EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 16.7.2025

SWD(2025) 550 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the documents

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the 'AgoraEU' programme for the period 2028-2034, and repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/692 and (EU) 2021/818











and











Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Erasmus+ programme for the period 2028-2034, and repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/817 and (EU) 2021/888

{COM(2025) 550 final} - {SEC(2025) 547 final} - {SWD(2025) 551 final}

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

2.Problem definition

3.Why should the EU act?

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

5.What are the available policy options?

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

7.How do the options compare?

8.Preferred option

9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

ANNEX 1: Procedural information

ANNEX 2: Stakeholder consultation

ANNEX 3: Practical implications of the initiative

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS

Annex 5: Competitiveness check

Annex 6: SME check

Annex 7: Policy, legal context and funding programmes covered by the impact assessment

Annex 8: Results of mid-term evaluations

Annex 9: Problems, Problem drivers and their evolution

Annex 10: Intervention logic

Annex 11: Objectives-based merger. Modelling of instruments, synergies and complementarities.

Glossary

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

The implementation of the current and previous EU programmes has shown that the complexity of the funding architecture can hinder the impact of the EU budget. This has been underlined through programme evaluations. Currently, many programmes may finance similar activities, but with varying rules and conditions, also impeding the flexibility to respond to unforeseen needs. This may lead to inefficiencies and administrative burden for beneficiaries, Member States and the Commission. The difficult budgetary situation (with the start of NextGenerationEU repayments, the increasing number of EU priorities and the tight fiscal situation of Member States) reinforces the need to reduce such inefficiencies and administrative burden. 

The Political Guidelines I acknowledge that ‘our spending is spread over too many overlapping programmes – many of which fund the same things but with different requirements and difficulties to combine funding effectively’. The Guidelines set out that the new long-term budget needs to be more focused, simpler, with fewer programmes and more impactful. In line with the Political Guidelines, the College adopted on 11 February 2025 the Communication ‘The road to the next multiannual financial framework’ II . This states that ‘the next long-term budget will have to address the complexities, weaknesses and rigidities that are currently present and maximise the impact of every euro it spends’. The Communication also underlines that flexibility is key in guaranteeing the budget’s ability to respond to a changing reality.

In this political context, impact assessments for programmes under the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) focus on streamlining the EU budget architecture, thereby assessing the most important policy choices underpinning the future legislative proposals. Policy aspects are considered in the analysis of the context, the problem definition and the objectives, informing the choices on architecture. Given that the structure of the new MFF will significantly differ from the current one, budget assumptions for each programme are unreliable at this stage. Therefore, the impact assessment (IA) excludes funding scenarios, allowing only qualitative cost benefit analysis. This reflects the specificities of this exercise, as acknowledged in the Commission’s better regulation rules - which this IA follows – that state that the special case of preparing a new multiannual financial framework is a unique process requiring a specific approach as regards scope and depth of analysis’ (Tool #9). This IA has been adjusted following the comments made by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.

1.1.Scope and legal context

This impact assessment focuses on EU funding for cross-border education and training, solidarity, youth, media, culture and creative sectors, values, and civil society III . 

The EU is a community of values ingrained in Europe's history and identity and anchored in the EU Treaty. These encompass democracy, fundamental rights, non-discrimination, equality, inclusion, tolerance, the rule of law, solidarity, cultural diversity, freedom of expression, including media and artistic freedom and pluralism. These shared values define the European project. They offer a guiding direction to Europe’s younger generations in their aspirations for a better future. Justice, civil society, media, culture, sport, as well as formal, non-formal and informal education are all crucial vehicles to realise these principles, delivery mechanisms for a fair, free, inclusive and united society. They help citizens connect around shared values and equip them with the skills and key competences to thrive and contribute to a strong, cohesive, resilient and competitive Europe.

Democracies in the EU face internal and external threats. Fundamental rights, equality and non-discrimination, EU values IV , the rule of law, justice and democratic structures themselves need to be nurtured as the foundation of an inclusive and prosperous society. There remain major structural issues relating to fundamental rights, including inequalities, discrimination and violence in our societies, with particular consequences for women, children, LGBTIQ persons or persons with disabilities, and minorities V . In today's rapidly changing environment, people need skills that enable them to navigate, accelerate, and embrace opportunities. To remain competitive, Europe must tackle barriers to human capital, including the need for new job profiles, swift skills adaptation and lifelong learning through an inclusive, agile, forward-looking and lifelong learning-based education and training landscape, both formal and informal. A vibrant civic space and opportunities to demonstrate real solidarity are central to a democratic society. On top of its economic value, the media is a cornerstone of democratic resilience as well as cultural vitality. Media, including audiovisual, and cultural expressions have an important role to play in a values-based Union, recognising and appreciating the tapestry of national and regional diversity, and also as a source of sustainable and inclusive growth. In all these areas, proactive action is needed to develop the full potential of people, their skills, talent, critical thinking, creativity and safeguard their rights VI .

The importance for the EU’s future to continue investing in the policy areas covered by this IA has been reflected in the recent EU political agendas and strategic reports of the EU (cfr. Annex 7 for more information).

“Protecting our democracies and upholding our values” is one of the Political Guidelines’ priorities for 2024-2029. President von der Leyen underlined her commitment as well to support free media and reunite our societies “through education, supporting young people and building on the things that we have in common as Europeans”, as well as the “uniting power of Europe’s rich and varied cultural tapestry”. This combined with the need for “a radical step change in ambition and action – for all skill levels and for all types of training and education”. These themes feature strongly in the Mission letters of Vice-Presidents and Commissioners. They are also well aligned with the European Council’s Strategic Agenda for Europe 2024 – 2029.

