What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Removed:The objectives of this implementation report are to assess and evaluate the execution of the Erasmus+ programme for the period 2012-2027, in addition to identifying good practices and addressing any challenges in the programme;

Added:Committee on Culture and Education

Removed:This interim evaluation will assess the overall effectiveness and performance of the programme, including new initiatives and the delivery of inclusion and simplification measures;

Added:PE752.792

Removed:The Rapporteur has gathered information and drafted this implementation report following intensive consultations with a wide range of stakeholders. The findings primarily rest on the following written sources:

Added:European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2024 on the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 (2023/2002(INI))

Removed:• The results of a survey issued to Erasmus+ National Agencies (NAs) from the countries who can participate in the Erasmus+ 2021-2027 programme.

Removed:• The results of a survey issued to a wider set of stakeholders who are involved in the Erasmus+ 2021-2027 programme;

Removed:In addition, the Rapporteur also availed of the studies evaluating the early implementation of the programme that were commissioned by the Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies and the European Parliamentary Research Service;

Removed:In addition to the above-mentioned surveys and studies, meetings of Shadow Rapporteurs with NAs and stakeholders from pan-European organisations were organised in June and July 2023 to discuss the programme’s implementation;

Removed:The Rapporteur has been in regular bilateral contact with a large number of stakeholders from all the programme’s sectors to gather additional information. He also met with representatives of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).

Removed:Finally, the Rapporteur also considered key Commission documents, including the annual work programmes for the implementation of Erasmus+.

Removed:Despite all efforts to collect the relevant information, undertaken with the support of the EP administration, the Rapporteur is well aware that he could not carry out a fully-fledged quantitative and qualitative assessment of Erasmus+ after less than three years of programme implementation. Additional information needs to be assimilated during the remaining programme period in order to acquire a full picture. This will be indispensable when evaluating the final impact of Erasmus+ 2021-2027;

Removed:Accordingly, this implementation report intends to provide an overview of the programme’s implementation over the first two and a half years of its existence. It illustrates the opportunities and the main challenges and provides suggestions for improvement for the remaining four and a half years of the programme’s life span. The conclusions and recommendations should feed into the European Commission’s mid-term evaluation report, due by the end of 2024. The report also provides some ideas for the design of the future programme period;

Removed:2. Origin and structure of the programme

Removed:The original Erasmus programme was an international student exchange programme that has been in existence since 1987, supporting education and training. It underwent several iterations, with each phase building upon the successes and lessons of the previous ones. During the programming period 2014-2020, Erasmus became a central component of the new Erasmus+ programme;

Removed:The Erasmus+ programme encompasses various sectors in the fields of education, training, youth and sport, and it promotes international cooperation and mobility through different key actions and funding mechanisms. It also supports initiatives such as European Universities, Centres of Vocational Excellence, DiscoverEU and the European Student Card initiative;

Removed:It provides young people – mostly students, pupils and apprentices – with various opportunities to study, train and work abroad; there are also opportunities for adult learners and teaching staff;

Removed:While the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 has maintained the same structure as its predecessor, it has strengthened its priorities in four areas: i) inclusion and diversity; ii) digital transformation; iii) environment and the fight against climate change; and iv) participation in democratic life, common values and civic engagement;

Removed:Overall, the programme’s structure is designed to foster collaboration, mobility, innovation, and policy reform across the board. It has played a significant role in enhancing European cooperation and promoting international understanding through educational exchange and inter-cultural learning. As such, it is one of the EU’s flagship programmes, and enjoys a high degree of recognition and popularity among citizens in Europe and further afield.

Removed:3. Main conclusions and recommendations

Removed:3.1. Preliminary remarks

Removed:The Erasmus+ programme for the years 2021 to 2027 aims to reach up to 12 million participants. It holds significant importance as a key instrument to build a European Education Area and support the implementation of the European strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area and beyond. Its underlying sectoral agendas advance youth policy cooperation under the Union Youth Strategy 2019-2027 and develop the European dimension in sport;

Removed:The beginning of the current programme proved difficult, starting with a delay in the approval of the Multiannual Financial Framework and, consequently, the Erasmus+ Regulation itself. This was followed by the COVID-19 outbreak and an overall difficult economic situation aggravated by the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, causing also high inflation rates across Europe. All this brought unprecedented challenges to the activities falling under Erasmus+. A general sentiment of the institutions involved in the implementation of Erasmus+ centres on the lack of flexibility illustrated during the COVID-19 crisis, in particular by EACEA. While the measures of the European Commission and EACEA to adapt to the Ukrainian crisis are appreciated, many institutions expressed a clear viewpoint that more could have been done, and that national funding sources were more easily available than funding received under Erasmus+.

