneficiaries and the managing bodies and is a source of high error
rates. The use of unit costs as contribution to travel costs represents a simplification and
reduction of administrative costs, for all actors to be able to focus more on quality and impact.
Furthermore, it ensures an appropriate contribution to this category of costs which can be
planned and predicted by the beneficiaries in advance.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
2
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a) Data sources
For distances of up to 4.000 km, the Commission analysed historical real cost data incurred
under LLP and YiA projects in 2010-2011 that covered mostly mobilities within Europe and a
few mobilities to/from Neighbouring and RUP (Region Ultra Périphériques) countries. Due to
the limited geographical reach of the funded actions, extended data on historical costs for
mobilities of distances above 4.000 km was not available. In order to analyse mobilities from
the latter category, EACEA collected the market prices currently on offer on the internet for
air tickets of the actual mobilities that occurred under Erasmus Mundus in 2011. The market
prices were collected from the websites of two major travel operators, one American and the
other European, and for two different travel periods in order to take into account the early/late
booking phenomenon and the seasonality of prices, however avoiding high season prices.
b) Sample
The analysis of data for distances below 4.000 km covered a total sample of approximately
42.000 entries in LLPLink and 850 in YouthLink programme management tools. This sample
thus corresponds to almost 50% of all actual cases in the database. The original set that
contained 50.850 individual mobilities2 within Europe was subject to data cleaning, i.e.
removing incomplete data references, intra-country mobilities, as well as amounts below
EUR 50 and above EUR 800. Furthermore, the observations that include contributions where
subsistence and travel are combined (durations more than 12 weeks), were excluded from the
sample. Historical travel costs for individual mobility to/from Neighbouring and RUP
countries were analysed separately.
This large sample covered all Programme Countries. Multiple entries for the same pairs of
departure and arrival locations were included to ensure full representativeness of the data.
As already mentioned, for travel above 4.000 km, data was collected by EACEA using a
market survey (internet consultation). Prices were collected for 1.000 out of 1.834 flows,
representing 55% of all flows realised by the Erasmus Mundus students in 2011. For each
mobility four different market prices were collected: two from the websites of the major travel
operators and two for the different travel periods. Thus, a total of 4.000 market prices were
analysed.
The travel flows used in both samples (below and above 4.000 km) were carefully selected to
be representative of the real mobilities, i.e. the real geographical spread of the beneficiaries in
the sample actions was duly taken into account.
Bearing in mind the specificity of group mobility in the youth sector, additional simulations
based on a sample of 948 projects granted under YiA were made.
2
One mobility per project, even when the project included more than one participant. The sample did not include
Erasmus students who currently receive a lump sum covering travel and subsistence where separate real cost
data is not in the LLPLink database.
3
c) Analysis
The same methodology was used to assess data for distance below and above 4.000 km even
though the data source and collection method was different. The calculation of the distance
between cities was based on the “haversine” formula3 to calculate the great-circle distance
between two points, commonly used to calculate the distance between two GPS locations4.
The data was analysed statistically5 for each sector and by sending country. The same
methodology was applied to both real cost data and data collected through the market survey.
At an early stage of the dataset analysis, three different methodologies were tested as possible
approaches for defining the simplified forms of grants for travel costs:
1) Single unit cost per kilometre for all distances – The implementation of a single unit
cost per km for all mobilities and all distances.
2) Unit cost per kilometre per distance band – A fixed unit cost per kilometre per each
distance band.
3) Unit cost per distance band – A fixed unit cost per distance band.
To test the validity of these approaches, a series of simulations was performed in a limited
sample of flows that consists in comparing the reported real costs and proposed rates both
from sending and receiving perspective and assesing the impact on the number of mobilities
and the grant amount.
After analysis the first two options were discarded. The option of using a single unit cost per
kilometre for all distances was rapidly rejected due to its potential to lead to a distortion of
political objectives and profit making by beneficiaries. That of using a unit cost per kilometre
per distance band demonstrated an adverse overlapping effect which might have a perverse
impact on certain mobilities within the overlapping distances. A grant system based on a fixed
unit cost per distance band represents the optimum outcome, being at the same time
transparent and simple to implement.
The advantage of this option is the predictability of the grant amount related to travel costs to
be allocated to beneficiaries6. It also remains the most representative option of the real costs,
does not discourage longer distance travel and finally, ensures neutrality (i.e. zero or limited
financial impact) with regard to the level of funding.
3
The haversine formula is an equation important in navigation that gives great-circle distances between two
points on a sphere from their longitudes and latitudes. The haversine formula is:
ACOS(COS(RADIANS(Latitude 2))*COS(RADIANS(Latitude 1))*COS(RADIANS(Lon gitude 1- Lon gitude 2))
+SIN(RADIANS(Latitude 2))*SIN(RADIANS(Latitude 1))). 1 stands for sending country and 2 for receiving
country.
4
In order to use this formula, the coordinates of each city had to be manually inserted in the database. For some
small towns, the coordinates of the closest city was used, also thanks to the use of postal codes as a reference
for their geographical position. For example, small towns in countries such as Spain and Italy were substituted
with the coordinates of the capital city in their province.
5
The analysis included standard deviation, mean, mode and median.
6
For the establishment of the relevant distance band, an on-line distance calculator shall be provided for
applicants/beneficiaries and NAs.
4
The bands in terms of distance and amount have been defined after a full examination of data,
ensuring that they are set in an objective, transparent and equitable way. The calculation
methodology is based on a two-step approach:
i.
Defining the distance bands
Basic statistical calculations were carried out on the cost per km per country and the data
showed that there are coherent results: the higher the distance, the lower the cost per
kilometre. The methodology to determine the number of bands for which a distinct unit travel
cost shall be allocated consists in grouping into the same large band the sub-bands which do
not show a significant difference in their average cost per km and are characterised by a low
standard deviation (deviation from the average value of the sample). A significant difference
in the average cost per km between bands determines the start of a new large band.
Initially 25 sub-bands with a distance of 500 km were created and the average cost per
kilometre per each sub-band was calculated. Then sub-bands with an insignificant difference
in the cost per kilometre were merged creating larger bands. A preliminary approach resulted
in the establishment of eight travel bands that showed a smooth development of the
methodology across all distances. Then some of the travel bands with a high concentration of
observation were split additionally in order to improve the readability for the user, avoid too
large steps between bands and reduce the overall complexity of the system towards
applicants/beneficiaries. The main rationale to further split the bands with a high frequency of
travels was to reduce the deviation from the average real cost value of the band, ensuring that
unit cost proposed would be closer to the real cost for 81,5% of the observations that fall in
the distance 500-1.999 km, enabling a budgetary neutral model.
Additionally, aiming to further simplify the model, the last four bands were merged in two
(band 5 and 6 were merged in one, and band 7 and 8 in another larger band), reducing the
number of total bands to six. The reduction of the cost per kilometre by the increase of the
distance is less present in higher distances. Moreover, the standard deviation has a tendency to
decrease in high distance bands. Thus merging the last four bands in two, results in creation of
homogeneous bands. The number of beneficiaries for distances above 4.000 km consists only
in 3,55% of the sample, which is very low compared to those in the first four bands, thus the
impact on the total budget is limited.
At a global level, splitting the bands with a high concentration of travel and merging the ones
less represented, resulted in a budgetary neutral model, which is at the same time simple to
implement.
ii.
Defining the unit cost per kilometer
The unit costs for each band are calculated as the average of the product of the statistical
indicators (mode, median, mean) of the distances with the statistical indicators of the cost per
km (mode, median, mean) for that respective band. These unit costs per each distance bands
were further reduced in order to ensure compliance with no-profit and co-financing rules.
This approach resulted in the establishment of the following final distance bands:
5
BAND
Band 1
Band 2
Band 3
Band 4
Band 5
Band 6
DISTANCE
100 – 499 km
500 – 1.999 km
2.000 – 2.999 km
3.000 – 3.999 km
4.000 – 7.999 km
8.000 – 19.999 km
UNIT COSTS
EUR a)
EUR b)
EUR c)
EUR d)
EUR e)
EUR f)
The dataset showed a high correlation between the distance and the decreasing cost per
kilometer, except for the shorter distance travels (up to 499 km), which showed a much higher
standard deviation due to their diverse nature in particular of the segment 0–99 km. However,
this segment concerns a very small percentage of mobilities (0,14%) and was not considered
as disruptive for the methodology. Nevertheless, it was finally decided not to fund individual
travel for distances below 100 km to avoid possible profit making for very short distances
which do not meet the main objectives of the actions. However, a distance band from 10 to
99 km shall be maintained for group mobility of young people in Youth exchanges and for
mobility of young people participating in Key Action 3 – Youth Structured dialogue, which
focus on different populations of beneficiaries including those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, who would not participate if no contribution to costs is made even for
very short distances. Thus, the potential negative impact on mobility shall be limited since in
case of group mobility the loss would be multiplied by the number of participants. This
decision takes into account also the fact that young people's mobility under the Programme
might be proposed by organisations, including municipalities, engaged in cross-border
cooperation.
iii.
Conclusion, no-profit and co-financing
To test the validity of the adopted approach, several simulations were performed, comparing
the unit costs proposed with the average real costs. Moreover, the impact of the unit costs on
the total budget was assessed. The results of the simulations confirmed that the unit cost
proposed for each band results in a unit cost close to but below the average real cost of the
beneficiaries in the sample, thus the no-profit rule and the co-financing rate is ensured.
Furthermore, the proposed unit costs do not take into account the inflation of the period, thus
ensuring lower final grant amounts and further compliance with the no-profit and cofinancing principles. This shows that the underlying option constitutes a reasonable proxy for
reality, respects the Commission principles for simplified grants, and would greatly simplify
the implementation of Key Action 1. Moreover, there is no risk of unequal treatment between
potential beneficiaries. Therefore, this method has been chosen as the most appropriate to
cover travel costs under K ey Action 1 mobilities described in section 1. The methodology
shall be applied also to travel cost funding for youth workers and volunteers' mobility under
youth Capacity building mobility activities in Key Action 2, the Eurydice networks under Key
Action 3 (see Annex XI) and the Jean Monnet activities (see Annex XII).
6
iv.
Additional applications
Although sharing a similar trend, young people's group mobility under the Youth exchanges
differed by more than 25% in absolute values from the other sectors since it has different
structure (including a higher percentage of short distance travels compared to individual
mobilities, higher possibility of receiving travel discounts, etc.). Therefore, it has been
decided to treat it separately although applying the same methodology. The simulation
performed resulted in lower average rates per distance band. In order to ensure budget
neutrality (producing the same number of outputs with the same budget allocations) and
further reduce the risk of profit-making, a lower co-financing rate of 75% (with figures
rounded to the nearest multiple of EUR 10) of these averages was applied. By setting lower
rates than the ones for individual mobility, it has been further ensured that the final grant
amounts shall not have the purpose or the effect of producing profit within the framework of
the youth activity performed. The rate for the additional distance band (10-99 km) was
established by multiplying the unit cost per km of the first distance band (100-499 km) to the
average distance between 10 and 99 km and rounding-up the figure to the nearest multiple of
EUR 10. The grants currently awarded in Youth in Action justify that the reduced grant level
for group mobility in Youth exchanges are sufficient to attract the necessary demand in
number and quality.
The methodology for group mobility shall apply also to the contribution to travel costs for
Youth exchanges under youth Capacity building mobility activities in K ey Action 2 and
Youth Structured Dialogue in Key Action 3.
For Strategic partnerships under Key Action 2, for Transnational project meetings, a unit cost
per participant shall be awarded. Differentiation has been made between long and short
distance travel in order to cater for the additional travel costs of participants in case of long
distances. For distances up to 1.999 km the second distance band shall be applied, while for
the small number of expected longer distances (from 2.000 km) - the third one. In order to
prevent profit-making by projects with very short distances for transnational travel (e.g. crossborder bilateral projects), no grant support shall be provided for travel distances below
100 km, in line with the approach taken also in K ey Action 1 for the same reason.
Furthermore, the maximum grant support is capped at an amount equivalent to 40 mobilities
for the short distance range per year per project. The objective of the introduction of this
ceiling is to ensure that projects focus their cooperation on meaningful activities and outputs,
and to prevent that disproportionate grant amounts are awarded. Applicants and beneficiaries
shall indicate and justify the number of short and long distance travels for transnational
project meetings (including frequency and number of participants) and NAs shall sample
check on the distances indicated.
Similarly, for Transnational learning/training/teaching activities related to Strategic
partnerships different unit costs for short (up to 1.999 km) and long (from 2.000 km) distance
travels shall be awarded - second and third distance band apply respectively. Distances of less
than 100 km, however, have been excluded for the travel component of the grant to avoid
profit-making. In the application form, applicants must indicate the number of participants
7
and the distance per activity, on the basis of which the total grant request shall be calculated.
NAs shall be sample checking the respect of the distance bands by beneficiaries.
The same methodology shall be applied to embedded mobility for Knowledge Alliances and
Sector Skills Alliances under Key Action 2.
d) Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
The entitlement to the grant would be subject to provision of proof at organizational level that
the planned activities and output covered by this part of the total grant has been put into
effect, i.e. the beneficiary shall demonstrate that the action requiring the travel took place as
foreseen.
Entitlement shall be assessed on the basis of the achievement of the objective of action or subaction to the agreed standard. Training shall be provided to NAs and to experts on the
selection and evaluation of applications.
e) Update of the approved methodology
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7.
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
8
Annex 3 of 13
ANNEX III Individual support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to eligible costs covering individual support for mobility incurred by
beneficiaries under the Programme, shall take the form of unit costs.
The proposed simplified grant system covers subsistence and where appropriate other related
costs for the following actions and types of activities.
Learning mobility of individuals under Key Action 1. More specifically, the activities:
− learning mobility of vocational education and training (VET) learners and staff
− learning mobility of higher education (HE) students and staff
− learning mobility of school education (SE) staff
− learning mobility of adult education (AE) staff
− learning mobility of youth volunteers
− large-scale volunteering projects
Strategic partnerships under Key Action 2. More specifically, the activities:
− transnational learning/training/teaching activities
− transnational project meetings
− multiplier events
Capacity-building (Youth) under Key Action 2.
Due to the different nature of the activities and therefore of the relevant eligible costs, the
annex has been subdivided into different chapters concerning:
A) individual support for staff in SE/AE/HE/VET, learners in VET and Youth Volunteers
(including large-scale volunteering projects)
B) individual support for students in HE
The amounts of the unit costs to be used shall be calculated in accordance with the method
described in section 3 of each chapter.
2.
Justifi
c ation
Mobility under Key Action 1 is intrinsic to the main results of the action (e.g. a student or
staff member needs to travel to another country to take part in the learning activity which is
the object of the action) and is high in volume, therefore the checking of real costs is no
longer justified. I n Key Action 2 and Key Action 3 mobility is not a goal in itself but a
support to achieving the objectives.
The use of simplified forms of grants under Key Action 1 is of great importance since the
largest portion of available funds in the new programme period shall be allocated to these
actions. Through a single grant application, the coordinator of a mobility project will be able
1
to apply for one or several individuals (learners and or staff) to participate in mobility
activities across Programme Countries. I n Key Action 2 and Key Action 3 the travel
component of the action should be simplified to facilitate the planning of the mobilities during
the period.
Utilisation of unit costs considerably simplifies, streamlines and reduces the time needed for
the financial management of projects, both at Commission, Executive Agency and National
Agency as well as at beneficiary levels. It is thus much more cost-effective and economically
sound than item-based budgeting, especially as the actual amounts disbursed are calculated on
the basis of the number of mobilities linked to specific results produced by the projects.
2
CHAPTER IIIa Individual support for staff in SE, VET, HE and AE, learners in VET
and Youth Volunteers
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
See section 1 of Annex I and section 2 of Annex I I on the nature of the supported actions
under Key Action 1 and Key Action 2.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a)
Data sources
The analysed real cost data for VET, AE and SE staff and VET students were extracted from
LLPLink. The data represented actions of the sectors’ programmes Comenius, Grundtvig and
Leonardo for the period 2011-2012 and covered all the LLP Programme Countries1. The
initial database consisted of 59.369 entries for Comenius, 9.977 for Grundtvig and 106.658
for Leonardo.
For the purposes of the analysis of HE staff between Programme Countries, Erasmus staff
teaching subsistence rates for 2010-2011 have been examined. These figures only take into
account Union funding.
I n order to analyse the impact on youth learners, closed projects data was extracted from
YouthLink database.
b)
Sample
The existing dataset of subsistence costs for VET, AE and SE staff and VET students was
cleaned to ensure that the data referred to mobilities of less than 84 days of stay. After the
twelfth week, travel costs were included in the initial data and therefore it was not possible to
extrapolate the subsistence real costs. These data were therefore not included in the sample.
Data with unclear country codes, with zero or undefined subsistence costs or without
identification of the sending or destination country were also excluded. Finally, extreme
values i.e. items in which the total reported subsistence cost per day per person was below
EUR 1 or above EUR 300, were excluded from the sample. After the cleaning, the sample
consisted of the following data: Comenius (8 students; 45.222 staff), Grundtvig (0 students;
7.889 staff) and Leonardo (52.689 students; 12.845 staff).
Observations with duration of less than 14 days for VET learners were excluded from the
sample because VET mobilities of less than 14 days shall not be allowed in the Programme.
1
Previously called participating countries under LLP (replaced by Programme Countries under the Erasmus+ Programme).
The current list corresponds to European Union Member States, I celand, Turkey, FYROM, Liechtenstein, Norway and
Switzerland.
3
For the HE staff, grants with an amount equal to zero have been excluded as well as all
mobilities where subsistence and travel were merged together in one single grant. Among
31.620 mobilities, 19.854 (or 63% after data cleaning) reported a separate subsistence grant.
99,6% of mobilities were below 2 weeks.
For youth learners, the sample included project data from 2007 onwards. The total number of
participants in European Voluntary Service (EVS) activities per year is around 10.000.
c)
Analysis
After cleaning the existing dataset, the individual daily real cost per receiving and sending
country was calculated. In order to do this, the subsistence costs per person indicated in the
database were divided in bands based on the period of stay. Staff and student mobility with
duration of 0 – 14 days were considered as short-term mobilities, as was the practice in LLP.
Due to large differences in the average subsistence cost per day in available data for VET
students and staff, it was decided that these represented different target populations and so
they were analysed separately.
Basic statistical calculations were carried out on the subsistence costs per participant per day.
The data showed that there are coherent results: the higher the duration of stay, the lower the
subsistence cost per day. After analysis of various options, three coherent subsistence duration
bands were identified. The duration bands take account of the decreasing subsistence cost per
day as the duration increases.
At an early stage of the dataset analysis the following methodologies and values for staff
subsistence were tested in order to simplify the current grant system:
1) A fixed rate per country group based on MIPS rates (i.e. per diem rates used by the
Commission to cover staff mission costs, which have been calculated on the basis of
both daily allowances and the ceilings for hotel costs) - Countries were grouped based
on MIPS rates. Unit costs were established as weighted average of MIPS rates, taking
into account the impact of both sending and receiving countries.
2) A fixed rate based on real costs per country group based on living cost - Countries
were grouped based on living costs (high, medium and low living cost countries).
Rates were established as weighted average of subsistence cost per day by taking into
account the impact of both sending and receiving countries.
3) A fixed rate per country based on MI PS - A fixed subsistence daily rate based on a
percentage of MIPS per receiving country for the first duration band and a digressive
rate for the second and third duration band.
4) A flexible rate within a pre-defined range per country based on MIPS - A predefined
range set for all destination countries for the first duration band. The minimum and
maximum values are calculated as a percentage of MIPS. Lower ranges were set for
the second and third duration bands in keeping with the methodology used in MIPS.
The methodologies were tested through a series of simulations to ensure that all factors
relating to the criteria used for the calculations were taken into account. The simulation
4
consisted in comparing the reported real costs and proposed rates both from a sending and a
receiving country perspective; assesing the impact on the number of mobilities and grant
amount (if any); and identifying a methodology which would be applicable for all Key
Actions. After analysis the first three options were discarded.
The simplified grant system based on unit costs per group of countries based on MI PS
thresholds was not considered to provide added value compared to an approach per country
because of the lack of transparent criteria for dividing countries into objective groups.
Furthermore, the budgetary impact was less neutral under this approach.
A unit cost per group of countries based on cost of living groupings would have the advantage
of harmonisation with the country grouping applied for the mobility for HE students.
However, the simulation resulted in large variations compared to real costs for a significant
number of countries and was therefore unacceptable. As opposed to HE where National
Agencies or Higher Education I nstitutions (HEI s) have a large history of grouping the
countries or even providing the same grant level independently from the receiving country,
this is not the case for other sectors of education where the level of the grant differs for each
receiving country. In addition, the level of additional sources of funding for the beneficiary to
complement Union funding for SE, VET and AE learners is very limited as compared to HE,
which justifies a different approach.