To meet these objectives, EU funding is indispensable. The next MFF should be built around three main pillars, with a limited number of targeted self-standing programmes. This cluster belongs to the latter category. The scope of the IA has been intentionally limited to programmes under direct and indirect management that share a strong cross-border and people-focused logic, including Erasmus+; the European Solidarity Corps (ESC); Creative Europe; Citizens, Equality, Rights, and Values (CERV); the Justice programme; as well as other budgetary prerogative lines (e.g. multimedia actions).

Other EU funding programmes also contribute to these policy goals to varying degrees while supporting other policies under the current MFF, as shown in Annex 7 Section 3, including: Digital Europe programme; Horizon Europe, InvestEU, as well as Union cohesion policy funds, the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the Technical Support Instrument VII . In parallel, another key tool to promote EU values and the rule of law, and to ensure that shortcomings do not undermine EU budget delivery, has been the development of conditionality tools such as the Conditionality Regulation and the Horizontal Enabling Conditions.

1.2. Lessons learnt from evaluations

The results of the mid-term evaluations for the period 2021-2027 indicate that the existing programmes have largely delivered on their policy objectives and provided EU added value, while highlighting areas for improvement in terms of design. For example, the midterm evaluation of the CERV programme confirmed that the programme occupies an otherwise largely empty space in the values and fundamental rights funding landscape VIII , as the dedicated EU instrument to support organisations working on safeguarding and promoting fundamental rights, equality and non-discrimination, democracy and the rule of law in Europe, organisations often lacking other funding sources.  Creative Europe has contributed to the general objective of supporting cultural and linguistic diversity by increasing people’s access to content and to the objective of competitiveness by helping audiovisual, and other creative and cultural operators to scale up at European level. It has a unique place as the only source of funding for transnational cooperation, circulation and mobility in these sectors. Finally, the Erasmus+ and ESC evaluations show that both programmes deliver strong European added value for individuals, organisations and policy, a result which cannot be matched at national level alone. 

At the same time, the evaluations point to significant areas of improvement in terms of design. These include expanding the reach of the programmes, easing access, simplifying management, enhancing monitoring, strengthening synergies and avoiding overlaps with other programmes, and increasing flexibility to address new challenges. For instance, the evaluation of Erasmus+ found some overlap between Erasmus+ Youth Participation activities and Solidarity projects funded under ESC, both supporting youth-led initiatives run by informal groups of young people. IX   The evaluations therefore offer an important basis to explore the issue of the scope of financing, the justification for EU-level financial intervention and the complementarities with Member States financing, which are the largest source of financing in some policy areas. More information on the results of the evaluations can be found in Annex 8.

1.3. Approach taken for the impact assessment 

This IA examines current challenges and problem drivers in the policy areas referred above. The problem drivers were split into (a) those relating to policy content and (b) those relating to design of the funding instruments. The response that future funding EU instruments may offer to address these problems is then articulated in general and specific objectives. In line with the political context for the MFF exercise, policy aspects are considered in the analysis of the problem definition and the objectives, in turn informing the choices on the architecture of future funding programmes for this cluster. An intervention logic is presented below, then analysed through a social-multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) presented in Chapter 7 and Annex 4. SMCE criteria have been set to analyse the priorities of both policy and design of the funding instruments of the cluster.

The IA draws extensively on the results of the mid-term evaluations of the current programmes and final evaluations of preceding programmes, the spending review exercises, as well as various existing monitoring reports, studies and research offering sectoral evidence, and latest strategic reports X . Finally, the assessment integrates the outcomes of an Open Public Consultation (OPC) launched to inform this IA, and as well as of other stakeholder consultations held by the Commission in the context of the different policies. Information complementing this IA is available as endnotes.

Figure 1: Simplified intervention logic

2.Problem definition

2.1.What are the problems?

As illustrated in the intervention logic above, the EU budget has an unachieved potential to help address the challenges affecting the policy areas in this cluster. The analysis identified three sets of problems affecting the EU financial intervention: two relating to policy content, the other to design and implementation. A table illustrating the nature and typology of policy-related problems is available in Annex 9.

2.1.1.Problem 1: Threats to democracy, fundamental rights and EU values, culture and cultural diversity, and shrinking civic and media spaces

The EU faces challenges to democratic participation XI , cultural diversity, and in the civic XII and media spheres. The common values of the EU increasingly face challenges – such as from hostility towards the rule of law and democratic institutions, corruption and violations of fundamental rights, impacting on the EU level as well as the national, regional and local levels. These increase obstacles to building a fully integrated area of justice and the uniform application of EU law, essential to ensure fair and efficient legal proceedings and uphold EU values XIII . The traditional role of civil society organisations in counterbalancing these trends is challenged by a weakening of financial and political support. Economic losses due to inequality, discrimination and violence amount to billions annually, highlighting the extent to which values are also a driver of prosperity XIV .

The media sector comprises of two main pillars: audiovisual and news media. These sub-sectors display some commonalities but face also different challenges. For example, news media is experiencing decreasing pluralism, as well as declining advertising revenues and sales, as audiences have shifted online, where they are increasingly exposed to disinformation; while European audiovisual content does not travel enough across the Single Market XV  and faces fierce competition from the US. Disruptions to the European media sphere and obstacles to participation in European culture undermine the economic potential of the media and creative industries, as well as weakening connections between Europeans. Technological dependence on non-EU actors hampers innovation in the civic spaces, media, and other cultural and creative sectors.