Removed:3.2. Size and outreach of the programme

Removed:The interest in the programme is very high and is currently at the same level as before the COVID-19 pandemic. With the exception of adult education, the demand for mobility and cooperation activities is much higher than the opportunities available;

Removed:It was difficult to implement mobility actions during COVID-19, thus the first year, 2021, saw necessary adjustments by reducing funding for mobility (KA1) and increasing funding for cooperation and innovation partnerships (KA2). It is important that Erasmus+ was not suspended or ceased during the pandemic;

Removed:Even during the pandemic, however, physical mobility activities still took place to a considerable degree. The Commission and National Agencies allowed more flexibility; learners and teaching staff were also willing to change their initial plans, and although postponed, they continued to travel. This was accompanied by an extension of virtual and blended learning (eLearning/distance learning), and the building of an infrastructure for digitalised learning opportunities – something that might have taken much longer to achieve without the pandemic;

Removed:The mobility of adult learners, as a new opportunity, is not sufficiently well advertised yet, and the uptake is relatively low. Numbers, however, have increased from 2022 to 2023 and demand in 2024 is expected to match the opportunities;

Removed:Youth participation activities seem to attract a lot of interest. Barriers to participate, however, continue to be considerably high, considering the combination of intricate administration and application processes for small-sized applicant organisations and the inability of informal youth groups to apply;

Removed:At the same time, the results of the consultations for this report underline that Erasmus+ has indeed become very popular and undoubtedly one of the most successful European brands.

Removed:3.3. Recognition and Transferability of Credits

Removed:According to a survey of the Erasmus Student Network, almost a third of respondents reported they did not receive full credit recognition, which is far from the objectives laid out in the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education. The Rapporteur, therefore, asks the Commission to work towards greater recognition of credits earned during mobility periods, making it easier for students to transfer credits between institutions and ensuring the academic value of their experiences. In addition, the feasibility and need for a ‘Joint European Degree’ should be explored.

Removed:3.4. Main features and structure

Removed:The current programme is based on the same approach as the previous programme of clustering activities under Key Actions (KA 1 Learning Mobility of Individuals, KA2 - Cooperation among organisations and institutions, KA3 – Support to policy development and cooperation) plus Jean Monnet Actions. The KA approach now applies to sport as well, unlike the previous programme. The three key actions of the Erasmus+ programme have been well established and are accepted by the various communities in the fields of education, training, youth, and sport.

Removed:3.5. Programme Priorities and Impact

Removed:Individual mobility continues to be a central component of Erasmus+. While mobility actions enjoy high popularity and receive positive feedback on most aspects, there is room for improvement when it comes to clarity of funding rules and enhancement of programme management, especially via digital tools. Changes to the grant agreement should be a priority in the second phase of the programme, in order to ensure that all participants receive their grants before their mobility commences. Currently, Erasmus grants do not completely meet the additional costs of studying abroad. Funding for education within the Multiannual Financial Framework should increase so that it is possible to attain the set goal of wide access to high-quality mobility and keep up with the increases in actual mobility costs. In addition, DiscoverEU has become a well-established, easy-to-access activity, which is highly sought after by young people;

Removed:In terms of outreach towards the wider public in Europe, learning mobility is the most effective activity when we consider the numbers of individuals. This also applies to value-for-money. Small-scale partnerships also reach out to many individual participants. This becomes evident when looking at project reports and listening to the feedback of project promoters;

Removed:At first glance, a programme set-up with a few key actions seems simple and easy-to-understand. All actions, however, consist of sub-actions with a lot of variety within each one. This makes the programme relatively complex and difficult for target groups to understand. It also makes the programme’s administration challenging;

Removed:Inclusion and Diversity:

Removed:Erasmus+ places a strong emphasis on promoting inclusion, diversity, and equal opportunities for all participants, to overcome any barriers related to their background, socio-economic status, abilities, or other characteristics. Projects and activities are encouraged to address barriers to participation and promote social cohesion;

Removed:The single biggest barrier to achieving inclusion is the insufficient level of grants provided. Strategies need to be further developed to ensure that underrepresented groups, including individuals with disabilities and those coming from marginalised communities, have effective access to Erasmus+ opportunities;