A grant system based on a percentage of the MIPS rate per receiving country represented the
most transparent, easy to use and relevant option both for staff and students. However, for
VET students the analysis of the underlying data showed very wide ranges of current real
grants. This is due to historical different NA approaches to setting national rates to take
account of the offer and demand as well as of additional sources of financing for the
beneficiary where these exist.
Finally, a range of percentages of MIPS per person per day per country is proposed as it most
closely reflect historical real costs. Furthermore it will enable NAs to take account of different
levels of offer and demand as well as additional sources of funding where these are managed
by the NA. More specifically, the method consists in using a flexible rate within a pre-defined
bracket per destination country.
The Commission will define criteria for determining when a National Agency should apply
the different levels of the range.
Implementation in Key Action 1
i.
HE, VET, AE and SE staff mobilities between Programme Countries
For VET, AE, SE and HE staff mobility between Programme Countries the range was fixed at
30-60% of MIPS for each destination country. This range proved to be the most representative
of subsistence costs per day, taking into account the variation of subsistence costs between
countries. The main advantage of this option is that the NAs2 shall apply rates between the
2
In the field of HE, the level of the grant may be fixed by the NAs or HEIs - flexibility could be granted to HEIs
based on justified grounds, such as countries where co-financing is available at regional or institutional level.
5
minimum and maximum rates in the range in order to optimise the number of mobilities,
depending on two criteria:
- the level of demand and
- the level of co-financing (at national, regional or local level)
As mentioned above, the daily subsistence amount shall be decreased for longer mobility
periods. There will be two ranges:
− from 1 to 14 days a rate within the range 30-60% of MIPS by receiving country is applied
and
− from 15 to 60 days set at 70% of the rates paid for up to 14 days.
This approach is transparent and easy to understand for beneficiaries, ensuring equal
treatment. Countries can make grants which take account of different demand levels per
destination country. The differences in the living cost of the destination country would also be
respected by each sending country, independently from the percentage of the range that would
be applied.
I n order to assess the impact on the number of mobilities and the budget, simulations were
carried out on the basis of data on mobilities which took place in 2011-20123. The results of
the simulations showed that the no-profit and co-financing rule are applied at a global level
and no structural statistical deviations appear.
The minimum value of the range set at 30% of MIPS rate represents on average 56% of the
average subsistence real cost per day. The low co-financing rate is explained by the fact that
some NAs have very low subsistence real costs per day due to external sources of co-funding.
The individual co-financing rate for each NA, using the minimum value of the range is always
lower than 80%. The maximum rate set at 60% of MIPS corresponds to the reduced value of
the highest average subsistence real cost per day per country. The broad range from 30-60%
of MI PS reflects the high historical discrepancy of average subsistence real costs per day
between NAs.
Sending NAs shall set a single rate within in the range for each type of activity that shall then
apply across all receiving countries4. The sending countries shall set a maximum of 4
percentages: one for SE, AE, HE, VET staff respectively. The Commission shall define
criteria for determining when a National Agency should apply a certain level within the range.
3
For the simulations based on a range of rates, if the average LLP real grant falls within the range then it is used
to simulate the number of mobilities. If the average LLP real grant is lower or higher than the proposed range,
then the minimum and maximum values of the range are applied for the simulations.
4
I.e. if the middle of the range is appropriate, the NA will apply 35% of MIPS rate per country to all individual
support contributions.
6
ii.
VET Student mobilities
The same methodology has been applied to VET student mobilities under Key Action 1. A
pre-defined range of 10-40% of MI PS shall apply to VET student mobilities from 1 to 14
days.
There will be two lower ranges:
− from 15 to 60 days set at 70% of the rates paid for up to 14 days
− and from 61 days to 12 months set at 50% of the rates paid for up to 14 days.
I n order to assess the impact on the number of mobilities and the budget, the Commission
simulated the use of the simplified grant system on the basis of data on mobilities which took
place in 2011-20125. The results of the simulations showed that the no-profit and financing
rule are respected at a global level for VET Student mobilities and no structural statistical
deviations appear.
The minimum value of the range set at 10% of MIPS rate represents on average 35% of the
average subsistence real cost per day. The low co-financing rate is explained by the fact that
some NAs have very low subsistence real costs per day due to external sources of co-funding.
The individual co-financing rate for each NA, using the minimum value of the range, is
always lower than 80%. The maximum rate set at 40% of MI PS correspond to the reduced
value of the highest average subsistence real cost per day per country. The broad range from
10-40% of MIPS reflects the high historical discrepancy of average subsistence real cost per
day between NAs.
Finally, setting a range of rates instead of a fixed rate by receiving country respects the
differences in the level of demand by sector and the national co-funding between NAs, at the
same time will give NAs the flexibility to set a national rate that respects the no-profit and cofinancing rule. This approach enables equal treatment of beneficiaries by respecting the
differences in the living cost of the destination country.
Sending NAs shall set a single rate within in the range for each type of activity that shall then
apply across all receiving countries. The sending countries shall set one percentages VET
students. The Commission shall define criteria for determining when a National Agency
should apply a certain level within the range.
iii. Youth volunteers
A similar methodology has been applied to participants in EVS and large-scale volunteering
projects. For long-term activities of more than two months between Programme Countries,
however, the contribution shall be calculated on the basis of daily allowances for missions
(i.e. an element in the calculation of MIPS rates). For this type of activity, 120% of the daily
allowances for missions according to the destination country shall be given to each volunteer
as monthly 'pocket money'. This grant is a small contribution to additional personal expenses
of volunteers which are not supported by the EVS receiving organisation and provided to the
5
For the simulations based on a range of rates, if the average LLP real grant falls within the range then it is used
to simulate the number of mobilities. If the average LLP real grant is lower or higher than the proposed range,
then the minimum and maximum values of the range are applied for the simulations.
7
volunteer6. I n order to avoid too strong disruption compared to the historical grants a
limitation to 7,5% of any decrease shall be respected. This limitation was applied in analogy
with the methodology applied for the definition of the grant item for organisational support
item (see Annex IVb lett.c).
For long-term activities taking place in Partner Countries the unit cost to be applied as
monthly 'pocket money' is set for all these countries at 90% of the lowest value applied in EU
countries (Romania). This approach reflects the fact that a) Partner Countries are a marginal
target of the youth actions, b) the quasi totality of Partner Countries targeted by the youth
actions have lower GDP levels compared to Programme Countries, although volunteers are
carrying out their tasks in international contexts where the living costs are close to European
standards c) also considering point a) above, the benefits produced by a more tailor-made
approach in the definition of these rates would be disproportional compared to the disruptive
effects in the formulation of the Action in terms of simplicity and user-friendliness.
For short-term activities (14 days – 1 month), these monthly values of the scales of unit costs
are transformed into daily rates.
Implementation in Key Action 2
iv. Strategic Partnerships
For the transnational learning/training/teaching activities as regards individual support under
this grant item, a differentiation is made between the grant rates for staff and learners, on the
same basis as the one applied under Key Action 1, between staff on the one hand and VET
learners on the other. This is also in line with the current approach for example for student
mobility in Intensive Programmes in HE and for individual pupil mobility in the SE sector.
For reasons of coherence and budget neutrality, it is not possible to introduce the same grant
levels for staff and learners7.
− Long term staff teaching and training of 61 days to 12 months:
A different daily contribution shall be fixed per country, equal to the average of the range
set for staff mobility under Key Action 1 (title i).
There will be a basic contribution from 5 to 14 days and a lower contribution (2nd band)
from 15 to 60 days set at 70% of the contribution paid for up to 14 days. A further
reduction of 50% shall be applied (3rd band) for each day in the travel period from day 61
to 12 months.
− Long term school pupil study periods of 61 days to 12 months:
Eligible costs for pupils participating in a long-term mobility are similar in nature to ones
for youth volunteers in Key Action 1. Therefore, the same methodology as for long-term
EVS and large-scale volunteering projects shall apply i.e. 120% of the daily allowances for
6
I.e. a contribution to the costs borne by the host organisation, such as the volunteers' food, lodging and local
transportation costs. The volunteers' preparation, training and mentorship shall be provided through the grant
item 'Organisational support' (cf. Annex IV).
7
Learners often stay overnight in different conditions compared to staff (e.g. in families, youth hostels, etc.)
8
missions according to the destination country given to each participant as monthly 'pocket
money'.
− Short term staff mobility:
A single daily contribution shall be fixed for all countries, established according to the
formula :
unit costs/day = average (average value of the minimum and maximum values of the
basic range per country for 1-14 days for staff mobility under point i)
There will be a contribution from 5 to 14 days and a lower contribution from 15 to 60 days.
This lower range is set at 70% of the contribution paid for up to 14 days.
− Short term learner mobility:
A single daily contribution shall be fixed for all countries, established according to the
formula :
unit cost/day = average (average value of the minimum and maximum values of the
basic range per country for 1-14 days for student mobility under point ii)
There will be a contribution from 5 to 14 days and a lower contribution from 15 to 60 days.
This lower contribution is set at 70% of the contributions paid for up to 14 days.
The described methodology and grant levels for transnational learning/training/teaching
activities shall apply to both Programme and Partner Countries.
For the transnational project meetings, in addition to a contribution for travel costs (see Annex
II), a participant shall receive a fixed contribution to subsistence costs based on the average
rate for staff mobility for SE, VET, HE and AE of all Programme Countries (cf. point i).
Participants qualifying for a band 2 travel contribution shall receive 3 days of subsistence
rates for the duration of 5-14 days for short term staff mobility in transnational
learning/training/teaching activities. Participants qualifying for a band 3 travel contribution
shall receive 4 days of subsistence. However, to prevent profit making by projects with very
short distances for transnational travel (e.g. cross-border bilateral projects) and in line with the
approach taken in Key Action 1, no grant support is provided for subsistence for participants
travelling less than 100 km. The same methodology and grant levels shall apply to Partner
Countries.
For multiplier events the individual support unit cost is used as a proxy to contribute to
project costs. On the basis of a restricted sample of centralised multilateral partnerships in the
LLP, a correlation was found between the average rate per day (over all countries) for
individual support and the contribution to costs for organising conferences. Although the
simplified funding system for Strategic Partnerships action is based on the methodology for
individual support, it is underlined that the grant contribution for multiplier events is meant to
cover only the cost of the organisation of such events and not the subsistence or travel costs of
the participants. The unit cost per participant is used as a measure to calculate the
contribution. To cater for the higher cost of attracting participants from abroad there will be a
different unit cost for participants from a host country and for participants from abroad. The
9
unit cost per participant from the event hosting country is based on the average single rate of
individual support for one day for short term staff mobility with duration of 5-14 days. For
participants from other countries the unit cost above shall be applied for two days, reflecting
the additional costs related to the effort required to attract such participants (e.g. translation of
documents). The total grant for the project shall be capped at an amount equivalent to a
maximum number of participants for the whole project duration.
As multiplier events can only be supported in view of disseminating on a larger scale the
outputs produced by the project, it is logical that participation in such event by persons from
the participating organisations cannot be considered. The same methodology and grant levels
shall apply to Partner Countries.
v. Capacity-building (Youth)
The same methodology has been applied as for youth volunteers under Key Action 1.
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
Entitlement shall be assessed on the basis of the achievement of the objective of action or sub
action to the agreed standard. Training shall be provided to NAs and to experts on the
selection and evaluation of applications.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6
10
CHAPTER IIIb Individual support for students in higher education
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
I ndividual support for higher education students (for studies and traineeships) is a
contribution to the additional costs of mobility when studying or following traineeships
abroad, as defined in the Work Programme. The grant takes the form of a single unit cost per
person, per month representing a contribution to both travel and subsistence costs for
mobilities of between 2 and 12 months between Programme Countries.
Under the LLP (2007-2013) this action funded more than 250.000 mobilities per year. As a
low value, recurrent item and with a high volume, this single unit cost has long been
considered as an appropriate item for simple grant funding.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a)
Data sources
The analysed data was extracted from the Erasmus internal database gathering all the reported
data related to Erasmus student mobilities. These data are cleaned and validated by National
Agencies and cover only Union funding (i.e. national, regional or institutional co-funding is
not included). The lastest available data when starting the analysis was for the academic year
2010/2011. When data for the academic year 2011/2012 has been available, a simulation has
confirmed the results obtained with data from the previous academic year.
b)
Sample
All the grants provided to the 231.408 mobile students during the academic year 2010/2011
have been analysed (as well as the 252.827 mobilities for the academic year 2011/2012).
c)
Analysis
In the 2007-2013 LLP, the maximum grant amount for travel plus subsistence per person per
month and per destination country was adopted by the Commission. Guidelines were given to
National Agencies and to higher education institutions to establish the final grant amount,
such as taking into account the level of co-financing (national, regional or institutional
additional sources of funding), the distance between the home and destination country, the
type of mobility as well as the socio-economic background of the student.
When reviewing historical data, it was noted that:
• the average grant variation according to the destination country is very low. The
variation of the monthly grant is much higher according to the sending country;
• the wide variations observed are correlated mainly with the 4 following parameters:
o the difference in the living costs between the sending and the destination country
(the higher is the difference, the higher is the grant level),
11
the level of co-financing at national, regional or institutional level (the higher is
the level of co-financing, the lower is the grant level),
o and the level of demand in the sending country or institution (a high level of
demand leading to a reduction of the average grants to maximise the number of
mobilities),
o the remoteness of the sending country or region;
wide variations exist in the way the destination country is taken into account by the
sending countries, with 2 extremes: the grant level is unique for all students in the same
sending country and independent from the destination country; 33 different grant levels
are fixed for each destination country;
grants for traineeships are on average higher by 50% as compared to grants for studies;
wide variations are observed in the way the socio-economic background of the student
is taken into account.;
the remoteness of outermost regions are dealt with in many different ways depending on
the countries.
o
•
•
•
•
I n order to ensure higher harmonisation, equity, transparency and fairness for the student
grants between the countries and their institutions, and to take into account the new
specifications of the programme legal base, different options have been analysed for the new
programme:
1) a fixed single grant amount (EUR/month) set at Union level for all destination countries;
2) three fixed single grant amounts (EUR/month) set at Union level depending on the sending
and destination country;
3) limited fixed ranges set at Union level taking account of the sending and destination
countries, where the Commission would define criteria to allow the sending countries to
determine the level of the grant within the fixed ranges.
The simulations performed were based on the actual budget expenditure and numbers of
mobility for this action in the academic years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. The mathematical
model used assumes that with the same budget, the more the level of the grant is reduced, the
more students within a given country can benefit from a grant and vice versa. However, this
assumption is moderated by additonal assessment which indicates that in certain countries, in
particular those with a low living cost (group 3), a lower amount would not motivate young
people to be mobile and therefore the demand would drop. So the increase in the number of
mobilities in these countries might be overestimated.
After analysis, the first two options were discarded for the reasons outlined below.
The first option would be the simplest and the most transparent. However, it would not be in
line with the legal base of the Programme mentionning that the living cost of the destination
countries should be taken into account when establishing the level of the grant. In addition, at
constant equivalent budget, fixing the single grant amount at the current Union average would
lead to a drop of up to 50% in the number of mobilities that could be funded in the 4 top
sending countries (i.e. ES, DE, FR, IT, providing more than 50% of the the total number of
12
mobilities under the LLP). Consequently, this system was considered as an inadequate
simplified funding model.
The second option would be in line with the legal base of the Programme. It would also be
more equitable as compared to the first option as it would take account of 3 types of mobility
flows (mobility between countries of similar living costs, towards lower living costs, towards
higher living costs). I t would also allow for a better harmonisation of country groupings as
compared to the current practice under the LLP. Although this option presents important
advantages as compared to the first option, the system would still lead to a significant
reduction in the number of total outbound mobilities (20%), in particular from ES (redution of
60%), FR, DE, and IT, as it would not take into account the level of co-financing and/or high
level of demand in these countries.
The third option, as detailed in the following paragraphs, is considered as the most suitable
funding model ensuring a greater harmonisation, transparency and equity. This model takes
account of the economic situation of both sending and receiving countries, as well as other
important factors such as the socio-economic background of students, higher travel costs from
ultra-peripheral regions or countries (e.g. CY, MT, I S, outermost regions and Overseas
Countries and Territories), higher accommodation costs because of shorter mobility periods
(in the case of traineeships) in a fair and transparent way. Persons with special needs (e.g.
requiring wheelchair transport) may receive an additional contribution based on real
additional costs (they would not be included in the unit cost). At constant equivalent budget,
this model allows to maintain a similar level of number of mobilities as compared to the LLP
across all the Programme Countries (at +/- 10%).
i.
Student mobility for studies between Programme Countries in HE
The proposed funding model is based on a better harmonised approach for grouping the
countries as compared to the LLP. Additionally, by introducing a simple adaptation of the
grant amounts according to the sending and destination country, the system will be able to
ensure a stable, transparent, coherent and reasonable difference between the groups, while
taking into account the particular situation of the sending country (co-financing, level of
demand).
Group 1
Receiving countries
Medium range
Group 1
Sending countries [x−y] EUR/month
Group 2
Medium range
Sending countries
+ at least EUR 50:
Group 3
[c−d] EUR/month
Sending countries
Group 2
Receiving countries
Medium range
[x−y] EUR/month
Group 3
Receiving countries
Medium range
- at least EUR 50:
[a−b] EUR/month
Medium range
[x−y] EUR/month
13
All students within a given HEI shall receive the same level of contribution from Union
funding for the same destination (except those with special needs or from a disadvantaged
background which may receive an additional funding where justified).
In order to create a transparent and easy to use system, the destination countries were divided
in 3 different groups according to their living costs, thus proposing 3 different rates instead of
33. The 3 rates would be applied according to the 3 types of mobility flows: mobility between
countries of similar living costs, towards lower living costs, toward higher living costs.
Country groupings8:
Group 1 – Countries with High living costs
Group 2 – Countries with Medium living costs
Group 3 – Countries with Low living costs
Lower and higher level grants (depending on the destination country group) are to be
calculated by subtracting or adding at least EUR 50, with a resulting amount of not less than
[x-50] EUR/month and not more than [y+50] EUR/month.
Students from outermost regions, CY, MT, IS, and Overseas Countries and Territories would
benefit from a higher level of grant, to take into account the constraints imposed by their
remoteness and other specific conditions (according to recital 29a of the legal base), i.e. a
subsistence rate of EUR y+300/y+250/y+200 per month depending on the destination (Group
1/2/3 respectively) plus a travel grant according to the distance band (see grant item 'Travel
costs support' in Annex II). This results from an analysis of the historical data.
I t is important to underline that the basic principles of the Financial Regulation concerning
equality of treatment of the same category of beneficiairies and good financial management
can only be respected by establishing a range of values for each contribution. This is
necessary to take account of the different levels of additional sources of funding (at
institutional, regional or national level) to complement Union funding which are available in
some countries and also the different level of demand from one country or institution to
another. As is the case now, national, regional or any other co-funding managed by another
organisation than the National Agency (e.g. Ministry or regional authorities) is out of scope.
Thus, this type of top-up to grants provided by other sources of funding than the Union budget
is not subject to the amounts and min/max ranges. Only when the national co-funding is
managed by the National Agency together with the Union funding as a single budget, the total
grant given to each beneficiary and mobility participant has to respect the Union rules,
including the min/max range for individual support grant levels for subsistence.
As is appropriate under indirect management, the Commission shall define the criteria to be
applied to determine the level of the medium grant (i.e. for mobilities to countries of the same
8
Based on Eurostat data
14
group) within a range fixed at [x−y] EUR/month9. This level then defines the upper and lower
groups also. The choice of the level of the grant should be based on 2 criteria:
- the level of demand
- the level of other sources of co-financing (whether at national, regional or institutional level)
Although the proposed methodology still allows differences in the Union contribution
between two students from the same group of countries, the range of grant levels shall be
significantly reduced (from EUR [0 -939] under LLP to EUR 0 and EUR [200-500] under the
Programme).
Based on an opt-in/opt-out option (to be decided by national authorities and implemented by
all HEI s of the country), NAs shall have the possibility to add a top-up of 100-200
EUR/month for students from disadvantaged groups being mobile for studies10. The precise
level and the criteria for identifying this target group would have to be decided at national
level by the National Authorities. At equivalent budget level, it has to be taken into account
that this measure would reduce the overall number of mobilities with an impact that would
differ from country to country, depending on the percentage of students targeted by national
criteria (which is less than 10-15% for the majority of the countries). This would be
compensated by a higher budget in the Programme.
ii.
Student mobility for traineeships between Programme Countries in HE
For traineeships a higher grant amount shall be fixed than for studies. The difference is due to
the following factors:
− traineeships consist in a shorter average duration of the mobility period so the relative
travel cost is higher;
− accommodation and living costs for the students are generally higher due to the nonpresence of university residence and restaurants;
− many reductions which are offered to students in universities are not available for students
working in a company.