2.1.2.Problem 2: Shortfall of skills and key competences for life and jobs

Equipping all citizens with the skills and key competences required for a demanding and rapidly evolving labour market and an increasingly diverse, knowledge-based society, is a constant challenge.

Education and training systems in the EU overall fail to provide people with a minimum proficiency in basic and digital skills, and to foster the advanced competencies and soft skills needed, across all stages of life  XVI . Based on the 2022 results of the OECD’s PISA XVII , the EU is lagging behind other OECD countries in basic skills, with a downward trend in mathematics (-18 points), reading (-12) and science (-3.4). The EU also falls short in generating skilled graduates from higher education and vocational education with the highly specialised skills needed in the rapidly evolving technological landscape XVIII . There are growing labour and skills shortages across Member States, with nearly four out of five employers reporting difficulties in finding workers with the right skills XIX . Recognition of qualifications, skills and learning periods abroad is far from automatic and often requires cumbersome procedures both between Member States, and with third countries. This prevents the best possible use of all skills needed in the labour market and of learning opportunities across Europe and beyond XX . So too do gender gaps, with almost twice as many men than women studying STEM, and major socioeconomic and territorial disparities in the level and the access to quality formal and non-formal education across the EU.

The skills challenge is not only about competitiveness. It is about a healthy, resilient, engaged, inclusive, united and prepared society. Today, close to 18 million young people in the EU are at risk of social exclusion XXI   XXII ; in 2024, almost half of them reported recent emotional or psychosocial problems XXIII . It is crucial to equip individuals with skills and competences for life, enabling them to navigate the complex and rapidly changing world we live in, and take a more active role in society.

2.1.3.Problem 3: Challenges to the design and architecture of the EU financing instruments to address the policy-related problems.

The EU funding architecture is complex. One of the results can be gaps. The 2021-2027 MFF supports many policy areas covered by this IA, but it does not comprehensively address all key emerging priorities set out in the Political Guidelines. For instance, the current funding programmes have struggled to respond to emerging challenges faced by news media, quality journalism and the fight against disinformation, challenges on a dramatically different scale than when the current budget was conceived XXIV . In addition, there is high demand for financing at EU level, as shown by the high rate of oversubscription of the current EU programmes in these areas XXV .

A second challenge relates to overlaps, untapped synergies and complementarities. Policy areas under this cluster are often addressed from different angles by multiple instruments, with limited coordination. The lack of flexibility, the multiplication of programmes, and the differences in the legal provisions which apply, have effectively prevented synergies among EU programmes. XXVI  In specific cases, a more coordinated funding approach is needed between European and national funds. In some policy areas (e.g. education and skills), ensuring coordination between direct, indirect, and shared management EU instruments has been a long-lasting issue. While some measures to mitigate these problems were introduced already for the 2021-2027 programming period, the next MFF provides for an opportunity to structurally improve synergies. For example, EU investments in education and skills are delivered through different programmes which lack a coherent strategic framework and operational alignment, hindering the ability of the budget to address cross-cutting and structural skills challenges. Finally, access to EU funding is hampered by a complexity of rules and a limited user-friendliness in funding processes. Applicants to EU funding must navigate different requirements under different programmes. Implementation of EU-funded projects can be burdensome, especially for small organisations with limited resources and capacity. XXVII

2.2. What are the problem drivers?

Drivers linked to problem 1 – Threats to democracy, fundamental rights and EU values, culture, and shrinking civic and media spaces

2.2.1.Threats to EU values 

Deep-seated internal and external pressures lie behind threats to the respect of EU values. These include structural inequalities, XXVIII the persistence of violence XXIX and discrimination XXX on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, often shown in racism, anti-gypsyism, antisemitism, or anti-Muslim hatred XXXI . Hate speech and hate crime have been steadily on the rise over the past decade XXXII , exacerbated by the spread of digital tools and social media.

While many actors have a key role to play in protecting EU values, shrinking civic spaces are a key factor in putting EU values at risk. Civil society organisations and human rights defenders find it increasingly difficult to fully participate in decision-making and act independently XXXIII . Shortcomings identified in the consultation process included a lack of support and compliance mechanisms across the EU, as well as a lack of public awareness of the role of civil society, XXXIV  including in the promotion of equality and inclusion XXXV .

2.2.2.Challenges to the rule of law and judicial systems

Recent years have seen direct challenges to the rule of law and judicial independence at national level. Corruption has been recognised as a deep-seated problem. There is a growing recognition that such trends at national level also have a direct impact at EU level, making them key drivers of the problem. The impact at EU level is not only an obstacle to building a fully integrated area of justice and the effective delivery of EU policies. It also hinders a strong business environment encouraging investment, innovation and growth XXXVI .

The erosion of judicial independence and challenges to the right to a fair trial are undermining mutual trust among Member States and weaking the effectiveness of our justice systems. Structural weaknesses, such as still predominant paper-based judicial processes, uneven digitalisation, complex and time-consuming procedures, as well as slow communication between authorities, limit cross-border judicial cooperation, and obstruct effective access to justice and the ability to handle threats like cybersecurity. The opportunity to address these issues through cross-border cooperation is constrained by the fact that justice professionals often lack a solid knowledge of EU law and cross-border judicial cooperation procedures and are not sufficiently equipped to embrace the increasing digitalisation of justice XXXVII . This impedes mutual recognition of judicial decisions and the consistent implementation of cross-border EU instruments and policies.