Removed:The European Parliament considers inclusion as central; it focuses especially on the support provided to disadvantaged groups to facilitate their participation. Parliament requests specific information on the socio-economic background of participants and the financial impact of disabilities. At present, this data is not available due to a lack of properly functioning IT tools, in addition to the fact that it is still too early to have completed projects;

Removed:Green and Digital Transitions:

Removed:Erasmus+ has a strong and legitimate focus on physical mobility, which needs to be balanced with the mitigation of climate change. It is clear that steps have been taken to increase the amount of green travel and higher rates are available for more environmentally friendly ways of travelling;

Removed:The Rapporteur welcomes the efforts dedicated to bring about a digital transformation, in particular by stepping up efforts to foster ‘Erasmus without papers’ and the ‘European Student Card’. Linking programme management and the participation of individuals to the eID initiative is particularly important. Implementation, however, is not happening at the initial planned speed. The Rapporteur requests the Commission to enhance digital processes, procedures and tools and to improve the interoperability between the different tools that are available;

Removed:Promoting Young People’s Participation and Democratic Values:

Removed:Erasmus+ aims to empower young people to engage actively in their communities, participate in decision-making processes, and contribute towards building a strong sense of democratic values and active citizenship. Projects are encouraged to foster critical thinking, media literacy, and youth participation in democratic processes;

Removed:Research shows that participation in Erasmus+ increases a better understanding and support of European values. According to a study by the ESN, the majority of students identify more as global citizens and with the EU following their Erasmus+ experience without losing identification with their countries and regions. Civic engagement and participation in democratic life is one of the new priorities of the programme, as KA2 will devote greater attention to ‘common values, civic engagement and participation’, but progress has yet to become evident. Overall, Erasmus+ actions in the field of citizenship education are considerably lacking in systemic impact. Making civic engagement a priority in learning mobility experiences in Higher Education would contribute to the achievement of objectives laid out in the European Strategy for Universities. It would also constitute an integral part of the horizontal priorities of inclusion and participation in democratic life of the programme. Erasmus+ should also promote the 2024 European elections and motivate participation.

Removed:3.6. Budget

Removed:The estimated overall budget available for 2021-2027 is EUR 26.51 billion, made up of EUR 24.57 billion at current prices and a ‘top-up’ of EUR 1.938 billion in current prices from the Commission’s revenues from fines. Most of the budget (up to 83 %) is earmarked for education and training. Compared to the previous programme, the budget for Erasmus+ has almost doubled, which is undoubtedly a welcome development, despite falling short of the tripling originally requested by the European Parliament. The doubling of the budget, however, has coincided with a surging inflation;

Removed:The Rapporteur suggests that the annual budget allocations should have been distributed more evenly over the programme years, in particular for well-established activities;

Removed:It can also be observed that during the current programming period, the number of youth organisations receiving Erasmus+ centralised grants managed directly by EACEA has decreased;

Removed:It should be noted that the Sport sector has very limited funds, which constrains the scope for mobility, the development of innovation and transnational cooperation. Synergies with the EU4Health programme 2021-2027 also need to be ensured;

Removed:The budget available for actions in adult learning and education (ALE) is becoming increasingly unpredictable. The current total amount and the share it represents, 5.8 % of the total budget for education and training, are not sufficient to achieve a participation of 60 % of adults in ALE by 2030. This is within a background of a lack of structural funding for ALE at national and regional levels in Europe, leading to a high degree of dependence on EU project funding.

Removed:3.7. Programme Administration

Removed:To address past criticism that the programme is excessively bureaucratic, Erasmus+ 2021-2027 introduces a range of simplification measures, such as two-stage proposals, lump sums and small-scale partnerships, all of which have been welcomed by stakeholders. There has been a marked effort to provide clarity about the aims of calls and on the communication of these calls;

Removed:From the perspective of the beneficiaries and the National Agencies, there are, however, a number of shortcomings. Examples are the cumbersome registration process, application forms and other processes that require many details, which are hard for smaller entities and individuals to deliver without specific support;

Removed:Furthermore, the lack of support or guidance from the central level to the NAs hampers evaluation and reporting processes and leads to inconsistencies between NAs. Over and above, IT tools are an issue;

Removed:The ‘continuous reporting’ request is very cumbersome for beneficiaries and takes away valuable time from project implementation. This requirement should be reconsidered in the remaining programming period and the future programme;