The approach for determining the grant for traineeships between Programme Countries is
based on the methodology for student mobility for studies between Programme Countries. In
the case of a traineeship the same rates shall apply, with the addition of a top-up of between
100 and 200 EUR/month. This top-up shall be applied taking account of the following
criteria:
- level of demand
- level of co-financing for this type of mobility
In all cases, the same level should be given to all students within a given HEI, independently
from any possible top-up and/or contribution in kind that the student may receive from the
host company. The top-up for disadvantaged groups does not apply in this case.
9
The level of the grant may be fixed by the NAs or HEIs - flexibility could be granted to HEIs based on justified
grounds, such as countries where co-financing is available at regional or institutional level.
10
Students from disadvantaged groups are students that are socio-economically disadvantaged (other than those
with special needs)
15
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
Entitlement shall be assessed on the basis of the achievement of the objective of action or sub
action to the agreed standard. Training shall be provided to NAs and to experts on the
selection and evaluation of applications.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7.
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
16
Annex 4 of 13
ANNEX IV Organisational Support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to organisational costs i.e. eligible costs directly linked to the preparation,
implementation and follow-up of a mobility activity, incurred by beneficiaries under the
Programme, shall take the form of unit costs per participant. In particular, the simplified grant
system shall cover the organisational costs for the following actions and types of activities:
Learning mobility of individuals under Key Action 1. In particular, the activities:
− learning mobility of vocational education and training (VET) learners and staff
− learning mobility of higher education (HE) students and staff
− learning mobility of school education (SE) staff
− learning mobility of adult education (AE) staff
− mobility projects for young people, youth volunteers and youth workers
− large-scale volunteering projects
Capacity building (Youth) under Key Action 2.
Stakeholder dialogue, policy and programme promotion under Key Action 3. In particular, the
activity:
− youth structured dialogue
Due to the different nature of the activities and therefore the relevant eligible costs, the annex
has been subdivided into different chapters concerning:
a) organisational support for SE/AE/HE/VET
b) organisational support for young people, youth volunteers and youth workers (including
youth capacity-building and youth structured dialogue)
The amounts of the unit costs to be used shall be calculated in accordance with the method
described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
Utilisation of unit costs considerably simplifies, streamlines and reduces the time needed for
the financial management of projects, both at Commission and National Agency as well as at
beneficiary levels. It is thus much more cost-effective and economically sound than itembased budgeting, especially as the actual amounts disbursed are calculated on the basis of the
number of participants and linked to the quality of the support provided to participants in
learning mobility.
The use of simplified form of grants for Key Action 1 – Learning Mobility of Individuals in
the Programme is of the great importance since these grants represent the largest portion of
funds to be disbursed under the Erasmus+ Programme. Furthermore, simplifications to all
actions implemented by NAs improve efficiency and effectiveness.
1
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
See section 1 of Annex I and Annex XIII on the nature of the supported actions under Key
Action 1, Key Action 2 and Key Action 3.
The organisational support in Key Action 1, Key Action 2 and Key Action 3 is a contribution
to costs incurred by organising institutions related to the preparation, implementation and
follow-up of activities in support of (incoming and outbound) student and staff mobility for
SE, HE, VET, AE and Youth. The individual activities assumed by these institutions may
vary from one case to another but essentially apply to administrative and local logistical tasks.
Examples of these activities are:
− Selection of students and staff
− Provision of language preparation (for short term mobilities for SE, AE, VET, young
people, youth volunteers and youth workers and for short and long term mobilities in HE)
− Information and assistance to students and staff
− Academic and organisational arrangements with partner institutions including visits
− Arrangements for the monitoring of outgoing and incoming students and young people
− Organisation of feedback from returning students and staff
− Specific arrangements to ensure high quality of learning mobility through learning/training
agreements
− Validation and recognition of learning outcomes of mobility participants
− Cultural and pedagogical preparation
In the case of activities in the field of youth, and depending on the nature of the activity, they
also cover:
− Subsistence and local transport of participants
− Renting or premises
− Training and pedagogic materials
− Mentorship of volunteers
− Costs related to trainers, speakers, moderators, lecturers
Beneficiaries of the grant shall be the institutions organising the activities. Among these
institutions are:
− Sending organisations in charge of selecting, monitoring and supporting learners or staff
and sending them abroad
− Hosting organisations in charge of receiving foreign learners or staff and offering them a
programme of activities, or benefiting from a teaching activity1
− Consortium coordinators leading a national consortium of partner organisations aimed at
sending learners and staff to activities abroad. The Consortium coordinator can also – but
not necessarily – act as sending or hosting organisation.
1
In the case of youth activities in Key Action 1 and Key Action 3, both Sending and Hosting organisation can
submit an application. Ex ante verifications during the selection stage (based on the composition of the
partnership and type of activities envisaged) ensure the absence of double funding of the same projects with the
same partners. Additionally, ex post checks in the Mobility Tool (on the basis of participants) ensure the
absence of double funding of the same participants within the same timeframe.
2
The use of unit costs for the contribution to organisational cost is more suitable compared to
the other forms of simplified grants (lumps sums and flat-rates) because it establishes a closer
link between costs and outputs. The unit cost funding is thus also in the interest of the
applicants as it takes into account the flexibility required by the nature of the costs and the
activities involved. Additionally, in the case of youth structured dialogue, it takes country
differences into account which would be difficult to estimate for the creation of a lump sum.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5
3
CHAPTER IVa Organisational support for SE, VET, HE and AE
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a)
Data sources
The initial database was based on an extraction from LLPLink containing real historical
grants awarded of projects carried out in 2011 - July 2013. Specifically, the extraction was
focussed on data concerning grants awarded for the organisation of mobility under the LLP
(2007-2013), in particular under the 3 sub actions of the Leonardo da Vinci actions (VET
sector) and 2 sub actions of the Erasmus actions (HE sector)2. A total of 5.789 and 3.271
observations were available for VET and HE respectively.
b)
Sample
Consequently, two samples were selected from the data source: one for Leonardo da Vinci
and one for Erasmus respectively. The first stage of the analysis focused on organisational
support for VET staff and students, covering all the LLP participating countries (33).
Furthermore, as the second sub action of the sector's programme (LEO02 – People in the
Labour Market) shall not be part of the future Work Programme, it was not taken into account
in the analysis. After the data selection, extreme values were excluded on a statistical basis in
order ensure the robustness of the sample. This resulted in a final sample of 4.643
observations. The second stage of the analysis focused on organisational support for HE staff
and students, covering all the LLP participating countries (33). After cleaning this resulted in
a final sample of 2.779 observations.
c)
Analysis
In order to identify a unit cost contribution for organisational support for SE, VET, HE and
AE which covers all the costs related to the preparation, implementation and follow-up of
activities (see section 2.1), the following approach was taken:
a. The historical grants awarded for VET students and staff were analysed to identify the
optimal grant amount per participant.
b. The possibility of implementing the same rate for VET and HE was tested on the basis of
the available historical data of real grants awarded.
c. A portion of the contribution to cultural and pedagogical preparation which was previously
funded separately was added to the unit cost per participant.
d. An estimation was made to cater for eligible costs related to additional tasks (improve
quality) funded under the Programme.
e. Consideration was given to the need to take account the economy of scale effect.
More specifically, the analysis consisted of the following steps:
2
Initial database covered following sub actions:
− LEO 01: LEONARDO DA VINCI IVT (Initial Vocational Training);
− LEO 02: LEONARDO DA VINCI PLM (People in the Labour Market);
− LEO 03: LEONARDO DA VINCI VETPRO (VET Professionals);
− ERA02: ERASMUS Mobility HEI
− ERA 04: ERASMUS Student Mobility for Placements - Consortium
4
Under the LLP NAs in VET applied a unit cost up to a maximum amount determined by the
Commission. Therefore, the first step in the analysis consisted in calculating the effective
average grant per participant. The analysis concluded that a single unit cost for both sub
actions equal to the rounded overall average of the contribution per participant is appropriate.
The preference for using a single unit rate for both actions can be further motivated by the
similarities in the list of organisational support activities for VET staff and students and by the
same level of quality requirements set for both actions. Historical data of average real grants
awarded in HE were comparable with those of VET.
Grants for organisational support in SE and AE were awarded to individuals under the LLP,
but will be awarded to institutions under the Erasmus+ Programme (as was already the case
for VET and HE under the LLP)3. For this reason, it was not possible to simulate the impact
of the rates using similar historical data on real grants awarded for organisational support. As
the same types of outputs are required and the same eligible costs are funded in these sectors,
the rates set for VET and HE were extrapolated to SE and AE.
In the LLP a maximum lump sum amount of EUR 500 per participant was foreseen for
pedagogic, linguistic and cultural preparation of learners. In practice the average grant
awarded was approximately EUR 220. In the Erasmus+ Programme however, only linguistic
support for long term mobilities shall still be directly funded through a specific grant item
(cf. 'Non-online linguistic support' in Annex V). Based on historical data, the cultural and
pedagogic preparation roughly corresponds to half of the real average grant awarded for
pedagogic, linguistic and cultural preparation of learners. Thus, 50% of the average grant for
pedagogic, linguistic and cultural preparation of learners will be transferred to the
organisational support unit cost per participant.
A supplementary contribution to eligible costs generated by additional tasks required under
the Erasmus+ Programme was calculated. The aim of the additional tasks is to improve the
quality of the preparation, implementation and follow-up of activities organised by the
beneficiaries. For example, this will generate additional staff costs, costs for organisation of
meetings etc. Real historical cost data for these additional tasks is not available. However,
based on the review of other similar historical data, it was estimated that a contribution to
these costs of around 15% of the unit cost amount for organisational support and for the
cultural and pedagogical preparation could be considered as a reasonable incentive to pay
additional attention to quality.
Analysis of the data for the VET sector did not demonstrate a marked economy of scale
effect, as the vast majority of grants were awarded to institutions managing 40 or less
participants. In the HE field, however historical data clearly indicated that an economy of
scale effect of approximately 45% on average takes place for organisations with more than
100 participants. In order to reflect this economy of scale effect, the unit cost per participant
will be decreased by approximately 45% for institutions managing >100 participants
compared to those managing < 100 participants.
3
The objective of the change of approach is to improve the quality of preparation, implementation and follow-up
activities in support of student and staff mobility.
5
Feedback from the National Agencies confirmed that this level of contribution will only
partially cover the real costs of these tasks. This will ensure compliance with the co-funding
principle on a global level.
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
Entitlement shall be assessed on the basis of the achievement of the objective of action or sub
action to the agreed standard. Training shall be provided to NAs and to experts on the
selection and evaluation of applications.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See also Annex I Introduction of the Decision, section 7.
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
6
CHAPTER IVb Organisational support for young people and youth workers
The methodology determining the contribution to the costs of organisational support for the
European Voluntary Service (EVS), mobility of youth workers, large-scale EVS events and
youth exchanges has been authorised in Commission Decisions: C(2009)10214 of
18.12.2009, C(2011)6259 of 07.09.2011 and C(2011)9584 of 21.12.2011.
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a)
Data sources
The methodology is based on two separate data sources.
A first survey-based analysis has been performed in 2009. All available final reports of
projects granted in 2007 and 2008 were extracted from YouthLink in order to establish a
sample for the survey.
The historical real cost data analysed in 2011 was based on projects granted in 2010 which
were extracted from YouthLink.
b)
Sample
After extracting the final reports in 2009, the source was cleaned by removing all projects
containing incomplete or erroneous data4. To avoid addressing the same respondent multiple
times in the survey, projects submitted by the same applicant were removed. Finally, a data
sample of 603 projects (or 5% of the projects granted in 2007 and 2008) was selected from the
cleaned data source.
In case of the 2011 analysis, projects containing non-realistic values or incomplete data were
excluded from the sample. After cleaning the final sample consisted in 3.678 projects (1.365
Youth Exchanges, 1.972 European Voluntary Service, 341 Training and Networking), which
represented more than 80% of all projects in concerned Actions of the Youth in Action
Programme.
c)
Analysis
As the activities for young people and youth worker under the Erasmus+ Programme are
already implemented in the Youth in Action Programme, the methodology determining the
contribution to the costs of organisational support for young people and youth workers is the
same as authorised in Commission Decisions: C(2009)10214 of 18.12.2009, C(2011)6259 of
07.09.2011 and C(2011)9584 of 21.12.2011. The methodology authorised in the above
mentioned decisions is described below.
Until 2009, the grant for the projects funded through lump sums and unit costs was based (in
most kinds of projects) on:
− a real-cost based contribution to the travel costs (mostly at 70%) and
− a combination of various lump sums and/or unit costs based contribution to other costs.
4
In particular, the excluded data concerned projects where the applicant's email address was not available,
values were not realistic or not all data was encoded.
7
The participating countries were given the flexibility to adapt these grant rates to their
national context and to other elements of the project costs within a range of 30% of this rate.
In 2009, a process of rationalisation of the recourse to the existing lump sums and unit costs
was introduced for a number of budget items which form an element of the organisational
support: "Advance Planning Visit", "Preparation" and "Activity costs"5. This update was
based on the results of a survey launched among a sample of finalised projects which inquired
about real cost expenses of beneficiaries (see point a). The survey demonstrated that the
funding rules applied until 2009 did not lead to profit for the organisations and groups and
respected the principle of co-funding (average of 82.53% co-financing). With a view to
increasing the number of projects fundable with a same budgetary envelope and based on the
experience of the first years of the Youth in Action Programme, the levels were further
reduced. Finally, a change was introduced in the determination of the national values of the
lump sums and unit costs.
The results of the survey demonstrated that in certain countries with a low cost of living the
cost of hosting participants could be relatively high depending on the hosting infrastructure of
the country6. Therefore, instead of allowing participating countries to adapt the rates, the
Commission determined fixed unit cost rates taking into account the cost of living factor
and/or an infrastructure factor for certain budget items, with a limitation of the possible
decrease to 7,5% of the 2009 unit cost (to avoid too strong disruptions compared to the 2009
unit costs)7. Following several simulations conducted by the Commission, the 7,5% ceiling
was considered as the most appropriate correction factor in order to achieve the results of
a) applying a transparent methodology in the definition of rates applicable in each country,
thus discontinuing previous practices which until that moment were allowing countries to
adapt rates on the basis of non-homogeneous criteria; and at the same time b) limit the
excessive decreases compared to the previous year which would have determined a political
stand in some countries leading to the non-adoption of this methodology. This correction
factor also contributed to bring the average co-financing lower than 80%. These changes led
to the adoption of the new lump sums and unit costs for 2010 and 2011 (see decision
C(2009)10214 of 18 December 2009).
In 2011, a second analysis was performed in order to further simplify the funding system. In
the new system only one single unit cost per country would apply instead of using, for one
5
Advance Planning Visit: unit cost (per participant per night) to cover the costs incurred by the
organisations/groups of a future Youth Exchange when meeting in this type of visit. Preparation: unit cost (per
organisation/group) for the preparation of the Youth Exchange during the months preceding the exchange.
Activity costs: a lump sum and two unit costs (per promoter and per participant per night) for the activity costs
supported during the Youth Exchange.
6
Indicators are available in Eurostat reflecting this dimension, relating to "Hotels and similar establishments" or
to "Other collective accommodation establishments".
7
The cost of living factor for each country was calculated in relation to the average of all participating countries
(expressed as 100%). In order to reduce the disadvantage of countries with low living costs, the cost of living
factors for countries below the average were weighted. For these countries the difference between the national
factor and the average factor of 100% was reduced by 33%.
8
given grant, a combination of various lump sums and unit costs8. The single unit cost is to be
multiplied by the number of participants and by the duration of the activity.
Based on the selected sample in 2011 (see point a), the average pattern of the grants (average
number of participants, average number of organisations/groups, average activity duration)
was calculated and rounded in order to establish a unique unit cost per country which would:
− be equal to the previous combination of (the 2010 and 2011) lump sums and unit costs per
country and
− respect budget neutrality.
For short term EVS, the monthly values of the unit costs related to organisational support are
transformed into daily rates. For youth mobility projects, submitted by national/regional
public bodies or private bodies active in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)9, the same
funding rules shall be applied, however, the contribution for organisational support shall be
halved compared to standard youth rates. Additionally, the Commission proposes to apply a
fixed unit cost for projects taking place in Partner Countries, set at 90% of the lowest value
applied in EU countries, which is in line with the approach for Individual support for Youth
volunteers participating in long term activities in Partner Countries (cf. Annex III).
An ex post analysis confirmed the respect of the budgetary neutrality of the simplification
introduced: for each type of project supported by Youth in Action, the global envelope
allocated in 2012 divided by the total number of participants in 2012 gives a result very close
(rather smaller) to the global envelope allocated in 2011 divided by the total number of
participants in 2011. No significant changes in the situations related to these actions justify a
revision of this methodology currently.
Organisational support for youth mobility activities embedded under Capacity Building (Key
Action 2) may take the form of youth exchanges, EVS and mobility of youth workers. The
methodology and specific unit costs identified above also apply to these activities when they
are embedded under youth Capacity building projects for cooperation with Programme and
Partner Countries.
A simplified budget model using unit costs is also proposed for Key Action 3 Youth
Structured Dialogue. Bearing in mind the fact that the Youth Exchanges supported under Key
Action 1 and the youth meetings supported under Key Action 3 have a similar format, similar
target groups of participants and similar underlying costs (i.e. both activities are short term
8
Per activity the following budget items were combined in a single unit cost:
Youth Exchanges: a unit cost for Advance Planning Visit, a unit cost for Preparation, a lump sum for Activity
costs, a unit cost (per promoter) for Activity costs and a unit cost (per participant per night) for Activity costs.
EVS and large-scale EVS events: a unit cost for Advance Planning Visit, a unit cost for Sending activity, a unit
cost for Host activity, a unit cost (per promoter) for Coordination, a unit cost (per volunteer) for Coordination
and a unit cost for Reinforced mentorship. Mobility of youth workers: a lump sum for Activity costs, a unit
cost per participant for Activity costs, a unit cost for Food and lodging and a unit cost for Training.
9
The aim of the CSR is to increase the number of young people and youth workers in Europe benefitting from
mobility actions in the youth field, by attracting new actors (regions, national bodies, private organisations)
who can couple Union funds with a higher level of complementary own resources with a view to realising the
mobility projects. This approach is in line with the principle of the EU 2020 Strategy, which calls the
Commission to optimise the Union spending in a way that triggers the mobilisation of additional public and
private financial resources.
9
gatherings of young people carrying out a residential activity, with the support of trainers,
youth leaders, facilitators, experts, etc.) it is proposed to use the same rates and the same
method of adaptation at country level for both types of projects. By consequence, based on
this assumption, the respect of the no-profit rule and co-financing maximum rate can be
deducted. The maximum Union contribution which can consist in a contribution for travel and
organisational support will be capped per project.
In order to verify the impact of this proposal on the Structured Dialogue, an analysis was
carried out on a sample of 276 realised projects currently supporting the same typology of
actions and funded under the Youth in Action Programme. The findings of this analysis show
that the application of these rates will result in an overall decrease of budget spending for the
whole action as compared to budget consumptions in the last years.
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
Entitlement shall be assessed on the basis of the achievement of the objective of action or sub
action to the agreed standard. Training shall be provided to NAs and to experts on the
selection and evaluation of applications.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
In the case of actions in the field of youth, the respect of the no-profit rule is ensured on the
fact that for mobility actions, the funding rules have been set up in continuity with the rules
and amounts currently applied under Youth in Action, as authorised in Commission
Decisions: C(2009)10214 of 18.12.2009, C(2011)6259 of 07.09.2011 and C(2011)9584 of
21.12.2011. The basis for the definition of such rules and amounts is a Commission survey
carried out in 2009 and aimed at quantifying the real costs incurred in Youth in Action
projects (youth exchanges, European Voluntary Service and mobility of youth workers;
i.e. the same formats of mobility activities continued under the Erasmus+ Programme). Such
survey showed that the average percentage of co-financing of these kind of projects was, in
2009, 82,53%. This average has been further decreased. Following the definition of simplified
grants applied as of 2010, the new method of calculation of the grant produced a decrease in
the average project grant of maximum 7,5% compared to the previous years. On this basis, it
can be considered that the no-profit principle is respected and that the co-financing is not
higher than 80%.
10
Annex 5 of 13
ANNEX V Non-online linguistic support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
Linguistic support for the 5 languages of instruction/work most often used in Union learning
mobility (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish) will be offered centrally through an
online system. For other languages, the service will not be offered centrally and participants
may follow other market alternatives.
L inguistic support shall be provided to participants under the Programme, Key Action 1 Learning mobility of individuals for long-term mobilities (> 1 month for VET learners and >2
months for EVS volunteers) and Key Action 2 - Strategic Partnerships, Transnational
learning, teaching and training activities (mobilities > 2 months).
The contribution to eligible costs related to linguistic support for languages which are not
offered centrally through an online system, shall take the form of a unit cost per person. The
eligible costs for the above mentioned grant item are related to language training. The
amounts of the unit cost to be used shall be calculated in accordance with the method
described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
This is a low value item where the cost-benefit of checking individual documentation is
negative.