2.2.3.Obstacles to democratic participation and societal resilience

Citizens’ participation and engagement (including turnout), and transparency and accountability in decision-making contribute to the vitality of European democracy. Of particular importance is to promote full and meaningful participation in political and social life and inclusive democratic participation, including of young people, children, women, persons with disabilities, and mobile EU citizens, including at regional and local level.

Public trust in democracy and democratic institutions, the fairness and integrity of elections, and the legitimate concerns and expectations of citizens about their well-being are key challenges for democracy in Europe. XXXVIII Confidence in democracy is under pressure, proactive steps needed to address issues such as a lack of transparency and accountability in political funding and the distortion of the democratic level playing field online. A 2024 Eurobarometer XXXIX  showed that EU citizens saw the largest single threats to democracy as growing distrust and scepticism towards democratic institutions (36%). The integrity of the information space available to citizens is being undermined through foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI), disinformation, and abusive use of technology. This is reflected in a lack of access to fact-checked information, hate speech, and polarisation, which threaten freedom of expression, artistic freedom, democratic accountability, diversity of views, and free democratic debate. XL

2.2.4.Pressures on European media and the information landscape

European media companies today compete with giant online platforms for the attention of citizens and consumers. Revenues are increasingly shifting to platforms, which dominate online distribution methods XLI .In the audiovisual sector, the circulation of EU content beyond national borders is weak XLII . Europeans continue to watch more content from the US than from other EU countries, as US films capture 70% of the box office, whilst US streamers capture 80% of all subscriptions. Similarly, cross-media intellectual property continues to be an asset which is underexploited by European media XLIII . At the same time, unequal access to high-quality and diverse European content, such as films, persists. This limits media’s full potential to be socially and culturally relevant for all citizens, particularly for young Europeans.

The effects of disruptions of the media extend beyond issues of viability; they also impact public debate. XLIV Media pluralism is threatened across the Union XLV . The growth of online platforms has opened the door to disinformation – which impacts the democratic and social fabric of the EU and erodes public trust in media institutions. XLVI It has also intensified the need for digital and media literacy, as well as for tools for accessible digital information.

2.2.5.Obstacles to cultural cooperation and preservation of cultural heritage

The resilience, creativity potential and competitiveness of the cultural and creative sectors (CCS), as well as access to a variety of cultural expressions are key tenets of the Union’s cultural and linguistic diversity. Yet fragmentation along national and linguistic lines continues to drive cultural expressions, limiting transnational artistic collaboration, audience reach, and the development of innovative practices. CCS professionals struggle working across borders and accessing new markets XLVII , which exacerbates geographical imbalances and reduces the circulation of European cultural works. The lack of cross-border mobility and cooperation hinders networking, economies of scale, pooling expertise, and co-creation, all that is crucial for sustaining careers and strong CCS.

Europe’s rich cultural heritage, including in digital format, is a shared legacy, but it faces a growing threat from a combination of budgetary constraints, nationalist misappropriation, and deliberate destruction, as seen in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Meanwhile, heritage sites face increasing vulnerability to pollution, climate change, and natural disasters, requiring urgent resilience-building and point to a need to accelerate digital preservation as a factor in safeguarding the EU’s cultural heritage.

2.2.6.Obstacles to innovation and technological dependencies affecting democratic, societal, cultural and media players

Recent technological innovations, largely driven by non-EU actors, have transformed the democratic, societal, cultural, and media landscapes. XLVIII  Conversely, the financial weakness of European players limits investment in innovative business models, tools, and new content formats. Private investment in culture and media remains relatively low, with venture capital investment significantly trailing behind the US. XLIX Similarly, societal impact investments, such as philanthropic funds for long-term societal and democratic returns, are lacking. Innovation uptake is stifled by significant sectoral skills gaps, requiring a mix of creative, business, technical and digital skills. L

These structural obstacles are compounded by Europe’s technological dependence. Non-EU tech giants increasingly influence the democratic debate, civic space and media landscapes, shaping content consumption through algorithmic recommendations, automated distribution models, and AI-generated content. The growth of online advertising, which is expected to triple by 2029, indicates the need to leverage (audience) data across all media sectors to adapt to new business models. LI  

Drivers linked to problem 2 – Shortfall of skills and key competences for life and jobs

2.2.7.Low and unequal capacity to deliver high quality, innovation, inclusiveness and insufficient cooperation and knowledge sharing

The education and skills gaps are closely tied to the structural weaknesses of the Union’s 27 distinct education and training systems, many of which remain insufficiently agile, inclusive or resilient in responding to the digital, green, and demographic transformations. Diverging levels of performance across countries and regions exacerbate social and economic inequalities and limit the EU’s ability to retain and develop lifelong talent — a key factor for global competitiveness. European education and training institutions also face deepening challenges in securing and retaining talent. As education remains a national competence, the EU cannot directly reform or finance national systems. But transnational cooperation in education and skills plays a major key role in mitigating these problems – allowing education and training providers to accelerate convergence, share innovation, and improve quality in ways no national system can achieve alone. The potential for EU-level cooperation to drive change is widely recognised LII .

However, barriers to cross-border cooperation, including insufficient funding and lack of organisational capacity, hold back this potential, in particular for smaller organisations, heavily dependent on EU funding as the main funding source for international learning mobility and cooperation for education and training, youth and sport. LIII  In addition, many of the key strategic initiatives supported by EU funding – such as the European Universities alliances, Teacher Academies, and Centres of Vocational Excellence – are relatively recent innovations, and have not yet been scaled to a level that delivers systemic impact. As a result, EU-level investment remains below the critical mass needed to support high-quality, future-proof inclusive education systems and achieve shared policy goals.

