Inadequate SER by the Faculty of Environmental Sciences and inadequate internal evaluation of the two programs were the basic problem of the external evaluation of the undergraduate study program 1st Level Environment I and the postgraduate study program 2nd Level Environment II. No differentiation was made between the 1st and 2nd level programs in the faculty self-evaluation reports or the internal program evaluation. All data, including results of stakeholder surveys, are presented uniformly / the same for both degree programs, which prevented adequate external evaluation of each of the study programs (contrary to Article 13, SQAA standard), so the experts' report of experts on external evaluation was prepared uniformly and comprehensively for both study programs. In the self-evaluation reports, it is important to monitor, record, analyze and present findings and measures for improvement for each study program separately. The self-evaluation report identifies benefits and opportunities for improvement for the periods 2013/14; 2014/15; 2015/16; 2016/17; 2017/18; 2018/19 and 2019/20. All 5 findings on improvement opportunities in all 7 self-evaluations are the same and nowhere is the way of their implementation evident. From the above facts, we can conclude that the Faculty does not have a system to implement improvements and monitor their adequacy / effectiveness. The self-evaluation report does not contain an action plan for improvement and does not allow regular monitoring of actions and their results. The quality loop is not closed.Therefore experts recommend rethinking the logic of the QA Manual that in the future would provide clear connections between the results of analyses, measures planned and implemented and achieved results. The cycle of PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) should be present on the level of programme and lead to continuous enhancement of studies. Feedback from various student surveys - especially subject specific assessments - should be shared and discussed with students. There is a need to establish an appropriate system for student feedback on surveys, as the current percentage of respondents is too low to provide adequate feedback to realistically assess student satisfaction with faculty work and approach. The SER includes updates to the study program. The methodology and aspects on the basis of which the study program is evaluated and updated are presented, but the methodology does not include the results of feedback from various stakeholders of the study program (students, employers, mentors in practice, graduates, project partners). The changes are present to curricula and programs of study (example: changes in electives) from 2013/14 to 2019/20 with a detailed definition of the change and a rationale for the change. However, nowhere is it explained on the basis of which self-evaluation findings these changes were prepared. It is not clear from the report that changes are to be made to the program and curricula as part of the quality loop, as there is no clear and transparent link between the assessment of the situation and the guidelines in the self-evaluation report and the content of the changes to the curricula and program. Based on the findings, the quality loop is not closed.This is partly in contradiction with Article 12 of the SQAA criteria, Standard 6, which states that the internal quality assurance system shall enable the closing 25 of the quality loop in all areas of operation of a higher education institution. The Faculty needs to establish a system in which there is a transparent closed quality loop, i.e. the findings based on feedback from all stakeholders in the study program need to be reflected in the justifications for changes to the study program and the curricula. The action plan must also reflect the activities that will enable changes to the program and curricula. Comprehensive SERs require the preparation of quality summaries to facilitate access to information for all stakeholders in the university. The self-evaluation report and its summary should include clear information on the results of measures from previous reports that address limitations and weaknesses. Not all faculty stakeholders are included in the self-evaluation process, and it was also noted that not all stakeholders are informed about the SEP and its findings. Of particular concern is that students are not informed of self-evaluation findings and measures of the self-evaluation. Faculty collect a lot of feedback through informal forms, interviews, focus groups that are not presented in the SEP. This feedback should be properly formalized and included in the SPS in a manner that reflects the formal findings and consequently leads to appropriate remediation. Informal feedback received by faculty in individual or group interviews with stakeholders should be formalized in the form of notes/ minutes. The validity of a large amount of informal feedback should be reflected in the SER as qualitative feedback and lead to appropriate action. Feedback from various student surveys - especially subject specific assessments - should be shared and discussed with students. There is a need to establish an appropriate system for student feedback on surveys, as the current percentage of respondents is too low to provide adequate feedback to realistically assess student satisfaction with faculty work and approach. The faculty does not have established internal procedures for determining the quality of administrative staff and establishing professional goals and performance indicators. Before establishing such a system, it would be essential to sensitize staff to quality assurance goals and the organization's strategy for raising the level of quality culture. The Faculty should develop an action plan for the development of the personal career of professionals and their continuous professional development and training. The faculty must regulate the adequacy of student opinions in habilitation processes. Faculty The student statements in habilitation procedures are not reviewed in terms of content and quality. Student statements are the same in text and content for all candidates. In an interview with students, we found that the student president receives an email asking for a student opinion to which he responds, without further review or exchange of opinions with other students, that it is equally positive for all applications and for all candidates, which means that students do not form their own independent statements.The faculty should present appropriate measures for the transparency of student opinions in habilitation procedures. Improve the formal process for filing student complaints to better inform students of this possibility and the process itself. 26 A group of SAQQ experts especially welcome the approach to the optimal 50% / 50% ratio between research and educational work of academic staff. This enables the successful and efficient transfer of scientific knowledge into the study process. A group of SAQQ experts that the faculty and UNG can eliminate the identified partially complies and non-compliance with quality standards. At the same time, the faculty must present appropriate measures to realize opportunities for improvement.