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
In the Context of the Programme systematic linguistic support shall be provided for long term
mobilities. Linguistic support shall focus on long-term mobility as this ensures the best return
on investement. As a consequence this shall not cover mobilities below 2 months except for
VET learners.
The initiative aims at increasing the quality and effectiveness of each mobility activity.
L inguistic support would also contribute to improving language learning performance of
participants and optimise the benefits of their mobility.
By offering linguistic support, the European Commission will be able, on the one hand, to
gather information on the level of language skills among participants in mobility activities
through an online assessment of language competences for the languages available online and,
on the other, to offer appropriate support to those in need of improving their competences in
the language(s) of instruction/work on a voluntary basis.
According to historical data on L L P mobility principally in the VET field, between around
80% and 90% of participants in mobility activities use English, French, German Italian and
Spanish. For these languages, the simplified form of grant for VET learners and EVS shall not
1
apply. A centralised online scheme consisting of standardised compulsory online assessment
and optional online language courses shall be set up.
Exceptionally for long term mobility (> 2 months) in projects under the Transnational
learning, teaching and training activities, for 2014 the grant support for linguistic preparation
shall be available also for the 5 languages most often used in Union mobility. This exception
is justified by the need for linguistic training specific to the sector in which the beneficiary
will work and which cannot be assured by the online language system at the beginning of the
Programme.
For languages of instruction/work different from English, French, German Italian and
Spanish, which represent between 8% and 20% of languages used in mobility mainly for VET
in LLP, linguistic support would be provided as a simplified form of grant.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a)
Data sources
The analysis was carried out using a data set of reported eligible cost, collected through an
online survey of individual persons having participated in the mobility actions and received a
grant for linguistic support (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents'), under the L L P in
2011-2012 covering costs for all types of language training in all languages.
The data represent the survey containing 1.745 responses. The data collected was divided into
2 language groups corresponding to English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, and to
languages covered by non-online language courses/training.
b)
Sam ple
After cleaning of the database, 1.359 observations remained.
In addition to the main analysis of the survey, simulations were carried out using real grants
awarded for linguistic costs recorded in L L P L ink in representative actions of the sectors'
programmes (L eonardo, Comenius, Grundtvig) for the years 2010-2012. In this dataset, no
difference in between languages was indicated.
c)
Analysis
The assessment was constrained by a number of factors. The data for non-online language
courses/training represented only 18,5% of the data collected. When analysed by type of
training (book, classroom, etc.), by language and by country, not all combinations were found
to be covered by the data. Furthermore, the data collected indicated the period during which
the training took place but was not always precise on the actual number of days of training
undertaken by respondents.
2
Although the data was initially analysed at a detailed level, due to the above-mentioned
constraints, a global analysis approach was considered more appropriate. The mathematical
average (rounded) of all types of language trainings was calculated on the basis of total real
costs reported in the survey divided by the number of the respondents and equals EUR 210
per person per course:
However, the average cost per person per course for online language training was equal to
EUR 150. To encourage participants to use online trainings wherever possible it is proposed
to set the contribution for non-online linguistic support at the level of the average cost per
person per course for online language training.
As the average cost per person per course was EUR 210, setting the unit cost per person per
course of EUR 150 ensures that Union co-financing rate of 80% is respected.
Additional simulations performed on real grant awarded showed that the median and mode for
L eonardo da Vinci action (Initial Vocational Training and VET Professionals) is equal to
EUR 200 and rounded mathematical average is equal to EUR 180.
The methodology described shall apply to both Programme and Partner Countries.
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
Entitlement shall be assessed on the basis of the achievement of the objective of action or sub
action to the agreed standard. Training will be provided to NAs and to experts on the selection
and evaluation of applications.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7.
4.
No profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
3
Annex 6 of 13
ANNEX VI Course costs
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to course costs i.e. any cost directly linked to payment of fees for the
enrolment in structured courses except for language learning, incurred by beneficiaries under
the Programme, Key Action 1 - Learning mobility of individuals, staff training abroad shall
take the form of unit costs per day per participant. In particular, the simplified grant system in
the form of reimbursement of unit costs shall cover the course costs for the following
categories of activities:
− mobility for school education staff (SE)
− mobility for adult education staff (AE)
The amounts of the unit costs to be used shall be calculated in accordance with the method
described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
Utilisation of unit costs considerably simplifies streamlines and reduces the time needed for
the financial management of projects, both at Commission and National Agency as well as at
beneficiary levels. It is thus much more cost-effective and economically sound than itembased budgeting, especially as the actual amounts disbursed are calculated on the basis of the
number of days linked to specific results produced by the projects.
The use of simplified forms of grants under Key Action 1 – Learning Mobility of Individuals
is of a great importance since these grants represent the largest portion of funds to be
allocated.
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
Prior to embarking on a mobility action, certain categories of school or adult education staff
may need prior training in technical or cultural topics. Eligible training activities must
concentrate on providing participants with practical teaching skills, techniques, methodologies
or skills related to management of learning. The training may take the form of a structured
course, informal training (e.g. placement or shadowing) and participation in a recognised
European conference or seminar.
The activities in which course costs shall be reimbursed are staff training abroad for school
education and adult education staff mobility.
The reimbursement of course costs in the case of professional development activities abroad
aims to facilitate the participation of school and adult education staff in structured courses on
topics of pedagogy and subject specific in–service training of staff in these fields of
education.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
1
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a)
Data sources
The analysis was carried out using real course costs recorded in LLPLink in representative
actions of the sectors’ programmes (Comenius, Grundtvig) for the years 2008-2012. The data
covered individual staff mobility in all the countries (33) participating in the Lifelong
Learning Programme including accession countries.
b)
Sample
A sample of 47.891 individual mobilities remained after the first cleaning of the database.
Cleaning refers to the work carried out to ensure that the data was complete and consistent
with the thresholds imposed by LLP general guideline and consisted of the following steps:
− Elimination of actions from the analysis which differ in duration from other actions or
which will no longer be part of the working programme
− Elimination of observations with real course costs lower than EUR 10
− Elimination of rows with missing sending and hosting country
− Elimination of outlier values of real course cost per day. R eal course cost per day
calculated as total course cost divided by the number of days
− Elimination of observations with number of days more than 12 months
The reliability of data is particularly significant for lump sums, flat rates and unit costs, which
are determined on the basis of statistical data drawn from previously funded actions. A
number of difficulties have been encountered in establishing a robust data set, including
inconsistent data reported by the beneficiaries. To mitigate this constraint values more than
three standard deviations away from the mean were excluded from the sample.
c)
Analysis
The method used to determine the unit cost rates for courses is based on historical data drawn
from previously funded actions. For each course, the course cost per day per participant was
calculated.
Calculations were carried out on the course cost per day per duration band and per country.
The data showed that there are coherent results: the longer the duration of the course, the
lower the course cost per day. The historical costs indicate that a total of 71% of the courses
are concentrated in 5 countries, out of which 41% are conducted in United Kingdom, the rest
is spread over 29 countries. Countries with a high concentration of course days influence the
overall average course cost per day.
As there was no correlation between the GDP per capita or Living Cost Index and the average
course rate, it was concluded that there would be no objective criteria for a country by country
analysis or for grouping the countries. Consequently, the analysis was conducted using a
common unit cost for all countries.
2
Four different options were explored as possible measures for the implementation of lump
sums or unit costs in course costs:
− Single unit cost per day for all duration bands
− Unit cost per day capped by a maximum amount per course
− Unit cost per day per duration band
− Fixed unit cost per duration band
During the analysis of various options, five coherent duration bands were identified. The
results showed that 91% of the courses are concentrated in the second and third duration band,
i.e. from 6-20 days. In order to set a unit cost per day, the weighted average course cost per
day was calculated for each band. This revealed a high negative correlation between the
duration of the course and the average course cost per day. The overall average of the course
cost is similar to the average of the most frequent duration, while the average for short
duration courses is very high. In the same way, the average course cost per day for long term
courses is very low.
It is proposed to adopt a unit cost per day capped by a maximum amount per course, as this
approach is the most representative of the real costs.
Conclusion, no-profit and co-financing:
The unit cost is calculated as a discounted value by 5% of the overall average of the analysed
sample. Setting a single unit cost resulted in applying different discounting rates for each
duration. This is in line with the strategic objective of the Programme. In order to give
incentive to longer term courses instead of very short courses (1-5 days) that are more
expensive, a higher discount rate is applied to courses shorter than 5 days.
Additionally, the cap amount shall be set at 10 days of the daily unit cost. The main rationale
to cap at the 10th day is 1) to introduce a co-financing rate of approximately 20% at a global
level; 2) be representative of real costs in overall terms given that after the 10th day the course
cost per day falls drastically; 3) compensate high volume countries that have an average
course per day lower than the overall average of the sample but an average duration higher
than the cap duration.
A series of simulations were performed to test this approach. The results indicated that the
overall budget under this approach is lower compared to the real costs and the reduction in
general is proportional between countries. Furthermore, it has proven to be the most suitable
3
option to ensure a transparent, simple and coherent system and equal treatment across the
participating countries.
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
Entitlement shall be assessed on the basis of the achievement of the objective of action or sub
action to the agreed standard. Training shall be provided to NAs and to experts on the
selection and evaluation of applications.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7.
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6
4
Annex 7 of 13
ANNEX VII Project Management and Implementation support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to eligible costs related to Project Management and Implementation (PMI),
incurred by beneficiaries under the Programme, Key action 2a - Strategic Partnerships, shall
take the form of unit costs.
The eligible costs for the above mentioned grant item are related to tasks of implementation
and management of the project that are not fundable under any of the other grant items for
Strategic Partnerships. These costs typically include the production of small project outputs,
class room based activities, development and dissemination of process-oriented outputs, costs
of coordination and communication between the participating organisations, etc.
The amounts of the unit costs to be used shall be calculated in accordance with the method
described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
Under the LLP decentralised multilateral partnerships receive lump sum grants, which are
intended to cover all costs incurred by the project, including e.g. development of pedagogical
material, meetings, class-room work, communication and dissemination, etc.
The LLP lump sum rates are based on real cost grants for Comenius school partnerships under
the previous programme (2000-2006).
While it was envisaged to keep this lump sum approach for the Erasmus+ Programme as well,
it finally was decided not to do so for the following reasons:
− The future Strategic Partnerships will cover a wide range of different types of projects, for
which it would not be possible to establish single lump sum grants to cover all types of
activities and costs incurred by the projects.
− Following consultation of LLP National Agencies, it appeared that the current system of
lump sums in some cases tends to lead to projects which prioritise the mobility activities
over the content related part of the cooperation, such as the development of pedagogical
materials, tools, methods. On that basis, a funding system whereby projects receive
funding for a more limited number of mobilities was preferred.
As a consequence of these considerations, a modular grant system was developed for
Strategic Partnerships consisting of 5 unit cost based items1 and 2 real cost based items2.
Within the objectives of this action, individual projects may focus more on certain types of
activities (e.g. process-oriented cooperation projects versus projects focused on the
development of innovative products and outputs) which will give rise to different eligible
1
2
Project Management and Implementation, Transnational Project Meetings, Intellectual Outputs, Multiplier
Events, Transnational Teaching/Training/Learning activities.
Exceptional costs (subcontracting, equipment) and special needs support (costs for participation of disabled
persons).
1
costs. This grant item includes a number of activities that do not really justify the burden of
keeping time sheets and other more cumbersome administrative requirements for costs items
(e.g. incurred administrative staff costs). Hence, it shall be possible for smaller scale projects
within Strategic Partnership to apply only for the PMI costs, combined with a separate grant
item related to travels for Transnational Project Meetings. As a consequence, the
administrative workload linked to the project shall be limited and there shall be a clearer
allocation of contributions to costs. Larger scale and more product oriented Strategic
Partnerships shall be able to apply for specific additional contributions (e.g. Intellectual
outputs support and support for multiplier events) where justified by substantial tangible
outputs (See the budget model for Key Action 2 in Annex XIII).
The use of unit costs is considered as more suitable in comparison with the other simplified
forms of grants for the reasons developed further in the text of the present annex.
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
PMI shall include activities such as:
− Project management (e.g. planning, finances, coordination and communication between
partners);
− Virtual cooperation and local project activities (e.g. class room project work with learners,
development of small scale learning/teaching/training materials and other pedagogical
tools, organisation and mentoring of embedded learning/training activities) and
− Information/promotion/dissemination (e.g. production and distribution of brochures,
leaflets, web information).
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a)
Data sources
The simulation was carried out using data from LLPLink for the Call 2012 on decentralised
multilateral partnerships of the LLP sector's programmes Leonardo, Comenius and Grundtvig.
b)
Sample
The sample comprises two-year projects, receiving a lump sum grant subject to undertaking a
minimum number of mobilities.
Data related to the following activities was excluded from the data source:
− Bilateral partnerships under Comenius involving class exchanges; due to their embedded
learning/training activities
− Leonardo da Vinci Transfer of Innovation projects: these are real cost based and similar to
the centralised LLP multilateral projects
2
− Comenius Regio Partnerships: these are partly real cost based and partly based on lump
sum grants
The final sample included 1.699 multilateral partnerships (1.098 partnerships under COM06,
379 partnerships under GRU06 and 222 partnerships under LEO04).
c)
Analysis
It is expected that the vast majority of Strategic Partnerships in future will continue to develop
essentially process-oriented activities and small scale products, combined with a number of
transnational project meetings and, possibly, some transnational teaching/training/learning
activities. Based on this assumption, the following analysis has been undertaken.
1) Singling out the costs for transnational project meetings from the current lump sums
As the LLP partnerships of the sample analysed represent projects of a two year duration, the
simulation considered that on average an organisation would need 8 mobilities to be able to
participate in two transnational project meetings per year with 2 people. This is consistent
with past practice.
Based on the calculations of unit costs for travel and individual support, a unit cost
contribution for participation in transnational project meetings was established (composed of
the sum of the unit cost of the second distance band for travel, which represented 60% of
mobilities in LLP, and the average number of days of project meetings in multilateral
projects, 3 days, with a unit cost set at the average amount of short term individual support for
staff). This unit cost was used to calculate the cost of the above 8 mobilities per participating
organisation.
2) Establishing different rates for coordinating and partner organisations
A further criticism from National Agencies on the current lump sum rates for the LLP
Partnerships was that the same grant amount would be provided for coordinating and partner
organisations, although it is clear from the applications and beneficiary reports that the
coordinating organisations have a substantially higher workload in a project related directly to
the coordination tasks in a transnational partnership.
As a consequence it was decided that a higher unit cost for Project Management and
Implementation needs to be provided to the coordinating organisation than the partner
organisation. The reason for establishing a different grant amount between the coordinating
organisation and partner organisations is the substantially higher workload related to the
coordination of a project. The coordinator is responsible for the implementation of the project
and has to ensure that all partners contribute to the delivery of the project activities and
outputs according to the agreed timing and quality standards; he has to organise the necessary
project meetings and communication flows. The coordinating organisation is in charge also of
the contractual and financial management of the project: it has to ensure that the grant is used
by all participating organisations in accordance with the contractual provisions, it has to
prepare and submit the project reports to the National Agency and provide all elements
necessary for any type of monitoring or control, including audits. The coordinator also has to
3
ensure that the necessary data collection is ensured in the programme management tools such
as Mobility Tool for the learning/teaching/training activities as well as to provide access to all
project outputs/educational resources produced via the programme dissemination platform in
which it will also have to provide and update the public information on the project.
3) Once these principles were established, simulations have been made of the amounts of unit
cost that would have to be given for Project Management and Implementation in order to
reach the optimal grant levels which reduce the negative impact on the budget and to ensure
equivalent grant levels to the current ones for the Partnerships in the sample that are based on
on 8 mobilities per organisation for a duration of 2 years.
Conclusion no-profit and co-financing:
Once the unit cost amounts for Project Management and Implementation were established, the
total grant for Strategic Partnerships was calculated based on the assumption of projects
receiving a grant for Project Management and Implementation for two years and
8 mobilities/participating organisation for transnational project meetings. Dividing the total
amount per project by the total number of mobilities per project resulted in an average cost for
each mobility that could be compared to the average of mobility costs in the current LLP
partnerships.
On average the amount per mobility based on this calculation is lower than that for the current
real grants for Partnerships with 8 mobilities for Strategic Partnerships counting minimum
4 participating organisations. Based on the sample, 87% of the current LLP partnerships fall
in the category of projects with minimum 4 participating organisations. This ensures overall
acceptable grant levels as well as adequate co-financing by the participating organisations.
Compared to the contribution provided under the LLP, the new funding system would foresee
an average grant per organisation which would be slightly higher in the case of smaller
partnerships and lower in the case of larger partnerships. This is due to the fact that new
funding system shall provide a lower PMI grant for partners than for coordinators, whereas
both types receive currently the same grant level under the LLP. Furthermore, all scenarios
tested in the simulation showed that the average grants per organisation remain well below the
maximum grant levels set under the previous LLP.
The maximum amount of the grant shall be limited to a fixed amount per project capped at a
maximum of 10 participating organisations regardless of the actual number of participating
organisation above 10. Based on statistical data it could be seen that only a few projects
include a larger number of participants. Therefore capping shall prevent an artificial increase
in number of partners to inflate the financial contribution. Furthermore, experience has shown
that high quality outputs are rarely achieved in projects with a large number of partners.
The grant levels for partner organisations in Programme Countries shall also apply to Partner
Countries.
4
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
Entitlement shall be assessed on the basis of the achievement of the objective of action or sub
action to the agreed standard. Training shall be provided to NAs and to experts on the
selection and evaluation of applications.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7.
4.
No-profit and co-financing principle and absence of double funding
See above section 3 and Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
5
Annex 8 of 13
ANNEX VIII Intellectual Outputs support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to eligible costs related to intellectual outputs, i.e. staff costs of persons
contributing to actions undertaken by beneficiaries (hereinafter referred to as "staff costs")
under the Programme, Strategic Partnerships actions under Key Action 2 shall take the form
of unit costs.
The amounts of the unit costs to be used shall be calculated in accordance with the method
described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
This category of costs has been reimbursed under the LLP (2007-2013) as eligible real costs
per country and per category of staff - real daily staff cost rates capped at maximum rates set
by the Commission. To ensure the respect of the co-financing and no-profit rules, the global
co-financing percentage (75%) was applied to the published maximum Union rates. The daily
staff cost rates were based on two studies conducted by consultants, respectively in 2005 and
in 2011 and calculated on the basis of Eurostat statistical information. For 2013, a
stabilisation mechanism was applied to the 2012 staff cost daily rates to limit the observed
negative variations. However, as the updating of these rates is complicated and dependent on
data which is not fully available annually a new approach is proposed. In this context, the
introduction of unit costs offers a significant decrease in the administrative burden and the
corresponding risks in terms of error. Utilisation of unit costs considerably simplifies,
streamlines and reduces the time needed for the financial management of projects, both at
Commission, Executive Agency and National Agency as well as at beneficiary levels. It is
thus much more cost-effective and economically sound than item-based budgeting, especially
as the actual amounts disbursed are calculated on the basis of number staff days required for
the project to produce pre-determined and specific results. Furthermore, it shifts the focus
from staff time investment to the executed intellectual outputs and their quality.
The use of unit costs is considered as more suitable in comparison with the other simplified
forms of grants for the reasons described in section 3.
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
Intellectual outputs in Strategic Partnerships are significant deliverables which require an
input based mainly on staff costs. These can be a wide variety of products such as
contributions to curricula, development and sharing of teaching methods etc. The use of unit
costs for the contribution to staff costs incurred under this module of Strategic Partnership
projects is more suitable compared to the other forms of simplified grants because it enables a
closer monitoring of costs compared to outputs than lump sums. Furthermore, it takes country
differences into account which would be difficult to estimate for the creation of a lump sum as
the partners in each strategic partnership will vary. The unit cost funding is thus also in the
1
interest of the applicants as it takes into account the flexibility required by the nature of the
costs and the activities involved.
The proposed unit costs approach for reimbursement of staff costs represents an important
administrative simplification for both beneficiaries and managing bodies. Contrary to the
funding system under LLP, beneficiaries do not have to provide the administrative documents
related to the staff costs actually paid out (pay-roll extracts, bank transfers, etc.), but shall
have to provide verified timesheets demonstrating the staff time invested in the project. This
will further facilitate long term partnerships and result in a reduced workload and
administrative costs for NAs in terms of checking and it will contribute to lower error rates.