2.2.8.Obstacles to cross-border learning mobility, including insufficient opportunities for all

Learning mobility is a key component of cross-border education and has proven to be a highly valuable experience for both learners and staff, such as teachers, in gaining knowledge and skills needed for personal, educational, and professional development and employability. It also strengthens the European dimension of education, training, youth, and sport and helps to enhance the quality and inclusiveness of learning offered. Demand for mobility was illustrated through the OPC, with over 88% LIV supporting mobility for Higher Education students and staff, schools and learners, language learning opportunities, and for vocational education and training (VET), as well as for university alliances LV .

The potential for learning mobility is held back in different ways. Opportunities are not equally distributed across Member States, fields and sectors of education, and the scale of national and international schemes supporting learning mobility of learners and staff remains limited. LVI  This is not reflective of demand, with heavy oversubscription in Erasmus+ and the ESC (only 1 out of 10 volunteering opportunities requested can be supported). Financial and social constraints prevent higher mobility uptake, disproportionately affecting individuals from less affluent backgrounds, students with disabilities and marginalised groups including Roma, exacerbating inequalities. High living costs, access to affordable and adequate housing, tuition fees, and insufficient scholarships LVII deter many from studying, volunteering, or working abroad.

2.2.9.Barriers to transparency and recognition of qualifications across borders

The barriers driving the inability to make best use of the skills available include diverse national legislations and administrative practices. These make it difficult to work in another country, set up joint programmes and to award joint degrees, especially those with embedded learning mobility components. This limits opportunities for the free movement of workers and for more innovative educational offerings, factors that also attract talent from third countries and support Europe’s competitiveness.

Obstacles exist also to non-formal and informal learning. The very nature of "soft skills", which are less tangible and harder to measure than "hard skills", makes it more difficult to gauge and quantify non-formal learning outcomes. This also discourages learning mobility, resulting in wasted talent and resources, as individuals may not be able to provide evidence of their competences, may have to repeat courses to meet local requirements or navigate cumbersome recognition procedures. LVIII

2.2.10.Unexploited potential of lifelong learning, including non-formal and informal 

Once people complete their formal education, most will spend up to four decades in the labour market. There is huge potential to meet the EU’s skills needs through up- and reskilling throughout adults’ working lives, yet too few adults still take part in training each year, far below the EU headline target for 2030 LIX . The reasons for this shortfall include limited access to upskilling programmes, a lack of awareness of lifelong learning, of time or of financial resources, low level of basic skills and insufficient support for effective reskilling initiatives – including appropriate incentives for companies.

Non-formal and informal learning, volunteering and sport are complementary to formal education and crucial for the development of skills and attitudes for jobs and life. However, the offer and quality of youth work differ considerably across countries. LX In addition, transnational cooperation in these fields is held back by a lack of networking and peer learning opportunities. Sport is also currently insufficiently exploited in formal education.

2.2.11.Obstacles to societal engagement, civic education and solidarity

Young people participate less in institutional politics than other age groups and less than many young people in the past LXI . Young people, as with other citizens, can be confronted with obstacles in their participation in democracy, such as insufficient knowledge of their democratic rights, difficult access to information and limited involvement in decision-making processes. Citizenship education on the EU and its values remains uneven LXII . This can be seen as driven by limited opportunities for civic engagement, solidarity, and cultural and sports participation. This limits social capital development, particularly among young people, preventing them from becoming empowered, active citizens, and fosters a culture of preparedness and resilience. LXIII 

Drivers linked to problem 3 – Challenges to the design and architecture of the EU financing instruments to address the policy-related problems

2.2.12.Rapidly evolving policy areas not covered coherently by existing EU programmes 

Rapidly evolving policy areas and the emerging priorities outlined in the 2024-2029 Political Guidelines are increasingly outpacing the possibilities offered by existing EU programmes. In some cases, actions are constrained by incompatible provision in the legal basis and by pre-allocated funding which falls short of changing needs, needs which cannot be efficiently managed by transferring funding between different programmes LXIV . One consequence of this has been a multiplication of actions often implemented through annual EU Pilot Projects and Preparatory Actions (PPPA), lacking stable financing and systemic planning. The implications of the structure of current instruments are confirmed by the results of the OPC: approximately two thirds of respondents signalled that the “lack of flexibility of the EU budget to adapt to new and unforeseen developments” is an obstacle preventing the budget to fully delivering on its objectives.

2.2.13.Untapped synergies in EU funding across complementary policy areas. 

Priorities under this cluster are currently addressed from different perspectives by several EU instruments – sometimes also through instruments beyond this cluster LXV . While some progress was made during the current MFF, synergies and complementarities have not been fully exploited. The current interplay between instruments does not help to offer an effective response to key evolving issues (such as the fight against disinformation). This is also reflected in the limited coordination among the national contact points for some of the instruments covered by this cluster and the implementation mechanisms of other clusters. There is also insufficient coordination with bodies managing programmes at national level. Lack of upstream coordination in the implementation, and differing management provisions all play a part. The result is a difficulty to implement joint actions which might bring about increased impacts, or cross-cutting, innovative actions that do not fit into the scope of a single programme.

Similar issues have also increased the risk of potential duplications, as funding is spread over several programmes, budget lines and actions. Areas risking overlap as a result include media literacy  or youth non-formal activities LXVI , currently covered by several programmes. Insufficient coordination between EU and national funding has also hampered the ability to optimally address policy areas implemented through multi-layered financing. This was also highlighted in the OPC where aspects such as “lack of consistency and effectiveness to deliver on EU policy priorities” (52%) and “too many programmes with overlapping policy areas” (53%) were singled out by respondents as obstacles preventing the EU budget from delivering on its objectives LXVII .

