What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

Challenges and problems

Change 16

Removed:19. Calls on the Commission to remove any financial and administrative barriers in order to achieve a truly inclusive programme embracing diversity;

Added:26. Points out that insufficient grants to cover the costs of learning mobility and delays in payments are among the biggest deterrents to participants in mobility projects;

Removed:20. Points out that insufficient grants to cover the costs of mobility and delays in payments are the biggest deterrents to participants in mobility projects;

Added:27. Regrets that many young people with fewer opportunities are kept from spending longer periods of time abroad by financial or other obstacles;

Removed:21. Regrets the length of time required to apply for Erasmus+ funding and that applicants often cannot apply without external support; requests that proportionate registration and application processes be devised, both in terms of the length of documents and the comprehensibility of the language used therein;

Added:28. Acknowledges that the process of NAs drawing up national plans for inclusion and diversity has been difficult;

Change 17

Changed:22.29. Regrets the fact that complicated administrative processes at all stages considerably hinder the participation of newcomers and small-scale organisationsorganisations, particularly in the schoolschool, youth, VET and youthsports sectors;sectors, as well as in adult education;

Change 18

Removed:23. Is concerned by the fact that almost a third of students in higher education mobility reported that they did not receive full credit recognition, which is far from the objectives laid down in the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education;

Added:30. Regrets that it remains time-consuming to apply for Erasmus+ funding and that applicants often cannot apply without external support, discouraging the participation of small organisations and benefiting project-writing consultancies;

Added:31. Is concerned by the fact that almost a third of students in higher education mobility reported that they did not receive full credit recognition and calls for action to align with the objectives laid down in the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education; underscores that this hinders the creation of a genuine European Education Area and forms a significant barrier to students who depend on completing their degree in a timely manner;

Added:32. Regrets the lack of encouragement of partnerships between schools and non-profit organisations which have the knowledge to help teachers access quality learning mobility;

Added:33. Considers that the recognition of VET as a path of equal value to academic studies is overdue; moreover, is worried by the remaining obstacles to seamless VET mobility, such as policies fragmented between national and EU level;

Added:34. Regrets the insufficient funding for Centres of Vocational Excellence in view of the demand for them;

35. Is disappointed by the low uptake of adult learning and education activities, given its importance;

Change 19

Removed:25. Calls on the Commission to reconsider its adult learning strategy in collaboration with NAs and relevant stakeholders, given the target of 60 % of adults participating in adult learning and education by 2030;

36. Welcomes the lump sum approach being applied in cooperation projects, as many beneficiaries acknowledge it as an effective simplification measure; notes, however, that the requirement of ‘continuous reporting’ can be a burden, especially for smaller organisations;

Change 20

Removed:27. Notes that the Erasmus+ sport sector has very limited funds in some areas, thus limiting its scope;

Added:37. Regrets the fact that in 2022, the number of beneficiaries of centralised youth operating grants was reduced drastically, severely impacting an already COVID-weakened, volunteer-led youth civil society sector;

Removed:28. Deeply regrets the slow and incomplete development of the IT infrastructure and the improper functioning of IT tools such as the Beneficiary and Project Management modules, which increases the workload of all those involved in the programme’s implementation, discourages the participation of newcomers and undermines the programme’s ambition to widen participation; notes that similar issues exist with IT tools in other EU-funded programmes, including the European Solidarity Corps;

Added:38. Regrets also the significantly fewer successful applications from youth and volunteer-led organisations for centralised grants, particularly in the European Youth Together and Key Action 2, Cooperation Partnerships in the field of Youth, and the subsequent reduction in the latter’s budget in 2023;

Added:39. Notes that the Erasmus+ sport sector has very limited funds in some areas, particularly for the organisation of events, thus limiting its scope;

Added:40. Deeply regrets the slow and incomplete development of the IT infrastructure and the improper functioning of IT tools such as the Beneficiary and Project Management modules and the Online Language Support (OLS), which increases the workload of all those involved in the programme’s implementation, discourages the participation of newcomers and undermines the programme’s ambition to widen participation; notes that this inhibits optimal implementation, risks flawed and incomplete programme documentation and monitoring, and jeopardises evidence-based development in the future and notes further that similar issues exist with IT tools in other EU-funded programmes, including the European Solidarity Corps;

41. Deplores the fact that IT issues also severely affect data availability, which is essential for the ongoing mid-term review, thus necessitating a much more onerous evaluation methodology and exacerbating the administrative burden;

Change 21

Removed:30. Calls on the Commission to correct the limited usability of the portal for funding and tender opportunities so that data can be downloaded by stakeholders to analyse the characteristics of successful projects in terms of budget and per participating country and beneficiary and project type;

42. Points out the need to take the impact of AI seriously, since it has already facilitated fraudulent actors, but could also ease the workload of NAs and improve data collection;

Change 22

Removed:32. Asks that closer attention be paid to issues concerning the international dimension of the programme such as data protection rules for non-EU countries, the impact of geopolitical issues and visa-related issues;

Added:43. Underlines the existing inconsistencies with regard to reporting expectations, evaluation results and general information-sharing across the different NAs, which creates different implementation standards for beneficiaries and affects equity in the programme’s functioning;