Furthermore, it will enable all stakeholders to focus on quality and impact of the action. The
unit cost system ensures an appropriate contribution to eligible staff costs which can be
planned and predicted by the beneficiaries in advance, provided the planned outputs are
realised at the required quality levels
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a)
Data sources
As regards the Programme Countries, historical real cost data was extracted from LLP
finalised multilateral projects with durations from two to three years funded by 2008, 2009
and 2010 Calls for Proposals in representative actions of the sector's programmes for
Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo, Grundtvig, as well as relevant transversal actions. No data
was available for selected projects under the 2011 and 2012 Calls for Proposals since they are
not finalised yet. Information for some countries was missing in the database as they were not
eligible for participation in LLP projects at the time of application, e.g. Croatia, Switzerland,
some Balkan countries.
b)
Sample
Fifty per cent of these projects have initially been analysed accounting for 378 projects. A
total of around 3.500 observations were analysed. As staff costs consist of four different
personnel categories, this sample counted 1.932 entries for managers, 2.857 entries for
researcher/teacher/trainer (RTTs), 671 entries for technicians, and 1.396 entries for
administrative staff. The initial analysis of data covered a total sample of 599 entries for
Comenius, 1.416 for Erasmus, 655 for Grundtvig, 279 for Leonardo, and 507 entries for
transversal actions, covering 31 LLP participating countries.
Some distortions were detected in the data as well as strong variations not only between, but
also within countries and categories. Therefore, additional data cleaning of extreme values
was performed in order to ensure reliable basis for the analysis. Data referring to real cost
amounts of <50% and >150% of the LLP reference rates in the 2013 Work Programme
examined for a category were deleted from the dataset. The final sample counted with 1.663
entries for managers, 1.806 entries for RTTs, 557 entries for technicians, 955 entries for
2
administrative staff. The final sample ensures representativeness across Programme
Countries, staff categories, types of beneficiaries and geographical spread.
c)
Analysis
A first set of simulations based on an extrapolation of the past methodology for the
reimbursement of real costs capped at maximum daily staff cost rates were performed. In both
2005 and 2011 consultancy studies, the daily rates were calculated on the basis of the index
reflecting the annual labour costs per country (Structure of Earnings statistics and Labour
Cost statistics, published by Eurostat or by the national statistic offices). The simulations
performed did not provide robust results in particular because the relevant Eurostat data was
only partially available. New data for 2010 was examined as regards the Structure of Earnings
Statistics. Although collected in 2012, the updated data on Labour Cost Statistics, is still in
the phase of being processed and shall only be available in 2014. Therefore, the only available
data is the same as the one used by the consultant and refers to 2008 data. Further, Eurostat
confirmed that there is no index that can be used to update these figures. In such a context,
other statistical databases (e.g. World Bank, UNESCO) were considered but no representative
and easily useable sources were found, so finally this option was rejected.
Other analysis carried out looked at the number of man working days in each of the four
personnel categories (managers, RTTs, technicians and administrative staff) and in each
country for the 378 sample projects. Average daily real costs for staff, per category, per
country, per sector were calculated. Results showed that there was not a large difference
between the sectors, except for some peaks from the Transversal actions (, in particular in the
RTT category. An analysis was carried out to compare the average daily real costs per
category per country with the maximum rates set in the LLP Work Programmes 2010, 2011,
2012 and 2013. Additional simulations were carried out to compare the real costs extracted
from the LLP finalised projects with the updated calculations on LLP max rates carried out
with Eurostat’s most recent data. However, as explained above, since the data from Eurostat
was not completely updated and sufficiently representative this approach was also discarded.
The analysis by country over three years resulted in a thinly spread data sample, thus it was
considered more representative to group countries according to an objective criteria and to
calculate a unit cost by category on the basis of statistical analysis of the grouped data.
Finally, the following methodologies and values for intellectual output were tested in order to
simplify the current grant system:
1) Grouping of countries based on real costs
Several simulations were carried out on the basis of real hourly staff costs per person per
category and per country. The aim of the simulations was to identify appropriate country
groupings which would be representative for all the personnel categories. However, none of
the simulations proved to be statistically satisfactory. More specifically, in each simulation 3
or 4 country groupings were established for each of the 4 personnel categories. The country
groupings per category could however not be reconciled into country groupings representative
for all personnel categories as the country groups differed too widely between the 4
categories. Additionally, considerable variations were noted in the number of observations per
3
category from one country to another (possibly reflecting individual choices) which further
reduced the representativeness of the real cost data as an objective basis for dividing the
countries into groups. Consequently, the option of identifying country groupings on the basis
of real costs was discarded.
2) Grouping of countries based on GDP per capita expressed as a percentage of EU27
Another appropriate criterion for grouping was considered to be the GDP1 per capita as a
percentage of EU27 of the countries concerned. Different options were explored to create the
group based approach. The rationale for the group creation was to “cut” the groups at a certain
percentage of points compared to the EU27 one. Data from the GDP statistics2 were ranked
from 1 to 30 (1 being the minimum value and 30 being the maximum value).
Initially, two grouping possibilities were simulated – dividing the total 31 LLP Programme
Countries into three or four groups on the basis of their respective GDP per capita as a
percentage of EU27. In the first simulation (three country groups) countries were identified
according to the following thresholds: ≤ 74%; 75% - 99 % and ≥ 100%. In the second
simulation illustrated in the table below, 3 options were tested in order to maximise coherency
within and between the GDP groups and with the previously simulated real cost based country
groupings. The third option was finally considered as the most appropriate and offered the
following distribution: ≤ 74% (group 4); 75% -99 % (group 3); 100% - 124% (group 2) and ≥
125% (group 1).
1
Gross domestic product (GDP) is a measure for the economic activity. It is defined as the value of all goods and
services produced less the value of any goods or services used in their creation. The volume index of GDP per
capita in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) is expressed in relation to the European Union (EU27) average set
to equal 100. If the index of a country is higher than 100, this country's level of GDP per head is higher than
the Union average and vice versa. Basic figures are expressed in PPS, i.e. a common currency that eliminates
the differences in price levels between countries allowing meaningful volume comparisons of GDP between
countries. Please note that the index, calculated from PPS figures and expressed with respect to EU27 = 100, is
intended for cross-country comparisons rather than for temporal comparisons.
2
GDP (2011) per capita in PPS - Index (EU27 = 100). Source of Data: Eurostat; Hyperlink to the table:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114. In
the absence of GDP data for 2011 for Romania, the table refers to the Eurostat data for the year 2010. For the
same reason, Liechtenstein has been added to group 1 based on the World Bank GDP level per capita of 2009.
4
Table 1. GDP per capita as a percentage of EU27 (2011)
Country
GDP
2011
GDP
Ranking
Bulgaria - BG
Rumania - RO
Turkey - TR
Latvija - LV
Polska - PL
Lithuania - LT
Magyarorszag - HU
Eesti - EE
Slovensko - SK
Portugal - PT
Ceska Republika - CZ
Ellas - EL
Slovenija - SI
Malta - MT
Kypros - CY
Espana - ES
Italia - IT
France - FR
United Kingdom - UK
Island - IS
Suomi - FI
Belgique/Belgie - BE
Deutschland - DE
Danmark - DK
Sverige - SE
Ireland - IE
Oesterreich - AT
Nederland - NL
Norge - NO
Luxembourg - LU
Liechtenstein - LI
46
47
52
58
64
66
66
67
73
78
80
80
84
86
94
98
100
108
109
112
115
119
121
125
127
127
129
131
187
271
N/A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
N/A
5
4 GDP
groups option 1
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 1
group 1
N/A
4 GDP
groups option 2
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 1
group 1
group 1
group 1
group 1
group 1
group 1
N/A
4 GDP
groups option 3
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 4
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 3
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 2
group 1
group 1
group 1
group 1
group 1
group 1
group 1
N/A
The division of countries into four GDP groups was preferable to three groups as it reduced
differences within groups. Having four country groups, each one of which is allocated
different unit staff cost for the four distinct personnel categories, results in sixteen separate
unit staff costs3.
Then a unit cost per category per country group was defined, using the weighted real cost
average for that staff category for that group of countries. The weighted real cost average was
further discounted to 75% in order to ensure compliance with the principle of no-profit and
co-financing of the beneficiaries. Given that real cost data represent years 2008-2010, values
were finally indexed with the quarterly percentage change of labour cost index4 of EU28 from
year 2010.
The GDP per capita-group option is considered a great simplification in terms of homogeneity
and minimising differences between national rates while being at the same time significantly
similar to real costs (both follow a very similar ranking pattern). It represents a more objective
methodology and at the same time ensures that it represents the groups more fairly than under
the approach based on real costs. Results of the simulations performed show that the impact
of this approach is budgetary neutral: 0,05 % difference in total for all four categories and less
than 1% in total for each category with both options. Moreover, countries would benefit from
this option as it would favour the planning of cross-border cooperation projects, as the same
rates would apply to several countries. Furthermore, being based on GDP per capita, the
allocation of countries to groups would be easy to update.
As the number of participating Partner Countries will be at the most very limited and possibly
inexistent, particularly in the first year of the program, and their participation in the action is
new so no real cost data exists, the same methodology and unit cost per category will apply to
Partner Countries with a GDP level which falls in one of the ranges defined above. Partner
Countries with GDP levels lower than group 4 will receive the unit cost contribution per
category set for the fourth group. Countries with GDP levels higher than group 1 shall receive
the unit cost contribution per category defined for group 1. This approach is considered as
acceptable and pragmatic given the lack of real cost data. Maintaining the country groups
already established for the Programme Countries will further reduce the complexity of the
simplified grant system for intellectual outputs. However, the methodology will be kept under
review and adjusted if necessary.5
3
After the GDP country groups were defined, Croatia or Switzerland for which real cost data was not available
and new Programme Countries such as the FYROM were assigned to one of the country groups based on their
GDP per capita as a percentage of the EU27 average.
4
Labour cost index shows the short-term development of the total cost, on an hourly basis, for employers of
employing the labour force. Source of Data: Eurostat.
5
An alternative approach is being considered for implementation under Heading 4. As non EU countries will be
the focus of this action more data will be available to test the most appropriate approach. However at this stage
it would not represent a simplification to implement this approach in Heading 1 actions given the expected
very low participation rate of partner countries in these types of actions.
6
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
The use of this simplified financing system goes hand-in-hand with a very rigorous
assessment of the applications by the experts in order to judge the adequacy between the
outputs planned and the human resources proposed by the applicant. Similarly to budget
based proposals, in the case of unit based proposals the experts in charge of the assessment of
the application are also responsible for verifying the adequacy of all human resources per
country and per category as proposed by the beneficiary, and their relevance for the planned
work package. In addition, rigorous desk and field monitoring of the implementation of the
project activities shall be done by the contracting authority. Training shall be provided to NAs
and to experts on the selection and evaluation of applications.
To distinguish the production of intellectual outputs from those covered by the grant item
"Project management and implementation support" (cf. Annex VII), these outputs shall have
to be set out in detail in the grant application demonstrating clearly the concrete outputs and
the related effort needed to produce them. The types of outputs concerned should be
innovative and creative and be developed with a clear aim of transferability/usability also to
organisations other than those participating in the project. Furthermore, to prevent projects
inflating the staff costs, a specific justification shall be requested from applicants for the grant
requested in support of staff costs. This applies in particular to the staff category of
"manager", as the aim of this cost item is to support creative and innovative intellectual work
and not the management of the project as such. Thus, there should be a very clear information
to applicants/beneficiaries that eligible costs shall only be accepted where there is a direct link
between the tasks of the manager and the realisation of the intellectual outputs in question.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7.
In addition to the continuous review of rates by the commission in cooperation with National
Agencies, it is proposed that country groupings shall be reviewed at least every two years
based on the GDP per capita in PPS - Index (EU28 = 100)6. Similarly, rates shall be indexed
with the Labour cost index7 of EU28 for the whole economy8 at least every two years. As
regards the Partner Countries in particular, the unit cost contributions proposed on the basis of
GDP levels shall be reviewed after the first year of implementation. The budgetary impact
will be minimal, as only a marginal participation of the Partner Countries is to be expected.
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
6
Source of Data: Eurostat; Hyperlink to the table:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114
7
Labour cost index (nominal value) expressed as quarterly percentage change (NACE R2).
Source of the Data:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=teilm120
8
The whole economy (NACE Rev. 2 sections B to S, i.e. excluding agriculture, forestry and fishing, as well as
activities of households as employers and activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies).
7
Annex 9 of 13
ANNEX IX Joint Masters Degrees support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to eligible costs related to Joint Masters Degrees (JMD) incurred by
beneficiaries under the Programme, Key Action 1b - Learning Mobility I nternational (Joint
Degrees) shall take the form of lump sums and unit costs.
The proposed simplified grant system covers the following activities:
− Delivery of JMD by an international consortium of universities, including internal
mobility of academic staff for teaching, research and student supervision purposes;
− Participation of excellent master's students from Programme Countries and Partner
Countries through the award of high level scholarships.
Eligible management costs of the consortium delivering the JMD, including the costs of guest
lecturers invited to contribute to the JMD teaching and training activities, shall be funded on
the basis of lump sums.
Student scholarships awarded to the best master's students worldwide applying to join the
JMD shall cover travel and installation costs, subsistence costs and participation costs
(enrolment, tuition and any other type of fees charged by the universities) and shall be
calculated as unit costs amounts.
The amounts of the lump sums and unit costs to be used shall be calculated in accordance
with the method described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
The financing approach proposed for the JMD support is based on the funding model used by
the Commission since 2004 for the Erasmus Mundus Master Courses (EMMC) and their
scholarships. Similarly to the EMMC, the JMD aim at raising the worldwide visibility and
attractiveness of European universities, allowing them to compete efficiently with other
industrialized regions of the word in attracting the best postgraduate students worldwide in
their aulas1. In this context, the attractiveness of the JMD depends not only on the value of the
scholarships offered but also on the simplicity of the funding scheme, both for their
worldwide promotion/marketing, and for their usage by beneficiaries - students and the JMD
consortia in charge of the management.
I n view of the experience gained and the positive results observed during the ten years of
implementation of the EMMC funding scheme (2004-2008 and 2009-2013), the use of both
lump sums and unit costs appears to be the one which better fulfils that purpose, guaranteeing
an optimal cost/effectiveness ratio for both beneficiaries and Commission/EACEA, while at
the same time securing a sound financial management of the Union budget, as well as further
attractiveness and simplicity of the scheme.
1
Since 2004, the Erasmus Mundus postgraduate scholarships have been the first and unique full scholarship
programme at master's degree level supported by the European Commission with the specific aim to compete
with other international postgraduate scholarships such as the US Fulbright scholarships, the Australian EPSA
or the Joint Japan World Bank Graduate Scholarship Programme.
1
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
See Annex XIII Budget models and section 1 of this Annex with respect to the nature of the
supported actions under Key Action 1.
Since the main objective of this action is to attract the best master's students in European
Universities, most of the funding goes to the individual scholarships. Under the Erasmus
Mundus Programme (2009-2013) the funding ratio was approximately 95% of the grant for
the scholarships and 5% for the management of the consortium delivering the joint
programme. A similar ratio shall be applied under JMD. The programmes shall have duration
of one to two academic years (most joint masters have two years duration) for which students
will have to study in a minimum of two different Programme Countries for a period of at least
six months each. The student scholarships shall cover the entire duration of the programme.
As this action aims at attracting talent to Europe, the bulk of the funding shall go to students
from Partner Countries. Programme countries students will also be offered scholarships in
order to ensure that the JMD are not only attended by Partner Countries students. The budget
ratio between scholarships for Programme and Partner Countries nationals shall be of
approximately 20% and 80 % respectively.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
a)
Data sources
For the purposes of the analysis historical data from progress and final reports of closed and
on-going projects under the Erasmus Mundus Programme for the periods 2004-2008 and
2009-2013 was extracted.
Furthermore, data from the following eight high level international master's scholarship
schemes was examined: Fulbright (USA), Endeavour Postgraduate Scholarship Awards
(Australia), Rhodes (UK), Joint Japan World Bank Graduate Scholarship Programme, Eiffel
Scholarships for I nternational Students (France), Swiss Excellence Scholarships for Foreign
Students, Rotary, Chevening (UK).
b)
Sample
The analysis was based on projects funded under the EMMC scheme.
c)
Analysis
The financing method described below shall be applied to the newly selected JMD and to the
EMMC with an on-going Framework Partnerships Agreement (FPA)2. These FPAs signed
under the Erasmus Mundus Programme (2009-2013) shall be amended so as to ensure that
they are in line with the Erasmus+ Regulation.
2
The EMMC FPAs include the award of a maximum of five specific grant agreements (SGAs) each covering
one intake of scholarship holders. Depending on their selection year, the 138 EMMC FPAs concerned will
have one to four SGAs funded under Erasmus+. Each SGA will include the support to the consortium
management cost for the intake concerned and a variable number of scholarships calculated in accordance with
the method described in the note.
2
i.
Student scholarship amount
I n order to fullfill the attractiveness objective of the action, the value of the scholarship
amount has to be competitive with other international master scholarships offered by private
or public sponsors. This has been the approach followed ten years ago for the definition of the
EMMC scholarship value and the same approach has been repeated for the definition of the
JMD scholarship value. More concretely, eight high level international master's scholarship
schemes were identified and the value of their scholarship compared to the existing EMMC
scholarship already in place. The result of this comparison was that in order for the JMD
scholarships to remain competitive and attractive to the best master's students worldwide, the
EMMC scholarship value had to be maintained and even slightly increased so as to ensure
that a maximum scholarship amount of EUR 25.000 per year could be offered to selected
students3. Since the scholarship has to cover students'
− travel and installation costs
− susbistence costs and
− participation costs (enrolment, tuition and any other type of fees charged by the
universities)
Unit costs have been defined for each of these categories so as to determine the individual
scholarship amount due to each scholarship holder. The final amounts per component have
been defined taking into account the experience gained in the award of EMMC scholarships
as well as the practice observed for the calculation of the above-mentioned international
postgraduate scholarships.
Furthermore, it should be noted that in accordance with Art. 125(4) of the Financial
Regulation, scholarships are not concerned by the 'no-profit principle'. As a result the actual
value of the scholarship, as well as the values attributed to its different components, should
not be assessed in relation to real/actual costs but rather to the appropriateness and relevance
of such values for reaching the scholarship objectives.
Travel and installation costs
Under the Erasmus Mundus programme (2009-2013), the EMMC scholarship contribution to
the travel and installation costs was defined as a single amount of EUR 4.000/year for Partner
Countries nationals, and EUR 3.000 for Programme Country nationals only in the event of a
mobility to a Partner Country higher education institution (HEI).
Although very simple, this approach had the inconvenience to treat all Partner Countries
nationals identically without taking into consideration the distance between their home
country and future host destination. In addition, the intra European travel costs of Programme
Country nationals were not covered at all.
The new proposal presented in the table below aims at addressing these two issues while at
the same time preserving the simplicity and lisibility of the allocation method. I t takes into
account:
− the country of origin of the scholarship holder, distinguishing between Programme and
Partner Countries; only the latter are offered a contribution to their "installation costs" that
shall help them cover the additional costs related to the issuing of visas and residence
3
This corresponds to an increase of 4,2% as compared to the current maximum value of an EMMC
scholarship, which is EUR 24.000.
3
permits, as well as the temporary accommodation needs after their arrival in their European
host country;
− only for Partner Country nationals, the distance between the country of residence and their
JMD coordinating HEI,
− the obligation for all scholarship holders to study in a minimum of two different
Programme Countries4 and the need for the scholarship to cover these mandatory intra
European travel costs.
Resident of a Programme Country
EUR 1.000 per year for travel costs
Resident of a Partner Country whose city is located EUR 2.000 per year for travel costs
at less than 4.000 km from the JMD coordinating EUR 1.000 for installation costs
HEI
Resident of a Partner Country whose city is located EUR 3.000 per year for travel costs
at 4.000 km or more from the JMD coordinating EUR 1.000 for installation costs
HEI
Subsistence costs
Because of the mandatory mobility requirement included in delivery of the JMD (and the
EMMC), and the fact that the students' destination countries are not known in advance and
may vary in number in accordance with the JMD structure and/or the scholarship holder
needs, it is proposed to apply a single unit cost amount of EUR 1.000 per month covering the
entire period of the JMD (i.e. from 12 months for a one year JMD to a maximum of 24
months).
This same amount has been applied since 2009 to EMMC scholarships awarded to Partner
Country nationals. After the analysis of other international postgraduate scholarship schemes
and after verification of the students' living costs in the EMMC most active Programme
Countries, it appears that this amount of EUR 1.000 per month remains attractive and
competitive enough.
Participation costs
As it has been the case since 2009 under the EMMC, the JMD scholarship shall include a
contribution to students' participation costs (i.e. enrolement, tuition fees and other mandatory
fees charged by the JMD consortia to applicant students).
This contribution shall be expressed as a maximum amount covering the JMD enrollment
costs advertised on the consortium website. JMD consortia charging more than the maximum
contribution covered in the scholarship shall be obliged to discount the difference for the JMD
scholarship holders.
I n accordance with the pratice in place in European universities, maximum amounts have
been defined for students coming from a Programme Country on the one hand and those
coming from a Partner Country on the other.
