What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

IT Issues:

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;

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.

3.8. Cooperation and Synergies

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.

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

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.

3.10. European Universities initiative

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;

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;

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+.

4. Conclusion

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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