Removed:The Rapporteur, therefore, strongly recommends an easing of administrative requirements at all levels and stages, including the application phase. Clearly, the current situation prevents small beneficiaries from applying for Key Action (KA) 1, e.g. youth exchanges, as well as KA2 small-scale partnerships, which are specifically intended for smaller organisations;

Removed:IT Issues:

Removed:Despite the centrality of the digitalisation priority in the programme, the slow advancement of digital tools foreseen to support the programme’s implementation is falling short of all expectations, negatively affecting the participation and the implementation of the programme. It is also hindering necessary data collection and monitoring, and ultimately poses a high reputational risk to the overall image of the programme;

Removed:The Rapporteur strongly urges the Commission to ensure that existing digital tools and systems used for the programme’s management and implementation are user-friendly. These should be working properly and to their full extent. He calls on the Commission to tackle, without delay, the serious persistent issues relating to the Erasmus+ IT tools and to test them on a sufficiently large scale before their further implementation. He also notes that there are similar issues with IT tools in other EU-funded programmes, including the European Solidarity Corps and Creative Europe.

Removed:3.8. Cooperation and Synergies

Removed:The EU has been actively working to strengthen cooperation and creating synergies between Erasmus+ and other EU initiatives, programmes, and funding instruments. These efforts aim at maximising the impact and effectiveness of EU investments in education, training, youth, research, innovation, and regional development. There is, however, considerable room for improvement and the inter-operability of programmes needs to be facilitated both at national and central (EC) level. There is also a need to improve the link between centralised and decentralised actions within the programme.

Removed:3.9. Cooperation between EC, Executive Agency (EACEA) and National Agencies

Removed:EACEA is responsible for most of the centralised administration. In order to implement projects (e.g., European Universities Alliances), good communication and coordination between EACEA and NAs is required. So far, this is not the case. In 2023, EACEA and NAs signed a Memorandum of Understanding, but this has yet to lead to some improvement. More coordination across the NAs, driven and monitored by the EC, would improve consistency in the interpretation of rules across NAs and help improve the standardisation and quality of evaluations. The EC should ensure NAs and their evaluators have a clear understanding of the difference between project grants and operating grants. It is evident that the capacity-building objective of operating grants that differentiates them from project grants is not well understood.

Removed:3.10. European Universities initiative

Removed:The centrality of the European Universities initiative has facilitated further attention and dialogue at national and institutional levels on removing the remaining obstacles to international cooperation in higher education. Some Member States have already enacted long-awaited legislative changes that will be beneficial not only to the alliances participating in the initiative, but also to other forms of cooperation, and higher education institutions outside existing Alliances. Nonetheless, a fast track to funding for existing Alliances should be avoided to ensure a fair and equitable system to all;

Removed:The further development of the European Universities should be thoroughly informed by the upcoming separate evaluation of the initiative, and based on a sound monitoring framework, to build on what has worked well, in addition to taking stock of what has not worked well. A reconsideration and recalibration of the multiplying overall objectives will be required;

Removed:European Universities should be further supported and developed under Erasmus+. This should not, however, be at the expense of other forms of cooperation that are equally vital to support targeted innovation and the development of practical solutions, and which support wider participation of higher education institutions in Erasmus+.

Removed:4. Conclusion

Removed:The strengths of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 include its overarching position as a programme, which has stood the test of time (more than 35 years, if we count Erasmus) and now has become a globally recognised brand. Accordingly, the Rapporteur insists that the visual branding of Erasmus+ has to maintain a clear link with the EU;

Removed:The benefits of Erasmus+ extend far beyond formal education. Overall, participating in the programme offers numerous benefits, from personal growth and cultural enrichment to enhanced employability, improved rounded education, and a more interconnected and inclusive Europe. The programme enables participants to establish networks and form lasting friendships with peers outside their immediate circle;

Removed:It is clear that the great potential of Erasmus+ requires sufficient funding in the future to continue with its far-reaching impact on individuals and societies across Europe and beyond;

Removed:Results from Parliament’s evaluation suggest that it is essential for the future success of the programme that technical issues do not undermine its effectiveness and that further simplification of the programme is urgently required;

Removed:The upcoming MFF mid-term evaluation is due to be finalised by the end of 2024 and is expected to deliver further insights into the achievements and shortcomings of the current programme;

Removed:First and foremost, Erasmus+ needs to be a programme that is close to the people and accessible to all.

Removed:on the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027