In order to take into account the important increase observed during the last five years in the
tuition fees amounts charged by European universities, the JMD scholarship maximum
4
An analysis recently carried out among 57 EMMC from the earliest generations, shows that each student
travelled 3 times in average during his/her master's studies, without counting his/her travel back home.
4
contribution to the students' participation costs shall increase by 12,5% as compared to the
current practice.
Contribution to the students' participation costs in the JMD
Nationals or residents from a Programme Country
Max. EUR 4.500 per year
Nationals or residents from a Partner Country
Max. EUR 9.000 per year
ii.
Management costs of the consortium delivering the JMD
The JMD Consortium management costs shall be covered through two lump sums of
• EUR 20.000 for the preparatory year
• EUR 50.000 per intake/edition of the JMD
These lump sum amounts have been defined using as reference the most frequent activities
performed by on-going EMMC consortia for their internal management and the
implementation of the joint study programme as described below.
These most frequent activities were identified using a sample of more than 300 progress and
final reports submitted during the last two years by 138 on-going EMMC. They correspond to
the following:
1) Consortia meetings - 2 during the preparatory year and 3 for each of the course
editions/intakes (academic and management boards and committees, annual scholarship
selection, on-going performance assesment and yearly evaluation committee, joint
graduation ceremony);
2) Administrative support (equivalent to 0,5 FTE at the coordinating university and 0,2 FTE
at each of the Partner universities);
3) Promotional and dissemination activities (website, leaflets, posters, videos, awareness
raising activities in Partner Countries);
4) Implementation of an external evaluation exercise for each of the intakes (performed by
external QA experts);
5) Student support and management (monitoring during their placement period,
participation in joint thesis defence, organisation of a joint induction seminar at the
beginning of the JMD);
6) Travel, subsistence and fee costs for invited lecturers.
I n order to ensure that the proposed lump sum amounts guarantee co-funding by the
beneficiary organisations and avoid the risk of profit, a simulation has been carried out using
the unit costs identified for Key Action 1 for each of the corresponding types of expenditure
(for example Travel costs support: unit cost per person per distance band (six separate
distance bands) and I ntellectual output support: unit cost per day per country for staff costs
per category (four groups of countries based on GDP levels).
The two tables below resume the total costs for the activities to be performed during the
preparatory year and during each of the course editions/intakes.
5
a. JMD consortium activities during the preparatory year
Activity
Consortia meetings
Administrative support
Promotional and dissemination activities
TOTAL
Total simulated
staff)
EUR 11.656
EUR 34.584
EUR 13.672
EUR 59.912
cost (travel, subsistence,
b. JMD consortium activities during each of the course editions/intakes
Activity
Consortia meetings
Administrative support
Promotional and dissemination activities
External evaluation exercise
Student support and management
Guest lecturers
TOTAL
Total simulated
staff)
EUR 17.484
EUR 34.584
EUR 13.672
EUR 23.350
EUR 57.972
EUR 15.600
EUR 162.662
cost (travel, subsistence,
It should be noted that some additional costs (such as the costs for consumables foreseen for
the scholarship selection, the information and support of selected candidates, etc.) have not
been included in the lists above since they did not correspond to an identifed unit cost under
Key Action 1.
Compared to the total costs calculated on the basis of the respective unit costs proposed for
Key Action 1 and presented in the tables above, the two lump sum amounts proposed for the
JMD preparatory year (EUR 20.000) and each of its three editions/intakes (EUR 50.000 per
intake/edition) correspond to less than 1/3 of the total eligible costs. Consequently, co-funding
is ensured and the risk of profit largely excluded.
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
The Agency Mobility Tool and the reports submitted by the consortium shall allow to crosscheck:
− the students country/city of origin with the amount of travel and installation contribution
received;
− the amount of participation costs charged as compared to the amount indicated in the JMD
website for the students' enrolment;
− the duration of the study period of each scholarship holder in order to ensure that the
correct number of monthly allocations has been paid.
I n case of doubts, complementary information or payments confirmation shall be requested
from the consortium and/or the grant holders.
The Agency Mobility Tool shall also be used to ensure that the required minimal number of
guest lecturers has contributed to the delivery of the joint study programme/the teaching or
supervision of students for the agreed minimal number of weeks as specified in the grant
agreement. I f the required number has not been reached, the consortium shall be asked to
reimburse the relevant number of equivalent weeks of unit costs.
6
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7.
The methodology described for this grant item shall be kept under review during the
implementation of the Action.
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
As stated in Art. 125(4) of the Financial Regulation, the no-profit principle is not applicable to
scholarships paid to natural persons.
7
Annex 10 of 13
ANNEX X Sector Skills and Knowledge Alliances implementation support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to eligible costs related to Sector Skills and Knowledge Alliances incurred
by beneficiaries under the Programme, Key Action 2b – Partnerships between the world of
work and education and training institutions shall take the form of unit costs.
The implementation support grant item is an Intellectual Output support which uses as a
proxy eligible staff costs. In exceptional cases, when the Alliances foresee learning mobility
activities, an additional component shall be added to this grant item – an embedded mobility
support which covers the following categories of costs: travel costs, subsistence costs and
costs for linguistic preparation.
The amounts of the unit costs to be used shall be calculated in accordance with the method
described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
The current LLP co-funding mechanism (which amounts on average to 75% co-funding of the
project total eligible costs) is budget based whereby the final amount of the co-funding is
calculated as a fixed percentage of the project's total eligible costs after detailed analysis of
the eligibility of each of the following five cost components: staff costs, travel costs,
subsistence costs, equipment costs and subcontracting costs. An analysis of the budget
structure shows that staff costs are the predominant cost item and account for on average 75%
of a project's total eligible cost. Using the budget structure of LLP projects as the basis, it has
been proposed to move to a unit cost funding system for the future Sector Skills/Knowledge
Alliances projects, under which a unit cost is allocated only to the staff cost component (the
beneficiary having the flexibility to use the Union grant for any project item as deemed
necessary). A unit based co-funding system under which a unit cost is allocated only to the
staff component reduces the administrative overheads and increases budget predictability for
both, beneficiaries and EACEA, and facilitates long term partnership, as it only requires the
verification that the man working days truly took place and would remove the necessity for
the verifications of eligibility of across all cost components.
Utilisation of unit costs considerably simplifies, streamlines and reduces the time needed for
the financial management of projects as well as at the beneficiary levels. It is thus much more
cost-effective and economically sound than item-based budgeting, especially as the actual
amounts disbursed are calculated on the basis of the number of staff required for the project to
produce pre-determined and specific results. The establishment of such simplified financing
system goes hand-in-hand with a very rigorous assessment of the applications by the experts
in order to judge the adequacy between the outputs planned and the human resources
proposed by the beneficiary.
1
A unit based co-funding system also ensures budget neutrality since on average, the
beneficiaries shall receive a similar amount of co-funding under this approach than they
would have received under the budget based approach.
2.1. Nature of the supported action
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision with respect to the nature of the supported actions
concerned.
As the flagship European funding programme in the field of education and training, the
Knowledge/Sector Skills Alliances projects are of strategic nature for the modernisation of
Higher Education and Vocational Education and Training systems respectively. The partners
involved will be for example National Authorities, universities, competent bodies in VET,
businesses.
The projects are similar in nature to the former LLP multilateral projects. Both Knowledge
Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances have been actions of the general LLP call 2013 already.
The budget structure is characterised by a high staff input, linked to the mainly intellectual
results to be achieved by them.
A unit cost system for implementation support based on the staff costs would be very well
adapted to this type of action for the following reasons:
a. Staff represents the major input for these projects;
b. The system would be attractive for the potential beneficiaries because they will not have
to justify in real cost terms the numerous little expenses around travel, subsistence,
events, publications etc. Especially the business sector but also public bodies complain
about the complexity of the budget based system and the time and resources they need to
invest to administer an Education project;
c. The financial control workload around the budget based system is very high for the
Agency, the number of appeals are increasing, the time spent on financial monitoring is
considerable. The cost-effectiveness of such a system is therefore low.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
3.
i.
a)
Method to determine and update the amounts
Implementation support
Data Sources
The simplified grant system for implementation support builds on the methodology for
intellectual output support. Consequently, the analysis in point c is based on the data source
and sample used in Annex VIII.
2
b)
Sample
See above.
c)
Analysis
The methodology for Implementation support is based on the country groups and staff costs
established for the simplified grant item “Intellectual output support” (cf. Annex VIII)1. In
order to establish a methodology representative for the Sector Skills and Knowledge
Alliances, a number of simulations were carried out:
a. Creating new country groupings based on the GDP per capita and allocating to each
group a unit staff cost for the 4 distinct personnel categories;
b. Applying different percentages of unit staff costs calculated in Annex VIII to the previous
simulation;
c. Assessing the impact of the preferred methodology on specific LLP action types
(Accompanying measures, Multilateral projects and Networks) and sub programmes;
d. Applying the preferred methodology on the former Cooperation between Higher
Education and Enterprises projects (which are close in scope to the future Knowledge
Alliances) in order to estimate the impact on these type of projects.
The simulations were tested against a set of three criteria. The simulations must:
a. Maximize the number of projects in the co-funding brackets 60-85% of total eligible
costs (in the sample, 95% of the projects have a co-funding rate between 60% and 75%,
and 86% between 70% and 75%);
b. Minimize the number of projects with a co-funding below 50% of total eligible costs;
c. Minimize the number of projects with a co-funding above 100% of total eligible costs, in
other words minimize the number projects that would make a profit.
In order to calculate the impact on co-funding levels of the new funding system, the 16 unit
staff costs have been simulated back against the real man working days of the sample. The
purpose of this simulation against historical real staff costs was to determine whether funding
the project's staff costs on the basis of the newly devised unit staff costs we obtain a cofunding in the vicinity of 75% of the sample projects' total eligible cost.
Subsequently, a series of simulations were carried out starting with 100% of the intellectual
output rates calculated in Annex VIII compared to grants for real man working days and
lowering the unit staff costs across all GDP groups and personnel categories by 5%, 10% and
15% respectively. It was observed that reducing the unit staff costs by 10% fulfils the above
three criteria in the most optimal manner. The co-funding percentages for the 378 projects
when 90% of the original unit staff costs are applied are represented in table 1.
1
31 LLP programme countries were divided into 4 groups according to the groups established in Annex VIII
"Intellectual output support" of this Decision
3
Table 1: Percentage of projects per co-funding band using 90% of unit staff costs
Co-Funding Bands
% of Projects
≤ 49,99 %
50% - 59,99%
60% - 69,99%
70% - 79,99%
80% - 84,99%
85% - 89,99%
90% - 99,99%
≥ 100%
10,31%
15,32%
25,35%
22,56%
9,75%
6,69%
6,41%
3,62%
% of projects with co-funding from
0 to 85% of total eligible costs 83,29%
60 to 85% of total eligible costs 57,66%
The above simulation is based on the whole population of analysed projects from LLP.
However, some action types in LLP are different in scope compared to the new Alliances
projects. In order to better represent the type of activities supported by the Alliances, the most
similar actions in the former LLP have been extracted from the sample in Annex VIII and the
impact of the proposed approach (using 90% of the original staff costs) has been further
tested:
a. A differentiation by action type - Accompanying Measures, Multilateral Projects,
Networks)
b. A differentiation by sub-programme - the predecessors of the SSA and KA (Leonardo da
Vinci and Erasmus)
c. A differentiation within the Erasmus programme - specifically, extracting the
Cooperation between Higher Education and Enterprises projects which are close in scope
to the future Knowledge Alliances
The results of the simulations confirmed that a single unit cost system shall be appropriate for
the Skills and Knowledge Alliance implementation support. The expected outputs shall be
achieved with a high input of intellectual work, i.e. staff. This approach shall be homogenous
over the projects. The best match for the level of the unit cost for implementation support for
the Alliances projects is achieved when using 90% of the original unit staff costs, because:
a. it strikes a good balance between ensuring an attractive co-funding for the projects and
the no-profit rule;
b. it ensures that the same system can be applied to both Alliance project types;
c. it reflects well the type of activity expected from the projects which is focused on
intellectual input, i.e. staff.
ii.
Embedded mobility
Because mobility activities have not been part of the multilateral projects analysed to
determine the unit costs for staff, it was necessary to add a funding complement in such cases.
This funding complement shall cover the travel costs, the subsistence costs and the linguistic
preparation for persons undertaking a mobility.
4
The methodology for determining the grants for travel costs support is based on the
methodology established in Annex II (Travel costs support). Due to the specificity of the
embedded mobility under this action, however, it is proposed to reduce the number of bands
by combining bands 1 and 2 and bands 3 to 6. The respective grant amounts for travel
distances within these combined bands are equal to rates for band 2 and band 3 proposed in
Annex II.
The contribution to subsistence costs shall be aligned to the daily unit costs for transnational
learning/training/teaching activities under Key Action 2, Strategic Partnerships (Annex III
Individuals' support). Only the short term staff and pupil mobility shall be applicable for
embedded mobility.
No contribution to organisation of mobility shall be granted as this is supposed to be covered
in the unit costs for staff. There is therefore no risk for overlap with the other activities
covered by the unit costs.
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
Entitlement shall be assessed on the basis of the achievement of the objective of action or sub
action to the agreed standard. Training shall be provided to NAs and to experts on the
selection and evaluation of applications.
The final unit based co-funding amount shall be determined by the real man working days on
the project supported by timesheets, considering that those man working days are a
requirement for the extent of the project. On average, the beneficiaries shall receive a similar
amount of co-funding under the unit based approach than they would have received under the
budget based approach.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6
5
Annex 11 of 13
ANNEX XI Eurydice support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to eligible costs related to the Eurydice network, incurred by beneficiaries
under the Programme, Key Action 3 – Support for policy reform, Action 1a - Collection of
evidence shall take the form of unit costs.
Specifically, the proposed simplified funding system covers cost related to the following
activities:
− Participation in common activities
− Participation in Network meetings – travel and subsistence
− Translation into English of the description of the education system in Eurypedia
− Translation of Eurydice completed studies into the national language
− Integration of new countries into the Network
Grant amounts calculated under these five categories shall be combined into one grant amount
awarded. The main part of the final grant is common to all beneficiaries ('Common Activities',
'Eurydice meetings'). Some activities are optional (translation activities) and some concern
solely newcomers ('Integration of new countries').
The amounts of the unit costs to be used shall be calculated in accordance with the method
described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
The proposed funding system, essentially based on unit costs and linked to measurable
outputs, makes it possible, using a number of simple criteria as a basis, to define the level of
the Union financial support for each national unit. The financial contribution is payable
provided that the planned outputs, in line with the agreed quality standards, have been
achieved. Each year, the common frame of reference (Requirements) specifies the reduction
to be applied to the financial contribution in the event that certain activities are not carried out
(or carried out below the agreed quality standard).
The proposed funding system provides an important simplification to the administrative tasks
of the national units as it facilitates the preparation of the application and of the final report. It
also provides more flexibility to use the grant as best suited, provided it is spent on eligible
Eurydice activities and all outputs are provided and are of sufficient quality.
This funding system also significantly simplifies the work of the Agency as it does not
involve financial analysis and is solely based on outputs. National unit outputs are collected
by the Agency either as a contribution to some activities of the Agency (Eurydice reports,
Eurypedia, Eurydice working meetings) or to be published on the Europa server (translations
of Eurydice reports into the national language).
The use of unit costs is particularly well suited to the national units, for following reasons:
1
− The level of grant is limited1;
− The Agency coordinates the implementation of the Eurydice work programme and can
therefore accurately define the number of days needed for the national units to implement
each activity of the Eurydice work programme;
− National units are designated beneficiaries, located in public bodies, most often in
ministries. The risk of misuse of the grant and benefits is therefore very limited.
2.1. Nature of the supported action
See Annex XIII Budget Models on the nature of the Eurydice network.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
The funding system under the LLP Programme2 shall be updated in order to ensure coherency
with the other parts of the programme. In particular, unit costs for staff costs, travel and
subsistence costs (see annexes II, III and VIII) will replace the unit costs used until now.
This slight change shall ensure:
a. a reasonable assurance that the co-financing principle will be maintained and that there
will be no profit;
b. a system which remains transparent and flexible to cater for the increased workload in
the future Eurydice work programme);
a)
Data sources
The funding system under LLP based on lump sums and unit costs was implemented after
performing an analysis in 2011 of 3 years of real historical costs (final reports for LLP
projects in the years 2008, 2009 and 2010). Reports for the 31 LLP Programme Countries
were available, which included in particular information on the 4 personnel categories present
in LLP projects and real historical staff costs.
The analysis of the simplified grant system for the activities 'participation in common
activities' and 'integration of new countries' under the Erasmus+ Programme was based on the
same data.
b)
Sample
The analysis is based on the selected sample for the 2011 analysis. The sample consisted in
104 projects, i.e. 100% of the data source.
1
In 2013, the grants ranged between EUR14.215 and EUR 102.282, with an average of EUR 56.746.
2 The most recent update of the funding system under the LLP (based on unit costs and lump sums) was decided
in Commission Decision C(2011)5502 of 4 August 2011.
2
c)
i.
Analysis
Participation in common activities
The methodology for identifying unit costs for the grant item 'Participation in common
activities' is based on the methodology for Intellectual outputs support, the most relevant
eligible cost item for this grant (Annex VIII). In order to determine the appropriate grant level
for this grant item under the new Programme, the real grants awarded under LPP were
simulated based on sample used in the 2011 analysis. Due to the recourse to a simplified grant
system in 2012, no real cost data was available as from this date.
Simulations were based on. A discounted rate of 75% of the intellectual output rates
calculated in Annex VIII (i.e. the discount applied for Strategic Partnerships in Key Action 2)
and the results were compared with the former LLP national costs per day based on the
national scales for maximum staff costs. Furthermore country groupings were reviewed to
better take account of the level of decentralisation of certain countries.
Results from the final simulation showed that 65 per cent of the NUs will receive an
equivalent or slightly lower grant. Most other NUs, while receiving an amount higher than the
grant received previously will not make any profit. Indeed, the grant received previously
represented a co-financing rate of 75%, hence a slight increase in the amount of the grant
would not generate profit but would reduce the co-financing to be provided by the
beneficiary.
Furthermore, in the past, the activities mentioned in the Terms of Reference were only part of
the work each NU needs to implement. For instance each NU also had to update other
national data, answer the national requests, provide information via the Questions/Answers
System. All those tasks are intensive in terms of staff time to be devoted to. To encourage
beneficiaries to increase the quality of these tasks, from now on they will be integrally
incorporated in the future terms of reference in the framework of Erasmus+. It will result in a
substantial increase of the real costs to be covered by certain NUs in the framework of the EU
project. Although real cost data for these additional tasks are not available, the risk of profit
will therefore become extremely limited in those circumstances.
ii.
Participation in Eurydice working meetings
Beneficiaries join two meetings organised by the Executive Agency as highly skilled experts,
most often from ministries, in order to contribute to the preparation of the network outputs.
For this reason, the calculation of their costs shall be based on:
ƒ the travel bands and costs proposed in Annex II "Travel costs support" of this Decision;
ƒ 100% of MIPS rates (i.e. per diem rates used by the Commission to cover staff mission
costs, which have been calculated on the basis of both daily allowances and the ceilings for
hotel costs).
The level of grant for this type of activity is similar to the amounts paid in the past, which
already took into account 75 per cent of co-financing.
3
The calculation shall be as follows:
Unit cost contribution for 2 meeting days = unit cost according to the relevant travel band +
3 nights + 2 per diem contribution according to the MIPS scale
iii. Translations into English of national education system descriptions
No changes shall be proposed compared to the funding system under LLP where grants
consisted in a contribution based on a unit cost.
The grant amount is calculated on the basis of 150 pages of translation (1.500 characters per
standard page of translation). The cost price for translating 150 pages of translation would be
equal to the cost price of 100 'normal' pages (2.250 characters per standard 'normal' page), for
which the average actual costs per page are known3. This rate is then multiplied by 75 % in
order to integrate the national co-financing and rounded:
Unit cost contribution for translation = 100 pages * average price per 'normal' page * 75%
It is awarded provided that the detailed description of the educational system was updated in
at least two different language versions, including the English version4.
iv. Translations of Eurydice completed studies into the national language
No changes will be proposed compared to the funding system under LLP where grants
consisted in a contribution based on a unit cost.
The unit cost was established on the basis of the mean number of pages for each predefined
cost ratio category5. This mean number of printed pages was multiplied by a cost per page for
which the average actual costs per page are known6. This amount was multiplied by 75 % in
order to integrate the national co-financing.
Unit cost contribution for translation =
mean number of pages per category * average price per 'normal' page * 75%
v.
