Quali modifiche al programma Erasmus+ La proposta dell’Utrecht Network
Il programma Erasmus+ è in vigore dal 2014, è difficile però trovare commenti sul funzionamento del programma. Uno dei pochi è il Position Paper on Erasmus+ pubblicato dall’Utrecht Network nel luglio 2017. L’Utrecht Network è un consorzio di 32 università europee costituito per sviluppare la cooperazione internazionale. In Italia ne fa parte l’università di Bologna.
Riporto qui alcune indicazioni di modifica pienamente condivisibili contenute nel Position Paper:
Improve the evaluation and selection system
The first recommendation from the Utrecht Network is to centralize the evaluation of all
multilateral actions, stepping back from the devolution to national agencies of some
important actions such as KA2 strategic partnerships. If the delegation of selection
procedures is not possible centrally in the future programme, we recommend aligning the
assessment of projects, delegated to external experts by national agencies, as much as
possible. Training sessions such as those organised by the EACEA for LLP-multilateral
experts are crucial for the alignment of the group’s assessment culture and methodology.
Those sessions should preferably be made centrally, involving experts from all
countries. If this is not possible, EACEA should be able to transfer its lengthy
experience and significant knowledge gained in the organisation of selection
rounds to the NAs, with a particular focus on the “consolidation” phase. National
agencies should be encouraged to recruit and select international experts (e.g. by
publishing the call for experts in a more accessible way and in English) (p.3).
[Improve] Information about the selected projects
in terms of the information flow on selected projects, national agencies (NAs)
are still the authorities responsible for publishing the results of the selection rounds for
those actions that are now managed at a decentralized level. In many cases, national
agency websites are developed in that country’s national language only and it is not easy,
and at times impossible, to find timely and relevant information on selection rounds,
especially for KA2 strategic partnerships without mastering the language of the national
agency concerned. Therefore, we think that the EACEA or the EC should carry out a
centralized action on the collection and publication of this information. More specifically,
we encourage the publication of statistics on number of applications submitted in
each country on the EACEA/EAC web site. In addition, selection results of KA203
and any other decentralised action should be published simultaneously on the web
site of EACEA/EAC in order to let stakeholders clearly find results in a central page,
without surfing on NA web pages (p.3).