Removed:33. Expects the memorandum of understanding between the European Education and Culture Executive Agency and NAs to produce tangible improvements, leading to the exchange of good practices and the clarification of roles and responsibilities to achieve consistency, coherence and effective communication by NAs;

Added:44. Is concerned about the shortage of professionals and volunteers to implement the programme and requires clarification as to whether this has an impact on the absorption of funds;

Removed:34. Calls for an improvement in the quality of evaluations of operating grants;

Improving the current and designing the future Erasmus+ programme

Change 23

Changed:35.45. Calls on the Commission, the Member States, national authorities and NAs to keep Erasmus+ close to the people and ensure it remains a bottom-up ‘citizens’ programme’ offering quality education and mobility opportunities for young people and learners of all ages;

Change 24

Changed:36.46. Emphasises that the overarching purpose of Erasmus+ is broad and goes beyond labour-marketlabour market needs;

Change 25

Removed:37. Calls on the Commission to foster the role of Erasmus+ in increasing civic engagement and a better understanding of and support for European values, and to turn the programme into a true promoter of European democracy;

47. Asks that the programme be simplified at all levels, including by assessing whether existing (sub-)actions can be merged, and that this EU flagship programme not be overloaded with new tasks and initiatives that dilute its core objective;

Change 26

Removed:39. Calls for centralised and decentralised actions to be better linked and to enhance the use of flexible funding instruments such as micro-grants;

Added:48. Calls on the Commission to remove all barriers, including financial, linguistic and administrative barriers, such as those created by the new ICT tools, in order to achieve a truly inclusive programme embracing diversity, while not reducing the number of grants available to beneficiaries;

Removed:40. Requests concrete measures to break down existing silos in the programme structure so that different educational areas and actors are not kept distinct from each other;

Added:49. Insists that digital tools should be optimised by 2025 at the latest to create a user-friendly, accessible, reliable, speedy and efficient environment that respects data protection;

Added:50. Emphasises that issues with the IT infrastructure similar to those experienced in the current programme period are unacceptable; calls on the Commission to stabilise the existing IT-tools and not change them with each new programming period, and expects the IT infrastructure of the next Erasmus+ generation to be fully operational from day one, particularly with regard to the Beneficiary Module;

Added:51. Calls for thorough trials and consultations with NAs and end users before rolling out additional features or new IT tools, and for compliance with the EU Web Accessibility Directive to be ensured;

Added:52. Calls on the Commission to correct the limited transparency and usability of the results section ‘Projects funded under this topic’ in the portal for funding and tender opportunities, so that data can be downloaded by stakeholders to analyse the characteristics of successful and rejected projects in terms of organisation, budget amounts, lead country of project or project type;

Added:53. Requests that the Commission consider charging for digital tools and online activities to support learning separately, particularly when they are used to prepare for an activity, in order to avoid excessively high advance payments;

Added:54. Insists that the simplification of application procedures and requirements and the improvement of the guidelines, particularly for individuals, must remain a high priority, as they are barriers to the programme; points out that inadequacies often affect young, first-time participants the most;

Added:55. Requests proportionate registration, application and reporting processes in terms of the length of documents and a reduction in administrative and bureaucratic requirements, particularly for smaller grants;

Added:56. Points out that proposal forms need to be accompanied by clear rules and guidance in understandable language; calls on the NAs to further improve feedback to applicants;

Added:57. Calls on the Commission to provide continuous training to EACEA project officers and NAs’ staff and clear communication about the interpretation of Erasmus+ initiatives;

Added:58. Recalls that the early, transparent and reliable communication of deadlines and steps is the basis for fair and equal access to the programme;

Added:59. Calls on the NAs to organise information sessions on reporting requirements at the beginning of the projects; suggests a comprehensive revision of reporting and accounting so that the same information is not requested repeatedly;

Added:60. Calls on the NAs to empower their inclusion officers to implement the plans for inclusion and diversity;

Added:61. Calls on the Commission to strengthen its work with stakeholders on European ‘inclusion targets’ for the programme and to make available data on projects which include participants with fewer opportunities;

62. Calls for a better balance between quantitative (the number of beneficiaries and supported projects) and qualitative objectives within the programme, and emphasises that improving the quality of education must continue to be a focus of Erasmus+;

Change 27

Removed:42. Calls for wider use of virtual and blended learning and the building of infrastructure for digitalised learning opportunities;

Added:63. Urges the Commission to step up efforts on the programme’s digital transformation, in particular on achieving an ‘Erasmus Without Paper’ for all education and training sectors; calls on the Commission to establish the ‘European Student Card’ following the initial planning, and to help higher education institutions adopt digital learning mobility nominations and transcripts of records by 2025;

Removed:43. Asks for eTwinning to be integrated fully and seamlessly into Erasmus+;

Added:64. Asks for an increase in the upfront payments for beneficiaries with fewer opportunities and to provide beneficiaries with timely payments;

Removed:44. Urges the Commission to step up efforts on the programme’s digital transformation, in particular on achieving an ‘Erasmus Without Paper’ and establishing the ‘European Student Card’, following the initial planning;

Added:65. Asks for a more frequent and regular review and adjustments to the inflation rate index of grants and unit costs in order to align them with the cost of living, inflation and the needs of beneficiaries;

Removed:45. Asks the Commission to assess options for a more integrated approach towards youth activities across EU programmes;