The European Programmes Agency (EUPA) is the agency that supports Maltese individuals and entities in availing themselves of funding under the various educational programmes provided by the European Commission.

When in May of last year the EU took the decision to suspend all educational programmes for Malta because of what it described as “deficiencies in the management of funds” by EUPA, there was uproar from the public, and especially from students who had been directly affected. Their dismay and frustration was understandable: Most young people from average income families cannot afford to live and study overseas and it was only through these programmes and EU funding that scores of Maltese students were being granted such crucial opportunities to leave the island and broaden their horizons.

Their dreams had been thwarted because of serious shortcomings within the EUPA structure and they were being made to pay for the mistakes of others. Many young people had to put their educational aspirations on hold.

A year had already gone by with no real progress until a few days ago when it was announced that the European Commission had announced a ‘partial lifting’ of the suspension. Basically, the Commission has given EUPA the go-ahead to prepare, launch and advertise both the 2011 Lifelong Learning calls for proposals for mobility activities, notably Erasmus, and the next selection round for Youth in Action projects. This will allow Maltese individuals and organisations to apply for participation in the Youth in Action and Lifelong Learning 2011 calls.

This is welcome news, of course, although it has to be said that it is conditional on the acceptance of the 2010 Declaration of Assurance which is to be presented by the end of April 2011 together with the yearly National Authority Report. While the Commission points out that progress has been achieved, one must note that the EUPA has made a commitment to address remaining deficiencies by due date and according to high quality standards.

At the time of the suspension, the Commission said it “was not satisfied with the control mechanisms”. Other areas of concern were that the national agency could not cope with the programme management requirements because of lack of human resources and because of the high staff turnover. The report also complained that duties were not separated well enough with the person giving advice to an applicant later evaluating the same grant application.

The partial lifting of the suspension seems to indicate that at least some of these problems have been resolved. Students need official assurance that the mismanagement of funds issue will not arise again. As things stand, most students or their parents usually fork out the money themselves to pay for the courses and in some cases, they even take out loans. They have been willing to do this because they believed there was a responsible, reliable structure in place which would guarantee that they would be reimbursed through EU funding. That is why it is crucial for the EUPA to set their minds at rest once and for all.