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

1

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.

2

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

3

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 country-specific - 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.

4

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 Erasmus+ Programme guide, […]. 7 Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, […].

5

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.

6

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.

7

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

Jean Monnet activities II

Travel costs support

Unit cost band 2 for distances from 100 km up to 1.999 km

Unit cost band 3 for distances from 2.000 km

Key Action 2: Strategic partnerships :

- Transnational Project meetings

- Transnational learning/training/teaching activities

Key Action 2: Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances (embedded mobility)

8

Annex Item 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)

Key Action 2: Capacity Building (Youth)

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

III Individual

support

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: Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances (embedded mobility)

Unit cost per person differentiating between groups above and below 100 participants

Key Action 1: Learning Mobility of Individuals - staff in SE/VET/HE/AE and learners in VET/HE

IV Organisational

support

Unit cost per person per day or per month per host country

Key Action 1: Learning Mobility of Individuals (Youth), large-scale volunteering projects

Key Action 2: Capacity Building (Youth)

Key Action 3: Structured Dialogue (Youth)

9

Annex Item Form Applied in Key Action

V Non-online linguistic support

Unit cost per person per course Key Action 1: Learning Mobility of Individuals (>1 month VET learners, >2 months for youth volunteers (EVS)

Key Action 2: Strategic Partnerships Transnational learning/training/teaching activities > 2 months

VI Course costs

support

Unit cost per person per day capped at 10 days

Key Action 1: Learning Mobility of Individuals (SE and AE staff)

VII

Project ma-nagement and Implementa-

tion

Unit cost per participating organisation per month differentiating between coordinator and other partners

Capped at 10 partners per project

Key Action 2: Strategic Partnerships

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 Joint Masters

Degrees support

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

Lump sum amount covering Management costs of the consortium delivering the JMD

Key Action 1: Joint Masters Degrees

10

Annex Item Form Applied in Key Action

X

Sector Skills and Know-

ledge Allian-ces implemen-tation support

Intellectual output support (implementation support): Unit cost per person per day per 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

Key Action 2: Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances

XI Eurydice support

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 participant per day per hosting country

Unit cost 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 (to be integrated with Intellectual output support): Unit cost per person per day per category of staff per group of countries

Key Action 3: Eurydice network

11

Annex Item Form Applied in Key Action

XII Jean Monnet

support

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 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.

Jean Monnet activities

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.

12

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.

13

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 2007-2013 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. However, 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

14

rate10, thus ensuring naturally the respect of the co-financing principle. 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).

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 no-profit rule.

10 The maximum Union co-financing rate is mentioned in the 2014 Annual Work Programme.

15

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/flat-rates/lump sums compared to real costs. This shall be conducted through a consultancy study including surveys of samples of beneficiaries.

Annex 2 of 13

1

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.

2

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 Key Action 1, Key Action 2, Key Action 3 and Jean Monnet activities.

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). 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 Key Action 2, Key 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.

3

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.

4

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(Longitude 1- Longitude 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.

5

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:

6

BAND DISTANCE UNIT COSTS Band 1 100 – 499 km EUR a) Band 2 500 – 1.999 km EUR b) Band 3 2.000 – 2.999 km EUR c) Band 4 3.000 – 3.999 km EUR d) Band 5 4.000 – 7.999 km EUR e) Band 6 8.000 – 19.999 km 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 socio-economic 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 co-financing 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 Key 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).

7

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 Key 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. cross-border bilateral projects), no grant support shall be provided for travel distances below 100 km, in line with the approach taken also in Key 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

8

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 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.

Annex 3 of 13

1

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. Justification

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. In 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

2

to apply for one or several individuals (learners and or staff) to participate in mobility activities across Programme Countries. In 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.

3

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 II 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.

In 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, Iceland, Turkey, FYROM, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

4

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 MIPS - 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

5

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 MIPS 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 Institutions (HEIs) 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.

6

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.

In 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 MIPS 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.

7

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 MIPS 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.

In 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 MIPS 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 co-financing 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.

8

volunteer6. In 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.)

9

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

10

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

11

CHAPTER IIIb Individual support for students in higher education

2.1. Nature of the supported actions

Individual 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),

12

o 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.

In 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

13

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). It 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, IS, 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

Group 2 Receiving countries

Group 3 Receiving countries

Group 1 Sending countries

Medium range [x−y] EUR/month

Group 2 Sending countries

Medium range [x−y] EUR/month

Medium range - at least EUR 50: [a−b] EUR/month

Group 3 Sending countries

Medium range + at least EUR 50: [c−d] EUR/month

Medium range [x−y] EUR/month

14

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.

It 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

15

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 HEIs 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 non-

presence 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)

16

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.

Annex 4 of 13

1

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 item-based 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.

2

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.

3

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

4

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

5

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.

6

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.

7

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.

8

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

5Advance 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%.