Integration of new countries
A special additional amount is needed for newcomers in order to meet the specific challenges
of the new members: in the first year, Eurypedia needs to be written and translated into
English fully and not just updated. In the two following years, units will need more resources
to construct the data sets regularly updated. Over the three-year period, they will need to make
a more proactive promotion of Eurydice, at national level, and develop their expert pool, etc.
This grant item shall be calculated in the same way as the 'Participation in common activities',
using 75% of the unit costs calculated in Annex VIII ('Intellectual output support) of this
decision and multiplying these costs by a number of days corresponding to the tasks to be
implemented. The formula shall be:
3
4
5
6
Based on the average of real costs calculated in 2011 on a 3-year range sample (2008, 2009, 2010).
The units can decide from one year to the next whether they wish to remove or add the version in their
national language.
Between 1 and 10 pages; 11 and 40; 41 and 70; 71 and 100; 101 and 130; 131 and 160; 161 and 190; 191 and
220; 221 and 250; greater than 250.
Based on the average of real costs calculated in 2011 on a 3-year range sample (2008, 2009, 2010).
4
Unit costs contribution to integration of new members = number of days * 75% unit staff cost
(Key Action 2) / country group / manager day
This cost ratio is payable de facto as the workload is necessary for implementing the 3 first
years of the work programme for a new unit7.
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
The entitlement to the grant is subject to the production of outputs:
− Contribution to common activities: the amount8 related to a specific activity will be
deducted if corresponding activity is either not delivered or delivered with insufficient
quality.
− Participation in Eurydice working meetings: in case the national unit fails to be represented
in one specific meeting, related costs shall be deducted from the grant;
− Translations into English of national education system descriptions: the amount shall be
deducted if the detailed description of the educational system is not fully updated with
sufficient quality in at least two different language versions, including the English version;
− Translations of Eurydice completed studies into the national language: the corresponding
amounts are payable as long as the translations for which these sums were requested has
been translated into the national language(s). In the event of the translation not being
carried out, the related amount shall be deducted from the final contribution.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
Grant amounts and criteria concerning the participation in common activities, participation in
Eurydice working meetings and integration of new members shall be regularly updated to take
into account revisions of the funding mechanisms for travel support (Annex II) and
intellectual outputs support (Annex VIII). The number of days allocated for the common
activities and the integration of new countries may as well be revised in case the development
of the Network work programmes seriously impacts the workload of the national units.
Additionally, the evolution of costs of translations shall be kept under review.
See also Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7.
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double financing
See above section 3 and Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
7
8
The number of days is linked to the activities to be implemented: more days in the first year and less for the
2 remaining years (identical in year 2 and 3).
The amount allocated to each specific activity by country is indicated in the requirements of the call.
5
Annex 12 of 13
ANNEX XII Jean Monnet support
1.
Form of financing and categories of costs covered
The contribution to eligible costs for teaching activities (Jean Monnet Chairs and
Jean Monnet Modules) and Jean Monnet Projects incurred by beneficiaries under the
Jean Monnet Activities in the Erasmus+ Programme shall take the form of lump sums, unit
costs and flat-rate financing.
The simplified grant system for Jean Monnet Chairs and Jean Monnet Modules will cover
relevant costs related to teaching activities by distinguishing:
a) teaching costs (unit cost per hour per country)
b) other relevant expenditure in relation to the teaching activities (flat-rate financing): nonteaching staff costs, travel and subsistence costs, dissemination costs, interpretation costs,
other costs linked to event organisation, teaching materials, etc.
The main cost categories under the Jean Monnet Projects are those covering the national
conference costs as a contribution to personnel costs and logistical expenses (unit cost per
participant per day), the participation of non-local participants in project events (unit cost per
distance band for travel plus unit cost per day for subsistence) and the contribution to
peripheral costs such as staff costs for the academic follow-up of the event, for the creation
and maintenance of a website, for the design and dissemination of publications; interpretation
costs; production costs and costs for printing (lump sum).
The amount of the simplified forms of grants to be applied shall be calculated in accordance
with the method described in Section 3.
2.
Justification
Utilisation of simplified forms of grants considerably streamlines and reduces the time
needed for the financial management of projects, both at the Executive Agency as well as
beneficiary levels. It is much more cost-effective and economically sound than item-based
budgeting.
Under the LLP Jean Monnet Programme (2007-2013) the use of a simplified funding
mechanism was established1 and has been implemented for teaching activities2 and
information and research activities3 since 2010.
It is proposed to continue this practice, subject to certain modifications, under the Erasmus+
Programme for the same project types and for those that will retain their essential
characteristics but be developed under a new name. The necessity to revisit the current
formula results from the decision to raise the award ceilings for Jean Monnet teaching
1
2
3
The system was introduced for these project types under the 2010 Call for proposals following the European
Commission’s approval of the 2010 EAC Annual Work Programme (C(2009)7734) of 7 October 2009.
Jean Monnet teaching activities – namely Chairs and Modules.
Jean Monnet Information and Research activities.
1
activities (from EUR 21.000 to EUR 30.000 for Modules and from EUR 45.000 to EUR
50.000 for Chairs) and to introduce the Jean Monnet Projects, which will consist of the
former Information and Research Activities and the associate activity, Learning EU @
School, with a revised award ceiling of EUR 60.000.
Simulations were carried out to test whether the methodologies identified in the 2009 studies
undertaken by EACEA remain relevant for the future Jean Monnet activities. In addition, the
experience of beneficiaries and the Executive Agency in using simplified forms of grants
over the past 3 years (2010-2012) was taken into account. Projects supported by the system
are more output-oriented - the emphasis is now placed on quality and level of achievement of
measurable objectives rather than on financial and administrative aspects, reporting
procedures have become more efficient and the on-going trend has been an increase in
submission levels within the project categories concerned.
2.1. Nature of the supported actions
See Annex XIII Budget models.
2.2. Risks of irregularities and fraud and costs control
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 5.
3.
Method to determine and update the amounts
3.1. Teaching activities: Jean Monnet Chairs and Jean Monnet Modules
a)
Data sources
The simplified funding model for the LLP Jean Monnet Programme was established after a
study carried out by EACEA from October 2008 to February 2009 involving 156
Jean Monnet projects from 2005 and 2007.
For the purposes of the new study carried out in July and August of 2013 historical data from
Jean Monnet Chairs and Modules selected in 2008 and 2009 was extracted.
b)
Sample
The sample for the current analysis includes projects selected in 2008 and 2009 when the
financing system was still budget-based. Data on total eligible costs and grants paid was
extracted from the final activity reports of 114 projects.
A simulation using the updated national hourly teaching costs (methodology adopted in 2010)
and the new ceilings was made on these projects.
It should be noted that these results reaffirm those from the study undertaken in 2009
involving a total of 156 projects.
c)
Analysis
The unit costs for teaching costs per hour per country were initially established following the
study referred to above made in 2009. In accordance with this study, rates have subsequently
been updated on the basis of the official World Bank index on the Gross National Income per
2
capita (the Jean Monnet Programme is open to participants and beneficiaries from all over the
world). This methodology has been found to be appropriate for this specific action whose
characteristics differ from other action grants (e.g. strategic partnerships) in Erasmus+. It is
therefore not proposed to modify the basic methodology which is outlined below.
The analysis of 156 Jean Monnet projects from 2005 and 2007 resulted in the calculation of
an average teaching cost per hour per country. Using Italy4 as a base result, a mathematical
formula was devised as the basis for calculating a unit rate of an hourly teaching cost for each
country using the appropriate Gross National Income per capita in 2007. The formula enables
the calculation of teaching costs based on the number of hours proposed and covers other
associated academic activities by adding a top-up percentage (of 10% for a Chair and 40% of
a Module) to the result. Taking into consideration the increase in grant ceilings between
2004-2009 (for Modules from EUR 15.000 to EUR 21.000 and Chairs from EUR 36.000 to
EUR 45.000), the resulting rate was adjusted accordingly. The minimum hourly teaching cost
was fixed at EUR 80 and the maximum at EUR 200.
In order to determine the final grant amounts for Chairs and Modules the following method is
used:
− The calculated national teaching unit cost per hour is multiplied by the (minimum)
number of hours required for Jean Monnet Chairs (270 hours) and Jean Monnet Modules
(120 hours5);
− To this result, a variable flat rate is added in order to take account of all non-teaching
costs. The 2009 study identified a series of additional costs which should be taken into
account beyond teaching costs: the additional academic activities included in each type
of activity, in particular, those costs not associated with the preparation and delivery of
the teaching programme such as non-teaching staff costs (for assistants, administrative
staff, etc.), travel and subsistence costs, dissemination costs, interpretation costs and
other costs linked to event organisation, teaching materials, etc. Simulations carried out
as part of the 2009 study, involving 106 Modules (of which 68 selected in 2005 and 38 in
2007) and 50 Chairs (of which 25 selected in 2005 and 25 in 2007) demonstrated that the
percentages of 10% for a Chair and 40% for a Module guarantee the same level of cofinancing for each action type as under the budget-based system. This top-up therefore
enables the beneficiary to implement the action properly; the grant remains attractive
while ensuring that no profit is generated. These top-up percentages are added to the
results of the above-mentioned costs basis.
The top-up percentage is higher for a Module than for a Chair because for this action type it
is expected that more additional (accompanying) activities are organised and that several
teachers/professors are involved in the delivery of the teaching programme, whereas for a
Jean Monnet Chair only one staff member is responsible for the delivery of the entire
4
5
Given the large number of projects supported in Italy and the overall consistency of the different hourly
teaching costs applicable there, an average hourly teaching cost for Italy of EUR 121 was calculated and
considered as the base rate against which to calculate other average national teaching costs.
The minimum requirement for number of hours is currently applicable under the LLP and shall remain the
same under Erasmus+.
3
teaching programme. In both cases, for the Module and the Chair, the top-up percentages
have been set to reflect the real costs typically incurred for each type of activity over the
lifetime of the programme and as such are based on actual expenditure.
In fact, for the Chairs, of the 50 projects examined, 42 (84%) receive a grant similar to the
one that would have been received under the budget-based system. A different top-up
percentage other than 10% would not have produced this result for all countries involved in
the simulation (EU member states and non-EU countries).
For the Modules, of the 106 examined, 77 (73%) receive a grant similar to the one that would
have been received under the budget-based system. A different top-up percentage other than
40% would not have produced this result for all countries involved in the simulation (EU
member states and non-EU countries).
The flat rates of 10% and 40% are calculated as percentages of the national teaching costs
multiplied by the (minimum) number of hours required. As the unit cost for teaching costs
per country reflects the cost of living of the country, this is also reflected in the flat rates.
Therefore, the costs covering the additional academic activities organised by the beneficiaries
(conference, publication of books, etc.) are correlated to the national teaching costs and
consequently to the cost of living in each country.
Besides the simplification and efficiency of this funding model, the system also acts as an
incentive for those countries currently with less experience is the domain, in particular in
geographical areas such as the new EU Members States, the Balkans, candidate countries,
countries covered by the Neighbourhood policy, etc. (who also happen to have low teaching
costs) to increase the number of teaching hours invested (both in the case of Modules and
Chairs), which results in a greater academic impact in terms of the Jean Monnet activity.
Conclusion, co-funding and no-profit:
The new simulations performed have shown that the difference between the total grant paid
for all projects under the budget-based financing system and the total grant paid for all
projects under the updated Jean Monnet simplified funding system is not significant (3,95%)
as indicated in the table below:
Chairs
Modules
TT
O AL
Total grant paid
(budget-based)
2.256.715,88
1.070.496,64
3.327.212,52
Total grant paid
(simplified funding
system)
2.369.863,53
1.094.053,39
3.463.916,92
Difference in
EUR
113.147,65
23.556,75
136.704,40
Difference
in %
4,77%
2,15%
3,95%
Secondly, the new simulation has demonstrated that under the proposed revised system only
17 projects (14,91%) out of 114 projects would receive a co-financing superior to the budgetbased calculation and, of these, 11 would be limited to a one-figure percentage surplus. These
figures are insignificant when taking into account the wide range of additional activities
developed by the Jean Monnet professors and the fact that almost all of them continue to
develop the teaching activities after the end of the contractual period. It should be noted also
4
that the beneficiaries concerned are for the most part public H igher Education Institutions
with all the stringencies implied in the management of public resources.
The grant amounts resulting from the simulation are restricted by the double limit of 75%
maximum Union funding of total project costs and the maximum grant ceiling for each
project type (EUR 50.000 for Jean Monnet Chairs and EUR 30.000 for Jean Monnet
Modules). A further consideration in this context is presented by the new Financial
Regulation, which states that beneficiaries in receipt of a grant of less than or equal to
EUR 60.000 will not be subject to the no-profit rule that is applied to grants over this
amount6.
3.2. Jean Monnet Projects
a)
Data sources
The data analysed is from Information and Research Activities and Learning EU @ School
projects under the LLP Jean Monnet Programme (2007-2013).
Results from the study undertaken by EACEA in 2009 involving a total of 62 real cost based
projects selected in 2007 and 2008 were also examined.
b)
Sample
The analysed data is from Information and Research Activities and Learning EU @ School
projects (to be renamed "Jean Monnet Projects") selected from 2010 to 2012 that already
applied the simplified funding system. Data on the standard activities implemented by 171
projects of this type was then identified.
A simulation using the updated national conference cost per participant per day for Italy (as
the country with a major number of selected projects) and the travel bands and unit costs for
intellectual outputs7 for Erasmus+ was carried out for these projects.
c)
Analysis
The continuation of the current simplified grant approach for this action category is justified
by the fact that the core activity of the new Jean Monnet Projects will be, as it is for the
current Information and Research Activities and Learning EU @ School projects, conference
participation. Consequently, the most characteristic activities implemented by agreements for
Information and Research Activities and Learning EU @ School under the LLP Jean Monnet
Programme are taken as a starting point: local and non-local participants' costs, travel and
subsistence costs for non-local participants, staff costs, publication costs, etc.
The initial study undertaken by EACEA in 2009 established national conference cost rates
per participant per day based on data held by SCIC. For the calculation of unit cost per
participant for Jean Monnet Projects an update of the national cost per participant per day
was made on the basis of the official World Bank index from 2012 on the Gross National
Income per capita. In order to determine the unit cost on the basis of a calculated national
conference cost per participant per day the following method is used:
6
7
Financial Regulation, article 125(4) and Rules of Application, article 185.
See Annex VIII Intellectual outputs support to the present Decision
5
− The calculated national conference cost per day is multiplied by the number of
participants attending an event (conference, seminar, workshop, etc.). These unit costs
are expected to cover personnel costs as well as the logistical expenses incurred in the
planning and organisation of a conference.
− For the expenses related to the participation of non-local participants
(national/international speakers at the events), the travel bands established for Erasmus+8
under the Key Action 1, and the mission expenses set up by MIPs are used. This
subsistence unit cost for the non-local participant is equal to the "Current per diem rate"
of the country concerned9 minus the cost of the lunch that is already included in the unit
cost for participants. This amount is multiplied by the correcting coefficient «Current per
diem country rate»/«Current per diem rate for Belgium» in order to obtain the
subsistence costs for all the other countries.
− A lump sum of EUR 25.000 is added for all those expenses not covered by the unit cost
calculation i.e. those peripheral costs related to the standard activities developed by this
action type: staff costs for the academic follow-up of the event, for the creation and
maintenance of a website, for the design and dissemination of publications; interpretation
costs; production costs and costs for printing. Simulations carried out as part of the 2009
study demonstrate that this lump sum is appropriate and guarantees the same level of cofinancing as under the budget-based system.
The final grant is obtained by respecting the double limit of the 75% maximum Union
funding of total project costs and the maximum grant ceiling (EUR 60.000).
The cost of each of these standard activities as implemented by the 171 completed projects
observed from 2010 to 2012 has been simulated using the Jean Monnet unit costs for the cost
of participants at an event and the unit costs proposed for the Eramsus+ Programme for each
of the corresponding types of peripheral costs.
Conclusion, co-financing and no-profit:
This exercise has shown that:
− the use of the national conference cost per participant per day together with the travel
bands established for Erasmus+ and the subsistence expenses set up by MIPs is
appropriate and similar to the current Jean Monnet funding system;
− in the simulation of 171 completed projects the adopted unit costs for administrative staff
by type of peripheral costs related to the standard activities as mentioned above (website,
design, dissemination) results in an average cost of EUR 50.840 while the provision of a
lump sum of EUR 25.000 according to the current practice, is both less costly and can be
defined to cover all the expenses related to the printing of publications and production
costs that are not taken into account with the use of unit costs for staff. The use of this
lump sum, as shown in the simulation, is appropriate, represents a co-financing rate of
around 50% and covers an optimum range of activities.
8
9
See also the Annex II Travel costs support to the present Decision.
The daily allowance covering accommodation, subsistence and local transport.
6
The use of this fixed amount is therefore justified by the fact that it has proven appropriate
over the last three years as well as in projections using the unit costs proposed under
Erasmus+ and emerges much less costly in comparison.
Mode of financing system
Current Jean Monnet funding System
(used from 2010)
Proposed Jean Monnet System based on
the current conference participants'
costs and national accommodation costs
for experts plus new scales of unit cost
for travel and a fixed amount of EUR
25.000
Total
Cost in
EUR
Grant
awarded
in EUR
Applicant
co-financing
in EUR
% of
Union
Grant
85.558
60.000
25.558
70%
86.577
60.000
26.577
69%
The proposed system will therefore simplify the method of calculation and will retain the
amount of the grant, unchanged and without profit.
d)
Monitoring of entitlement to simplified grant
As under the LLP Jean Monnet Programme, the simplified system of financing will be
applied hand-in-hand with a rigorous desk check and field monitoring of the implementation
of the project activities. Beneficiaries are subject to the obligatory submission of an annual
activity report and a final detailed account and financial statement upon completion of the
activity. As well as a qualitative appraisal, these reports are required to set out the
quantifiable outputs of the activities developed. The final grant amount will therefore be
determined by the real teaching hours delivered in the framework of the Jean Monnet Chairs
and Modules and the actual numbers of participants attending the academic events run by the
Jean Monnet Projects. On average, the beneficiary will receive the same amount of cofunding under the unit-based system as they would have received under the budget-based
system but with a more efficient, out-puts/results-oriented use of resources.
Based on simulations of the unit costs for Jean Monnet teaching activities and Jean Monnet
Projects under the LLP and under the new Erasmus+ Programme, it is deemed appropriate to
maintain the current financing system with the new ceilings for Jean Monnet Chairs and
Modules and with some simplifications in relation to the travel costs for the new action type
entitled Jean Monnet Projects.
e)
Update of the approved methodology
See Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 7.
4.
No-profit and co-financing principles and absence of double funding
See above section 3 and Annex I Introduction to the Decision, section 6.
7
Annex 13 of 13
ANNEX XIII Budget models
A.
Key Action 1: Learning mobility of individuals
A number of variations in the funding model and grant rates proposed are foreseen for
particular learning mobility activities resulting from objective differences between target
groups, activity contents, impact on budget absorption and mobility numbers, etc.
Nevertheless, a major effort has been made to streamline as much as possible across the
different activity types. In a number of cases the same activity type is divided in subcategories (cf. Table n°1- Detailed funding model for Key Action 1) in order to show where
there are differences between sectoral areas, geographical coverage and/or duration. The units
for duration of mobility stays are expressed in numbers of days and months, whereby one
month is equal to 30 days.
Table n°1 – Detailed funding model for Key Action 1 (except Joint Masters Degrees and
large-scale volunteering projects)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Activity type
Staff
mobility
Staff
mobility
Student
mobility
Student
mobility
for study
Student
mobility for
traineeships
Youth
voluntary
service
Youth
exchanges
Areas
SE, VET,
HE, AE
youth
VET
HE
HE
youth
youth
Geographical
coverage
Between
Programme Countries
- Between
Programme
Countries
Between
Programme
Countries
Between
Programme
Countries
Between
Programme
Countries
- Between
Programme
Countries
- Between
Programme
Countries
- Between
Programme
and Partner
Countries
- Between
Programme
and Partner
Countries
- Between
Programme and
Partner
Countries
Duration
(excluding time
for travelling)
Annex
II
2 days – 2
months
2 days – 2
months
14 days –
12 months
3 – 12
months
2 – 12 months
14 days –
12 months
5 days – 21
days
Unit cost
per
person
per
distance
band
Unit cost
per person
per
distance
band
Unit cost
per person
per
distance
band
N/A
(integrated
in
individual
support)
N/A
(integrated in
individual
support)
Unit cost
per person
per
distance
band
Unit cost per
person per
distance band
Grant items
Travel
costs
support
1
Different
amount per
person for
individual and
group
mobility
respectively
III
Individual
support
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Unit cost
per day per
host
country
following
duration
ranges:
N/A
(integrated
in organisational
support)
Unit cost
per day per
host
country
following
duration
ranges:
Unit cost
per month
per host
country
following
cost ranges:
Unit cost per
month per
host country
following cost
ranges:
N/A
(integrated in
organisational
support)
- high cost
- 1 days –
14 days
- 1 days –
14 days
- medium cost
- medium
cost
- low cost
- 15 days –
2 months
- 15 days –
60 days
- low cost
Unit cost
per day or
month per
host
country
(=pocket
money for
volunteers)
for short
term or
long term
activity
respectively
For EVS >
2 months:
unit cost
per person
per month
per host
country
Unit cost per
person per
day per host
country
- high cost
- 61 days –
12 months
IV
Organisational
support
Unit cost
per person
Unit cost
per person
per day per
host
country
Unit cost
per person
Unit cost
per person
Unit cost per
person
For EVS <
2 months:
unit cost
per person
per day per
host
country
V
Nononline
linguistic
support
N/A
N/A
[may be
covered
from organisational
support
where
needed]
[may be
covered
from organisational
support
where
needed]
Unit cost
per person
per course
for
mobility>1
month for
languages
other than
EN, FR,
DE, ES,
IT.