2.2.14.Limited coordination of EU funding and complementarities with other EU interventions. 

Coordination within and across programmes is hampered by a lack of common operational frameworks - with aligned criteria, funding rules, and implementing tools (e.g. work programmes LXVIII , consistent third country participation, monitoring and reporting indicators). Different programme committee structures, each governed by their own rules and procedures, adds to the complications of coordination LXIX . For cross-border education and skills, fragmented EU support limits impact, coordination, and scalability. This hinders the ability to address cross-cutting and structural skills challenges, to scale up effective action across instruments, or to align EU funding with national reforms and private investment.

While the EACEA and National Agencies efficiently implement several programmes or large chunks of programmes covered by this cluster LXX , obstacles are created by a lack of integrated monitoring, as well as robust approaches to data collection and analysis LXXI between direct and indirect management. This is particularly important considering that programmes under this cluster often involve the disbursement of small grants to many different beneficiaries. In addition, though blended instruments, which coordinate and combine funding from different EU instruments LXXII within an EU policy framework with agreed objectives, have proved their value in mobilising private and public investment, their potential has been very rarely exploited in many of the policy areas in this cluster.

2.2.15.Access to EU funding hampered by complexity and insufficient user-friendliness

Policy areas and funding covered in this cluster target multiple small scale and grassroot actors (e.g. local schools, youth organisations, small and medium-sized enterprises, small municipalities, and civil society organisations). These actors often have limited capacity to apply for, implement and manage EU funds and this has been an obstacle to best use of the funds. For example, they have more difficulties to effectively use corporate tools, which do not consider their specificities and lower size of grants. Efforts to improve user-friendliness and accessibility and to reduced administrative burden for beneficiaries through novelties under existing funding instruments LXXIII need to be increased.  

Both the evaluations and the OPC LXXIV confirm significant obstacles. Application processes and reporting procedures are not always proportionate to the level of grant and capacity of smaller beneficiaries. In some cases, insufficient information (e.g. learning mobility opportunities) hinders participation and uptake LXXV . Under some of the programmes covered by this IA, many calls are still launched annually, increasing the administrative burden. Real costs are still used in the implementation of programmes, as opposed to more user-friendly methods of financing not linked to cost. This is confirmed by the OPC LXXVI .

2.3. How likely are the problems to persist?

The policy-related problem drivers described above have been compared to the megatrends identified by the Commission’s Competence Centre on Foresight LXXVII . These trends are long-term global driving forces that are most likely to continue to have a significant influence in coming decades. The identified problem drivers were found especially congruent with seven megatrends: (a) accelerating technological change and hyperconnectivity; (b) changing nature of work, requiring constant reskilling and upskilling; (c) changing security paradigm, with hybrid threats, such as foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI); (d) diversification of education, training and learning, outside formal systems; (e) widening inequalities; (f) growing consumption, influenced by algorithms; (g) increasing influence of new governing system (Annex 9 includes a table linking the problem drivers and megatrends).

Consequently, there is a strong likelihood that the problem drivers outlined in section 2.2 will persist and even intensify without EU support LXXVIII . The evolving nature of these challenges will also increase pressure on the design and impact of EU funding, as some of them, such as the disruption of the information space, are insufficiently covered by the current generation of instruments. This pressure will manifest also in new needs and priorities, shifting synergies and complementarities, growing complexities, and increased need for higher flexibility.

3.Why should the EU act?

The policy areas covered by this IA are firmly anchored in the EU Treaties, which provide the legal bases for EU action through financial interventions and reflect the Union’s core values, long-term objectives, and political and legal commitment in these areas.

3.1.Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

The EU budget in these areas is crucial to the foundations of the EU. The EU cannot rely solely on national funding to protect EU values, including fundamental rights, the rule of law, equality and non-discrimination, democratic participation, media, culture, education and skills. Many European citizens, especially young people, believe that safeguarding these policy areas cannot be left to Member States alone LXXIX . EU level action helps to drive progress across all Member States. It is particularly necessary to: (1) address transnational and common challenges; (2) achieve systemic impact by filling gaps and ensuring a European approach; and (3) enhance coherence between internal and external policies.

3.1.1.To address transnational and common challenges

Several of the problem drivers mentioned in Chapter 2 are common to all Member States and/or have a clear transnational dimension. National-level action alone would be less efficient and impactful than EU level efforts, which enable cooperation, capacity building, mutual learning and the pooling of resources, sharing of expertise and best practices. Whilst financial intervention is not the only way in which the EU can act in these areas, it often plays a decisive role in the policy response mix.

First, the problem of skills LXXX has a Union-wide dimension. Member States face similar challenges and struggle individually to make their education and training systems fit to meet contemporary and future educational and skills needs. PISA 2022 results are worrying for all EU countries LXXXI . Major digital gaps persist in education systems across the EU LXXXII while rapid technological advancement, such as generative AI, tests their ability to keep up with the necessary digital skills and literacy. While the bulk of funding will come from national budgets, EU-supported transnational cooperation mechanisms and capacity building are crucial to provide joint impactful approaches and leverage/scale up innovative solutions to help education, training, youth and sport sectors address skills gaps and improve performance and inclusiveness. Funding can strengthen the cross-border dimension to build networks and trust among the education and training systems, increase the transparency and recognition of skills and qualifications across borders, as well as the circulation of staff, learners and workers in Europe.