9

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.

10

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%.

Annex 5 of 13

1

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.

Linguistic 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. Linguistic 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 LLP 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

2

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 LLP 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) Sample

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 LLP Link in representative actions of the sectors' programmes (Leonardo, 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.

3

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 Leonardo 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.

Annex 6 of 13

1

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 item-based 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.

2

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. Real 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.

3

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

4

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

Annex 7 of 13

1

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 Project Management and Implementation, Transnational Project Meetings, Intellectual Outputs, Multiplier

Events, Transnational Teaching/Training/Learning activities. 2 Exceptional costs (subcontracting, equipment) and special needs support (costs for participation of disabled

persons).

2

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

3

− 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

4

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.

5

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.

Annex 8 of 13

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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.

5

Table 1. GDP per capita as a percentage of EU27 (2011)

Country GDP 2011

GDP Ranking

4 GDP groups - option 1

4 GDP groups - option 2

4 GDP groups - option 3

Bulgaria - BG 46 1 group 4 group 4 group 4 Rumania - RO 47 2 group 4 group 4 group 4 Turkey - TR 52 3 group 4 group 4 group 4 Latvija - LV 58 4 group 4 group 4 group 4 Polska - PL 64 5 group 4 group 4 group 4 Lithuania - LT 66 6 group 4 group 4 group 4 Magyarorszag - HU 66 7 group 4 group 4 group 4 Eesti - EE 67 8 group 4 group 4 group 4 Slovensko - SK 73 9 group 4 group 3 group 4 Portugal - PT 78 10 group 4 group 3 group 3 Ceska Republika - CZ 80 11 group 4 group 3 group 3 Ellas - EL 80 12 group 4 group 3 group 3 Slovenija - SI 84 13 group 4 group 3 group 3 Malta - MT 86 14 group 4 group 3 group 3 Kypros - CY 94 15 group 3 group 3 group 3 Espana - ES 98 16 group 3 group 3 group 3 Italia - IT 100 17 group 3 group 2 group 2 France - FR 108 18 group 2 group 2 group 2 United Kingdom - UK 109 19 group 2 group 2 group 2 Island - IS 112 20 group 2 group 2 group 2 Suomi - FI 115 21 group 2 group 2 group 2 Belgique/Belgie - BE 119 22 group 2 group 2 group 2 Deutschland - DE 121 23 group 2 group 2 group 2 Danmark - DK 125 24 group 2 group 1 group 1 Sverige - SE 127 25 group 2 group 1 group 1 Ireland - IE 127 26 group 2 group 1 group 1 Oesterreich - AT 129 27 group 2 group 1 group 1 Nederland - NL 131 28 group 2 group 1 group 1 Norge - NO 187 29 group 1 group 1 group 1 Luxembourg - LU 271 30 group 1 group 1 group 1 Liechtenstein - LI N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

6

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.

7

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).

Annex 9 of 13

1

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 International (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. In 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.

2

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 International 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.

3

i. Student scholarship amount

In 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. It 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.

4

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 at less than 4.000 km from the JMD coordinating HEI

EUR 2.000 per year for travel costs

EUR 1.000 for installation costs

Resident of a Partner Country whose city is located at 4.000 km or more from the JMD coordinating HEI

EUR 3.000 per year for travel costs

EUR 1.000 for installation costs

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.

In 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.

5

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.

In 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 Intellectual 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.

6

a. JMD consortium activities during the preparatory year

Activity Total simulated cost (travel, subsistence, staff)

Consortia meetings EUR 11.656 Administrative support EUR 34.584 Promotional and dissemination activities EUR 13.672 TOTAL EUR 59.912

b. JMD consortium activities during each of the course editions/intakes

Activity Total simulated cost (travel, subsistence, staff)

Consortia meetings EUR 17.484 Administrative support EUR 34.584 Promotional and dissemination activities EUR 13.672 External evaluation exercise EUR 23.350 Student support and management EUR 57.972 Guest lecturers EUR 15.600 TOTAL EUR 162.662

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 cross- check: − 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.

In 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. If the required number has not been reached, the consortium shall be asked to reimburse the relevant number of equivalent weeks of unit costs.

7

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.

Annex 10 of 13

1

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.

2

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. Method to determine and update the amounts

i. Implementation support

a) 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.

3

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 co-funding 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

4

Table 1: Percentage of projects per co-funding band using 90% of unit staff costs

Co-Funding Bands % of Projects

≤ 49,99 % 10,31% 50% - 59,99% 15,32% 60% - 69,99% 25,35% 70% - 79,99% 22,56% 80% - 84,99% 9,75% 85% - 89,99% 6,69% 90% - 99,99% 6,41% ≥ 100% 3,62%

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.

% of projects with co-funding from

0 to 85% of total eligible costs 83,29%

60 to 85% of total eligible costs 57,66%

5

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

Annex 11 of 13

1

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:

2

− 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.

