Examples of using Evaluator recommends in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
Therefore, the external evaluator recommends that.
The evaluator recommends that the Commission reconsider the objectives of the Programme.
Furthermore, the external evaluator recommends that.
Therefore, the evaluator recommends that the Commission reconsider this system.
Results: The Evaluator recommends that greater emphasis should be put on enhancing the impact of the activities developed through the supported associations.
Broadening participation in the activities of the EIUC: The Evaluator recommends the organisation of EIUC events in new Member States and participation by new universities from these countries in the programme.
The Evaluator recommends that mechanisms should be explored to publicise the Jean Monnet brand more widely both within and outside the EU, as a means to increase student and public recognition.
The German Employment evaluator recommends that the cost of transnationality is made more explicit.
The evaluator recommends that the Commission create an integrated electronic monitoring system able of bringing together the information that the Commission holds on each years projects, and of enabling statistical information.
The"non participation" of certain Member States: The Evaluator recommends exploring the reasons for the"non participation" of certain Member States and taking steps to remove any barriers, if practical.
The evaluator recommends that the Commission monitor developments in the following areas of the Programme management: the impact of the“5% rule” on partner co-financing; the impact of the sectoral prioritisation established in 2002; the inclusion of the new Member States in the Programme; the long-term sustainability of Culture 2000 project partnerships; and the long-term sustainability of Culture 2000 project output.
Financing of the institutions: The Evaluator recommends, especially with respect to CIFE, that alternative financing be explored for some of its non-core activities.
EIUC personnel policy: The Evaluator recommends the possibility of enhancing the EIUC's research capacity through permanent staff.
Strategic objectives: The Evaluator recommends reassessing what strategic objectives of the education and training work programme are addressed by associations funded through this action.
EIUC policy towards graduates: The Evaluator recommends ensuring that selection for the Fellowship Programme takes place at an earlier date and that the EIUC undertakes closer monitoring of employment of graduates.
The profile, structure and budget of the EIUC: The Evaluator recommends exploring the value of simplification of the network involved in the delivery of the EMA and encouraging the EIUC to seek a clearer profile outside the EMA.
AED cooperation with other partners: The Evaluator recommends encouraging the AED to explore closer cooperation with professionals in its core areas of interest as well as collaborative projects with external agencies.
Attracting new stakeholders: The Evaluator recommends that in future calls for proposals, greater emphasis should be placed on attracting a wider range of actors into the events and other projects organised within the scope of projects.
AED communication and dissemination: The Evaluator recommends that the AED enhance dissemination of its activities, outputs and results at national level, making use of its membership and new dissemination methods, and improve its communication with the Commission.
Broadening participation in the activities of the institutions: The Evaluator recommends getting the institutions(in particular EIPA and EUI) to take measures encouraging applications and participation from countries with low representation.
Internal monitoring and evaluation within the institutions: The Evaluator recommends encouraging some of the specified institutions(in particular CIFE and EIPA) to develop a more systematic approach to internal monitoring and evaluation of the quality and relevance of their educational and training activities.
Some evaluators recommend that these differences in status are acknowledged through a different financial treatment.
The evaluators recommend, however, that the work programme concentrates more on the primary objective of data collection and analysis and have suggested other areas where less emphasis should be placed.
The evaluators recommend that the areas in which the Centre operates should be updated to reflect the current situation in terms of competence in order to cover the phenomenon of racism and xenophobia comprehensively.
Though noting that it is too early to formally comment on the effectiveness of the Agency,or on the appropriateness of its staffing levels, the Evaluators recommend that this should be the subject of a formal evaluation at a later date.
To look at the longer-term perspective of some of the Monitoring Centre's work-such as data collection- the evaluators recommend the development of a three-year programme, accompanied by detailed annual programmes.
However, the Evaluators recommend that COOPENER retains its specificity, autonomy and visibility within this new thematic programme, and stress that the management needs to retain energy expertise as well as international aid expertise, though the latter is the most important.
Based on early indications that the IEEA is improving the programme efficiency, the Evaluators recommend that it should be retained, and expanded, to run the successor IEE programme as part of the CIP and, possibly the whole of the CIP, provided that a formal evaluation of the performance of the IEEA duly demonstrates and justifies this.
The evaluators recommended that future near-to-market programmes should devote a very much greater proportion of their resources to networking and concertation between projects(for instance, to encourage the development and diffusion of new business models) and to dissemination of the exemplary elements of project activity that projects themselves may have no incentive to disseminate.
Recommendation 1: The evaluators recommended that future near-to-market programmes should devote a very much greater proportion of their resources to networking and concertation between projects and to dissemination of the exemplary elements of project activity that projects themselves may have no incentive to disseminate.