Second, Member States have differing capacities to counter global phenomena such as online hate speech, cyberviolence, data protection issues, threats against the information space and risks associated with the use of generative AI – all of which affect EU values, citizens’ fundamental rights and economic development of media and culture. The growing complexity of digital environments, disparities in digital skills, and inconsistent application of data protection rules across the EU LXXXIII underscore the need for unified EU action to ensure rights are effectively protected and to reinforce the EU's global standard-setting role. Financial support can galvanise the raising of skills and capabilities to levels which are both higher and more consistent LXXXIV .

Third, EU agencies and bodies such as Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and EU judicial cooperation tools, play a pivotal role in supporting cooperation among national authorities, enabling information exchange of critical information, joint operations, and consistent application of justice standards. EU financial interventions for training and capacity-building can have a decisive impact on raising standards LXXXV .

Fourth, EU action in the field of culture is also key to supporting transnational cooperation, cross-country circulation of cultural works, (co)creation, networking, capacity-building and cultural diversity, as well as the social, economic and international dimension of the CCS. Financial interventions are indispensable to addressing common challenges, such as digital innovation, sustainability, artistic freedom and equal access to a diversity of cultural content, with EU action bringing results often beyond the reach of national schemes.

Finally, in the audiovisual sector, EU action to facilitate collaboration and pooling of resources and know-how can more effectively address common challenges, stemming from fierce international competition and disruptions by global players. EU funding for news media sector is crucial as individual Member States cannot - or in some cases will not - address the risks on their own. EU funding can more effectively provide a common response and promote a trustworthy debate, including by tackling disinformation. Recent shocks to the financial and political support for civil society and news media across Europe further highlight the value of EU-level financial support.

3.1.2.To achieve systemic impact by filling gaps

Actions at EU level can address challenges that are not prioritised by Member States. EU action on values, fundamental rights and equality can offset political pressure on the civic space, protecting EU values and democracy at EU as well as national level, and slower progress towards equality. The mid-term evaluation of the CERV programme showed that for many CSOs, the programme is the only substantial source of funding. Without EU direct support, CSOs’ activities would end precisely where they are most needed, where EU values are under threat LXXXVI . Specific needs such as those of victims of domestic violence do not find sufficient national funding. EU funding can also offer services at EU level which would simply not be viable on a national scale in all Member States, such as children's helplines or victim support hotlines LXXXVII . 

As private and philanthropic investment in media, including audiovisual, in the EU is limited, such support contributes to fill the funding gap.

Most beneficiaries under the Justice programme believe they could not secure alternative funding in the absence of such a programme LXXXVIII . The EU is best placed to foster cross-border opportunities for justice professionals to connect, develop and contribute to a shared European legal culture. This is particularly true for EU-wide legal networks, where the absence of EU funding would end collaboration between these networks LXXXIX .

EU funding also creates EU added value by supporting transnational cooperation in testing and transfer of innovative practices in education, training, youth, and sport. EU funding offers the economies of scale needed to provide a laboratory for deeper sectoral transformation, as seen with the European Universities Alliances and Centres of Vocational Excellence or the European degree.

Finally, learning mobility is far more complex to organise on a bilateral basis and Member States alone cannot make it accessible to all. EU action is necessary to compensate for the lack of transnational learning mobility opportunities, remove obstacles and break silos. This creates the foundation for a deeper and more regular cooperation than would be possible without the intervention of the EU level, whether for pupils, students (including VET students), young people and volunteers, also delivering a positive impact on local communities in the country of destination (e.g. for volunteers). The EU has also an added value through European transparency tools (Europass) and the organisation of cooperation to facilitate the free movement of people for learning and working in another Member State. EU action also fosters excellence and innovation and enhances the capacity of education and training systems to attract and retain talents based on equal opportunities XC .

3.1.3.To enhance coherence between internal and external policies 

EU action is critical to promote EU values at international level, implementing international standards coherently with internal policies. For instance, the Commission serves as the focal point for implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities XCI . In this role, it must report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities while EU funding can be used as a leverage to promote shared strategic interests and maintain the EU’s role as a global standard setter, particularly in areas like data protection and rights.

The participation of candidate and potential candidate countries in EU funded programmes alongside Member States, including funding for capacity building, has accelerated regulatory reforms (e.g. justice and education reforms) and a faster alignment with the EU acquis (e.g. audiovisual XCII ). EU action in the field of culture contributes to building trust and forging long-term partnerships with the EU’s neighbours and partners. EU funding can play an important part in opening the door to a strong EU role in promoting European interests in education, youth, and sport, at international level.

3.2. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

The added value of EU action, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, is reflected in different areas. Notwithstanding the significance of the problems, the relevance of policy areas addressed under this cluster, and the positive results of the evaluations, the added value and impact needs to be taken forward in the context of available budgetary resources.

3.2.1.Nurturing a sense of EU citizenship, solidarity and belonging

EU actions nurture a sense of EU citizenship and mutual understanding, through the promotion of EU values, supporting democratic and societal resilience, and a trustworthy information space, objectives that national interventions alone cannot fully achieve. This includes cross-border EU support for transnational civil society networks, for learning and volunteering mobility activities XCIII , including those starting from a younger age, as well as for awareness raising initiatives that engage citizens in democratic life and broaden access to diverse media and cultural expressions while highlighting our shared heritage. These actions also bring Europe closer to its people. Different EU actions help build a shared European identity and enhance citizens’ sense of belonging to the EU. XCIV

3.2.2.Ensuring high standards across the EU

EU action ensures uniformly high standards across the EU and consistent interpretation and application of EU law across Member States. This is essential for the proper functioning of the internal market and for effectively protecting EU citizens’ rights. EU steering is essential to ensure the implementation of EU policies by Member States, promote good practices, address issues and gaps in national approaches and frameworks and engage all relevant stakeholders.