[For EN,
FR, DE,
ES, IT:
access to
on-line
course.
For
mobility<1
month
language
support
may be
2
N/A
N/A
[For EN,
FR, DE,
ES, IT:
access to
on-line
course.
[For EN, FR,
DE, ES, IT:
access to online course.
For other
languages
support
may be
covered
from organisational
support]
For other
languages
support may
be covered
from
organisational
support]
Unit cost
per person
per course
for
mobility>2
months for
languages
other than
EN, FR,
DE, ES, IT.
[For EN,
FR, DE,
ES, IT:
access to
on-line
course.
For
mobility<2
months
language
support
may be
covered
N/A
A
VI
Course
costs
support
Unit cost
per person
per day
capped at
equivalent
of 10 days
B
C
covered
from organisational
support]
D
E
F
from organisational
support]
G
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N.B.
Course
fees are
not
applicable
to VET
and HE
staff.
Special
needs
support
Real
additional
costs
Real
additional
costs
Real
additional
costs
Real
additional
costs
Real
additional
costs
Real
additional
costs
Real
additional
costs
Exceptional costs
Real
additional
costs
Real
additional
costs
Real
additional
costs
N/A
N/A
Real
additional
costs
Real
additional
costs
For all grant items under this Key Action except “Individual support” the unit costs set by the
Commission shall apply as such in all countries without further change at national level.
Co-financing and no-profit of the above mentioned individual mobility actions:
In order to assess the aggregated impact of simplified forms of grants for sectors under Key
Action 1 on the number of mobilities and the budget, overall simulations were carried out on
the basis of data on mobilities which took place in 2011. The results of the simulations
confirm that the no-profit and co-financing rule are applied at a global level.
The overall simulations analysis is based on the number of mobilities from LLPLink data
from year 2011 year and covers the AE, HE, SE, VET sectors under Key Action 1 and the
total grant awarded for the respective sectors. Simulations have been carried out using the
realised number of mobilities in year 2011 and the simplified forms of grants under
underlying assumptions that are based on the historical time series. The assumptions consider
that mobilities shall keep the existing structure in terms of average duration and share by
sending/receiving countries. To take into account the ranges in individual support, the
simulations consisted in three possible scenarios of applying the rates (minimum, maximum
and middle rates of the range) which are set by NAs (see Annex III).
The result of this assessment indicates that at a global level the proposals are lower than the
real grants previously awarded which represented an average maximum co-financing rate of
80% of real costs based on existing requirements, thus co-financing rates are far below the
maximum of 80% allowed in Key Action 1. More precisely, the grant amount using unit costs
3
under the minimum scenario represents at a global level approximately 65% of the real grant
amount awarded in year 2011 for VET students mobilities (for the same number of mobilities,
all other things being equal); 70% for VET staff mobilities; 90% for AE; 90% for SE and 95%
for HE students mobilities.
Joint Masters Degrees: The Joint Masters Degrees are high level integrated international study
programmes delivered by a consortium of European and, where relevant, non-European
universities, which main aim is to increase the quality and attractiveness of the European
Higher Education Area through the delivery of full degree scholarships to the best master's
students worldwide.
Table n°2 – Detailed funding model for Joint Masters Degrees
Areas
HE
Geographical
coverage
- Programme and Partners Countries
Duration
4 to 5 years
Annex
Grant items
IX
Joint Masters Degrees
support
ƒ
Student scholarship amount: 1) unit cost per
scholarship holder resident of a Programme/
Partner Country as contribution to travel and
installation costs; 2) unit cost per month as
contribution to subsistence costs; 3) max. unit
cost per year as contribution to participation
costs. Maximum amount per year for student
scholarships (between 13 and 20 scholarships
per intake).
ƒ
Lump sum amount covering management costs
of the consortium delivering the JMD
Large-scale volunteering projects:
Large-scale volunteering projects are actions aimed at supporting large scale volunteering
projects (involving at least 30 EVS volunteers) in the framework of high-level European or
world-wide events in the field of youth, culture and sport (e.g. World Youth Summits,
European Capitals of Culture, European Youth Capitals, European sport championships, etc.).
4
Table n°3 – Detailed funding model for large-scale volunteering projects
Areas
Youth
Geographical coverage
Between Programme and Partner Countries
Duration
14 days – 2 months
Annex
Grant items
II
Travel costs
support
(embedded
mobility)
Unit cost per person per distance band
III
Individual
support
(embedded
mobility)
Unit cost per day per host country (pocket money for
volunteers)
IV
Organisational Unit cost per person per day per host country
support
(embedded
mobility)
Activity costs
Contribution up to 80% of real costs related to the
implementation of project activities, excluding costs related to
embedded mobility activities.
Special needs
support
(embedded
mobility)
Contribution up to 100% of real costs of participation of
disabled persons
Exceptional
costs
(embedded
mobility)
Real additional costs
5
B.
Key Action 2: Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices
i.
Strategic partnerships
Grants in the form of unit costs shall apply to the Strategic Partnerships under Key Action 2
described in Table n°4 below. A single funding model has been adopted for all Strategic
partnerships in the field of education, training and youth. Table n°4 below differentiates
between areas, though, as there are differences in duration between the education and training
fields and youth. In case of Strategic Partnerships involving youth and any other field of
education and training, the rules of the area to which the application is submitted apply as
regards duration. In order to ensure equal treatment of applicants regardless of the country in
which the application is submitted, the grant amounts set at Union level are fixed for all grant
items.
The proposed funding model consists of a menu of grant items from which applicants shall
choose according to the activities they want to undertake and the results they want to achieve.
The Strategic Partnerships will range from fairly simple and small scale cooperation projects
between schools or informal groups of young people to rather sophisticated and large scale
projects focusing on the development and exchange of innovative outputs in all fields of
education, training and youth. The expenses incurred by the different types of projects will
necessarily vary accordingly.
The first two items, Project management and implementation support and Transnational
project meetings support, are grant items that all types of Strategic Partnerships shall apply
for, as they are meant to contribute to costs that all projects incur. The other grant items can
only be applied for by projects that have more substantial objectives in terms of intellectual
outputs/products, dissemination and embedded learning/teaching/training activities.
Support for Transnational learning/training/teaching activities can only be chosen by projects
that have more substantial objectives in terms of this embedded activity. The grant item would
fund the long term or short term learning, training and teaching activities of staff and learners
that would be organised as an essential part of and contributing directly to the main objective
of the Strategic Partnership, and would also involve transnational travel of participants.
Multiplier events organised in the framework of Strategic partnerships in Key Action 2 are
national and transnational conferences, seminars or events related directly to the outputs of
the project and the dissemination of knowledge. Support for multiplier events is provided only
if in direct relation to the outputs of the project. No grant support shall be given to projects
focusing only on the organisation of an event per se.
Applicants of Strategic Partnerships shall qualify for the support of intellectual outputs, where
they focus on activities requiring substantial staff input to produce tangible and significant
outputs such as new curricula, pedagogical materials, IT tools, Open educational resources
(OER), analyses, studies, peer-learning methods, etc. The intellectual products concerned
should be innovative and creative and be developed with a clear aim of
transferability/usability also to organisations other than those participating in the project. To
prevent potential overlap with staff costs in other grant items under Key Action 2 (e.g.
"Project management and implementation"), applicants shall have to justify the type and
6
volume of staff costs applied for in relation to each output proposed. The outputs should be
substantial in quality and quantity to qualify for this type of grant support.
Additionally, if justified by the project activities/outputs, exceptional costs and costs for
participation of persons with special needs may be covered. The proposed funding model is
transparent, i.e. avoids overlaps between categories of grant items by setting requirements that
prevent similar activities to be granted from different grant parts.
Ceilings shall apply, both at the level of the cost items and at the level of the project grant
overall. The proposed overall maximum grant amount is of EUR 450.000 per project
(equivalent to a maximum of EUR 150.000 for one year and of EUR 300.000 for a two year
project). The number of partners eligible for PMI shall be capped at 10 per project. The
number of Transnational meetings shall be capped at 40 per project per year.
The overall co-financing rate of overall grants by action is even lower than the individual ones
because it takes account of eligible costs which do not receive a contribution (e.g. under the
Intellectual output support a contribution to staff cost shall be made, but the eligible
communication costs shall not be taken into account).
Table n°4 - Detailed funding model for Strategic partnerships’ actions under Key Action 2
Areas
SE, VET, HE, AE
Geographical
coverage
- Between Programme Countries
Duration
2 years or 3 years
Annex
VII
youth
- Partner Countries may be added if they bring added value to the
project
6 months – 2 years
All applicants may apply for a contribution to costs concerning PMI and
Transnational project meetings
Programme management and
implementation (Systematic
grant item)
Unit cost per participating organisation per
month
Higher unit cost for coordinating organisation
than for the other partner organisations
Total grant for project capped at equivalent of
10 participating organisations
II, III
Transnational project meetings
(Systematic grant item)
Travel: Unit cost per person using two
distance bands – band 2 for short distances
(100-1.999 km) and band 3 for long
distances(≥2.000 km)
Subsistence costs: Unit cost per person: for
short distances (100-1.999 km) - 3 days of
subsistence rates for the duration of 5-14 days
7
for short term staff mobility; for long
distances (≥2.000 km) - 4 days of the same
subsistence rate
Total grant per project capped at equivalent of
40 mobilities for the short distance range per
year
An application may be made for a contribution to one or more of the following
items only in cases where the substantial outputs are fully justified in the
application.
VIII
Intellectual output support
(Eligible only if justified by the
project activities/outputs)
Unit cost per day per country for staff costs
per category
Four categories of staff: manager,
teacher/trainer/researcher/youth worker,
technician, administrative assistant
Four groups of countries based on GDP levels
III
Multiplier events (Eligible only
if justified by the project
activities/outputs)
Unit cost per person as contribution to the
organisation costs of such events
Two categories of unit cost: per person from
host country and per person from abroad to
cater for higher cost of attracting persons
from abroad
Total grant for project capped at amount
equivalent to a maximum number of persons
for the whole project duration
II, III,
V
Transnational
learning/training/teaching
activities (Eligible only if
justified by the project
activities/outputs)
Travel: Unit cost per person using two
distance bands – band 2 for short distances
(100-1.999 km) and band 3 for long
distances(≥2.000 km)
Subsistence: 1) unit cost per day (different
unit costs for long term staff mobility, short
term staff mobility and short term learner
mobility); 2) unit cost per month per host
country for long term pupil mobility
Linguistic support for mobility > 2 months:
unit cost per person per course
Exceptional costs (Eligible if
justified by the project
Contribution
8
to
real
costs
related
to
activities/outputs)
subcontracting or purchase of goods/services
Contribution per project capped at absolute
amount
Special needs support
ii.
Contribution up to 100% of real costs of
participation of disabled persons
Capacity building (youth)
Capacity building projects in the field of youth offer the possibility to develop initiatives
which include activities of a no-profit-making nature that are related to the field of youth and
non-formal education. These projects shall cover international cooperation projects between
organisations from Programme and Partner Countries having two different components:
capacity-building and – where appropriate - embedded transnational mobility.
Table n°5 - Detailed funding model for Capacity building (Youth) under Key Action 2
Areas
Youth
Geographical
coverage
Between Programme and Partner Countries
Duration
9 months to 2 years
Annex Grant items
II
III
IV
Travel costs
support
(embedded
mobility)
Unit cost per person per distance band
Individual
support
(embedded
mobility)
Short term: unit cost per person per day according to the host
country
Organisational
support
(embedded
mobility)
Unit cost per person per host country
Activity costs
Contribution up to 80% of real costs related to the
implementation of project activities, excluding costs related to
Different amount per person for group mobility under Youth
exchanges
Long term: unit cost per person per month according to the
host country
9
embedded mobility activities.
iii.
Special needs
support
(embedded
mobility)
Contribution up to 100% of real costs of participation of
disabled persons
Exceptional costs
(embedded
mobility)
Contribution up to 100% of the real costs
Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances
Knowledge Alliances are transnational, structured and result-driven projects, notably between
higher education and business that are open to any discipline, sector and to cross-sectorial
cooperation, particularly in emerging fields. Knowledge Alliances aim at strengthening
Europe's innovation capacity and at fostering innovation in higher education, business and the
broader socio-economic environment and are meant to have a short- and long-term impact on
the wide range of stakeholders involved, at individual, organisational and systemic level.
Sector Skills Alliances are transnational projects drawing on evidence of trends in a specific
economic sector and skills needed in order to perform in one or more professional fields.
Sector Skills Alliances shall work to design and deliver joint vocational training programmes
and teaching and training methodologies. A particular focus is to be put on work-based
learning, providing learners with the skills required by the labour market. Sector Skills
Alliances also put the Union wide recognition tools into practice. In a given specific economic
sector, Sector Skills Alliances shall aim at tackling skills gaps, enhancing the responsiveness
of initial and continuing VET systems to sector-specific labour market needs and demand for
new skills with regard to one or more occupational profiles.
Table n°6 - Detailed funding model for Knowledge and Sector Skills Alliances under Key
Action 2
Areas
HE, VET
Geographical
coverage
Programme Countries; Partner Countries may be added
Duration
2 to 3 years
Annex Grant items
VIII
and X
Intellectual
output support
(implementation
support)
Unit cost per day per country for staff costs per category
Four categories of staff: manager,
teacher/trainer/researcher/youth worker, technician,
10
administrative assistant
Four groups of countries based on GDP levels
II
Travel costs
support
(embedded
mobility)
Unit cost per person: band 2 for distances from 100 km to
1.999 km and band 3 for distances from 2.000 km
III
Individual
support
(embedded
mobility)
Unit cost per day per person (different unit costs for short term
staff mobility and short term learner mobility)
11
C.
Key Action 3: Support for policy reform
i.
Structured dialogue
Meetings between young people and decision-makers in the field of youth are the core
decentralised actions under Key Action 3 – Structured dialogue. They support activities
encouraging the active participation of young people and the promotion of policy dialogue
between young people/youth organisations and decision-makers/experts in the youth field at
local, regional, national or international level. This interactions aim at establishing platforms
for debates between all the interested parties, enabling them to formulate positions or
proposals and then translate them into concrete actions. The activities can take the form of
seminars, conferences, consultations and other events organised at local, regional, national or
international level and structured in terms of themes and timing.
The organisation of meetings between young people and decision-makers in the field of youth
implies strengthening the mobility level of participants. Using unit costs as a form of
reimbursement of travel costs ensures having an appropriate and predictable contribution per
person which further encourages the participation of young people.
Grants in the form of unit cost only apply to specific actions under Key Action 3. A simplified
funding model containing three grant items is proposed for Structured dialogue the field of
youth. The financing mechanism is explained in the table n°7 hereunder. The unit costs
adopted are fixed without further possible changes at national level.
Table n°7 - Detailed funding model for Key Action 3 Structured dialogue (Youth) –
decentralised implementation
Annex Grant item
II
IV
Travel costs
support
Unit cost per person per distance band
Organisational
support
Unit cost per person per day per host country
Special needs
support
Contribution up to 100% of real costs of participation of
disabled persons
Exceptional costs
Contribution up to 100% of the real costs
Different amount applicable as for group mobility under Youth
exchanges
12
ii.
Eurydice
The Eurydice network's goal is to contribute towards a better mutual understanding of
education systems in Europe through the production of comparable country descriptions,
indicators and comparative studies in the field of education. The participation of all national
units in the work of the network enables access to national qualitative and quantitative data
that are necessary for the comparison between Eurydice countries. The aim is to gather as
(territorially) exhaustive information as possible and to produce high quality studies and
analyses that facilitate cooperation in education at the European level. Taken together, these
activities give a substantial input, in terms of comparable data, to the current European cooperation in education and training (Europe 2020, ET 2020, Bologna Process, Lifelong
Learning, etc.).
The Eurydice funding system derives from the annual Eurydice work programme adopted
yearly by DG EAC. Activities eligible for funding are:
− Participation in common activities, which represent the largest part of the budget.
− Two Eurydice working meetings shall be organised per year: one in Brussels and one
hosted by one of the national units as of 2015. In 2014, the 2 meetings shall still take place
in Brussels. Costs for the participation of only one person representing the national unit
are taken into account for each meeting. Yearly Eurydice Heads of unit meetings, as in the
current system, are not taken into account in the grant as they are partially covered by the
Commission.
− The grant for translations into English of national education system descriptions only
applies to national units which are producing the detailed description of their educational
system in Eurypedia in at least two different language versions: English and the national
language.
− The list of publications of Eurydice completed studies that may be translated into the
national language(s) for promotional purposes is established by the Executive Agency,
based on the most recent Network work programmes. Only translations into official
languages other than DE, EN and FR are eligible1. Printing costs were not included as
national units are encouraged to publish online.
− A special additional amount is needed for the integration of new members in order to meet
the specific challenges of the new members, such as: writing and translating Eurypedia
fully into English, constructing and regularly updating the data sets, proactively promoting
Eurydice at national level, developing their expert pool, etc.
1
Translations into these three aforementioned languages are financed by Agency.
13
Table n°8 - Detailed funding model for Key Action 3 Eurydice
Areas
HE
Geographical
coverage
Programme Countries and some Partner Countries
Duration
Yearly grant
Annex Grant items
XI
Eurydice
Participation in common activities: unit cost per person per
day per category of staff per group of countries
Participation in Network meetings unit cost per person per day
per hosting country
Travel: Unit cost per person per distance band for working
meetings
Translation into English of the description of the education
system in Eurypedia: unit cost per standard number of pages
Translation of Eurydice completed studies into the national
language: unit cost per standard number of pages
Integration of new members into the Network: unit cost per
person per day per category of staff per group of countries
14
D.
Jean Monnet Activities
Simplified co-funding mechanisms have been already established in the framework of the
LLP Jean Monnet Programme (2007-2013). The action is composed of Teaching activities
(Jean Monnet Chair and Jean Monnet Module) and Jean Monnet projects. According to
feedback from applicants, beneficiaries and management bodies, the adopted system has
proven its benefits in terms of simplification and in terms of financial management and
control. It is therefore proposed to revise and continue this practice under Erasmus+ for the
similar project types. Activities eligible for funding shall be:
a) Teaching activities:
− A Jean Monnet Chair - a teaching post with a specialisation in European Union studies
for university professors or senior lectures. Only one professor may hold the Chair and
must provide a minimum of teaching hours per academic year.
− A Jean Monnet Module - a short teaching programme (or course) in the field of European
Union studies at a Higher Education Institution. Each Module has a minimum duration of
teaching hours per academic year. Modules may concentrate on one particular discipline
in European studies or be multidisciplinary in approach and therefore call upon the
services of several professors and experts.
b) Jean Monnet Projects:
− Erasmus+ shall introduce a re-labelled project type under the Jean Monnet Activities.
The Jean Monnet Projects shall comprise the former Information and Research Activities
and Learning EU @ School, focused principally on the organisation of conferences, but
shall expand the range of activities previously associated with this award to include
innovation initiatives, the promotion of cross-fertilisation and spread of Union content
and the use of new technologies. They shall cover a) Innovation projects, exploring new
angles and different methodologies in view of making European Union subjects more
attractive and adapting to various kinds of target populations (e.g. projects on Learning
EU @ School) and b) Cross-fertilisation and spread projects, promoting discussion and
reflection on European Union issues and enhancing knowledge about the Union and its
processes.
Table n°9 - Detailed funding model for Jean Monnet Activities
Areas
Jean Monnet
Geographical
coverage
Programme and Partner Countries
Duration
3 years
Annex Grant items
XII
Jean Monnet
Activities
ƒ
Teaching activities in Jean Monnet Chairs and Modules: 1)
unit cost per hour per country covering teaching costs; 2)
flat-rate top-up for additional academic activities; final
15
ƒ
amount subject to a cap.
Jean Monnet Projects: 1) national conference costs (unit
cost per participant per day); 2) participation of non-local
participants in project events (unit cost per distance band
for travel plus unit cost per day for subsistence); 3)
contribution to peripheral costs (lump sum). The sum of
these items is subject to a cap.
16