3

c) Analysis

i. 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: the travel bands and costs proposed in Annex II "Travel costs support" of this Decision; 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.

4

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 Based on the average of real costs calculated in 2011 on a 3-year range sample (2008, 2009, 2010). 4 The units can decide from one year to the next whether they wish to remove or add the version in their

national language. 5 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. 6 Based on the average of real costs calculated in 2011 on a 3-year range sample (2008, 2009, 2010).

5

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 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). 8 The amount allocated to each specific activity by country is indicated in the requirements of the call.

Annex 12 of 13

1

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): non-teaching 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 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. 2 Jean Monnet teaching activities – namely Chairs and Modules. 3 Jean Monnet Information and Research activities.

2

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

3

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 co-financing 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 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.

5 The minimum requirement for number of hours is currently applicable under the LLP and shall remain the same under Erasmus+.

4

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:

Total grant paid (budget-based)

Total grant paid (simplified funding

system) Difference in

EUR Difference

in % Chairs 2.256.715,88 2.369.863,53 113.147,65 4,77% Modules 1.070.496,64 1.094.053,39 23.556,75 2,15% TOTAL 3.327.212,52 3.463.916,92 136.704,40 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 budget-based 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

5

that the beneficiaries concerned are for the most part public Higher 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 Financial Regulation, article 125(4) and Rules of Application, article 185. 7 See Annex VIII Intellectual outputs support to the present Decision

6

− 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 co-financing 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 See also the Annex II Travel costs support to the present Decision. 9 The daily allowance covering accommodation, subsistence and local transport.

7

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 Total

Cost in EUR

Grant awarded in EUR

Applicant co-financing

in EUR

% of Union Grant

Current Jean Monnet funding System (used from 2010)

85.558

60.000

25.558

70%

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

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 co-funding 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.

Annex 13 of 13

1

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 sub-categories (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 Program-me Coun-tries

- Between Program-me Countries - Between Program-me and Partner Countries

Between Program-me Countries

Between Programme Countries

Between Programme Countries

- Between Programme Countries - Between Programme and Partner Countries

- Between Programme Countries - Between Programme and Partner Countries

Duration (excluding time for travelling)

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

An-nex

Grant items

II Travel costs support

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 Different amount per person for individual and group mobility respectively

2

A B C D E F G

III Individual support

Unit cost per day per host country following duration ranges: - 1 days – 14 days - 15 days – 2 months

N/A (integrated in organi-sational support)

Unit cost per day per host country following duration ranges: - 1 days – 14 days - 15 days – 60 days - 61 days – 12 months

Unit cost per month per host country following cost ranges: - high cost - medium cost - low cost

Unit cost per month per host country following cost ranges: - high cost - medium cost - low cost

Unit cost per day or month per host country (=pocket money for volunteers) for short term or long term activity respective-ly

N/A (integrated in organisational support)

IV Organisa-tional 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 month per host country For EVS < 2 months: unit cost per person per day per host country

Unit cost per person per day per host country

V Non-online linguistic support

N/A [may be covered from orga-nisational support where needed]

N/A [may be covered from orga-nisational 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

N/A [For EN, FR, DE, ES, IT: access to on-line course. For other languages support may be covered from orga-nisational support]

N/A [For EN, FR, DE, ES, IT: access to on-line course. 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

3

A B C D E F G covered from orga-nisational support]

from orga-nisational support]

VI Course costs support

Unit cost per person per day capped at equivalent of 10 days N.B. Course fees are not applicable to VET and HE staff.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Special needs support

Real additional costs

Real additional costs

Real additional costs

Real additional costs

Real additional costs

Real additional costs

Real additional costs

Exceptio-nal 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

4

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

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).

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.).

5

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 support (embedded mobility)

Unit cost per person per day per host country

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

6

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

7

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 youth

Geographical coverage

- Between Programme Countries

- Partner Countries may be added if they bring added value to the project

Duration 2 years or 3 years 6 months – 2 years

Annex All applicants may apply for a contribution to costs concerning PMI and Transnational project meetings

VII 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

8

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 to real costs related to

9

activities/outputs) subcontracting or purchase of goods/services

Contribution per project capped at absolute amount

Special needs support Contribution up to 100% of real costs of participation of disabled persons

ii. 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 Travel costs support (embedded mobility)

Unit cost per person per distance band

Different amount per person for group mobility under Youth exchanges

III Individual support (embedded mobility)

Short term: unit cost per person per day according to the host country

Long term: unit cost per person per month according to the host country

IV 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

10

embedded mobility activities.

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

iii. 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,

11

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)

12

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 Travel costs support

Unit cost per person per distance band

Different amount applicable as for group mobility under Youth exchanges

IV 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

13

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 co-operation 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.

14

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

15

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

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

16

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.