The interplay between financial interventions and policy tools is critical to ensuring this impact. In the field of justice, the EU is best placed to ensure that justice systems operate in a harmonised manner across the EU. For instance, supporting EU judicial training has a clear added value as it fosters a coherent understanding and application of EU law and the delivery of key tools like the European Arrest Warrant. In the media sector, the EU has promoted and funded the development of journalistic standards to complement the regulatory obligations of EMFA, which also establishes an EU-funded European Board for Media Services. In the field of education and training, youth and solidarity, financial support complements EU-wide instruments to ensure quality and recognition through the development of common standards, tools and procedures, such as the accreditation of volunteering structures and the development of tools for recognising qualifications. Similarly, the EU plays a fundamental role in supporting the development of standards and their technical implementation for accessibility.

3.2.3.Supporting and reinforcing the Single Market and improving fair access across the EU 

With sector-specific Single Market legislation in place XCV , EU action ensures that audiovisual and media companies and creators can fully benefit from the Single Market and contribute to cultural diversity and inclusion. Fragmentation in the media sector is exacerbated by a lack of coordination between Member States and the EU XCVI . EU funding helps overcome this by encouraging cooperation and pooling of EU and national resources for larger scale audiovisual and media projects, thus improving access for more EU citizens and enhancing the competitiveness of the European industry.

EU-level action plays a key role in promoting the recognition of skills and qualifications across the EU by financial support to a common toolbox supporting transparency, the simplification of recognition procedures for qualifications, the validation of skills acquired through non-formal learning, and quality assurance. It supports the development of European education, through trans-national cooperation, and through the development of European degrees. It also promotes mobility and cross-border exchanges from an early age. These efforts collectively contribute to greater circulation of people, including for employment, ultimately benefiting the Single Market. Additionally, EU-level action is also essential to the functioning of the internal market for accessible products and services.

Finally, as explained earlier, the Justice programme brings significant added value by supporting a harmonised justice framework which enables enabling smoother cross-border business operations and investments.

3.2.4.Added value through better delivery

EU initiatives can also offer added value through the very nature of larger, cross-border financial interventions. This is the basis justifying much of the EU budget, and it applies particularly strongly in financial interventions where cross-border action is the core objective of the action. Cooperation between universities or judicial training institutions can naturally be provided more efficiently and consistently within a single cross-border frame than through multiple bilateral or plurilateral arrangements. Audiovisual organisations and cultural bodies in different Member States can pool resources and reach economies of scale if they can work within a common frame. This added value can be felt in terms of developing wider projects addressing a policy goal (instead of separate smaller projects under different programmes), reducing the burden on applicants and number of staff and the resources required to manage programmes, as well as the reduced administrative burden of dealing with a single way of working.

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1.     General objectives

The objectives below aim to address the main problems and drivers identified in Chapter 2. Tables outlining these logical links are shown in Annex 10.

General objective 1: Enhance and deepen the EU ability to financially contribute, provide added value and promote fundamental rights and EU values, democracy, media and culture

The EU financial intervention must contribute to address the threats against EU values, fundamental rights and democracy, media and culture, thus enhancing a free, democratic, cohesive, inclusive and competitive Europe based on the rule of law. The Union will therefore protect, promote and fulfil fundamental rights and EU values, and a thriving civic space; support a free, viable, competitive, and pluralistic media and audiovisual space; safeguard and protect cultural and linguistic diversity and heritage.

General objective 2: Enhance and deepen the EU ability to financially contribute, support and provide added value to cross-border education and training, youth, sport and solidarity, contributing to skills for life and jobs

The EU financial intervention must also contribute to address the shortfalls of skills and key competences for life and jobs, thus contributing to a resilient, competitive, cohesive and united Europe and a European identity. The Union will foster high quality lifelong learning, enhance skills and key competences for all, in line with a swiftly changing society and labour market needs, while promoting societal engagement and civic education, solidarity and social inclusion.

General Objective 3: Enhance and deepen the EU ability to financially contribute and provide added value in these policies with a design fostering adequacy of funding to policy, simplification, coordination and synergies

The EU intervention must better reflect and protect policy objectives. It must be designed and implemented to effectively support policy delivery, including through a feedback loop from results to policy making, and greater cooperation among all relevant stakeholders. It should be flexible enough to cater for new emerging needs and evolving priorities. EU instruments should build up mechanisms to foster synergies within and across policy areas, to make the EU intervention more impactful, achieve economies of scale and streamline the management of the different programmes. Finally, it must be user friendly and offer visible, simplified and easily accessible opportunities.

4.2.     Specific objectives

4.2.1.Specific objectives linked to general objective 1

Specific objective 1.1: Contribute to upholding the rule of law, fundamental rights and equality, reduce discrimination and empower civil society

EU financial intervention will (1) raise awareness and build capacity of relevant actors XCVII for the effective application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; (2) promote the rule of law and combat corruption; (3) promote equality, and support prevent and fight against discrimination XCVIII , including through training, education, awareness raising, mutual learning, and exchanges of good practices and capacity building; (4) support actions to promote and protect women’s rights and gender equality (e.g. improving work-life balance, reducing gender gaps, combating stereotypes, and gender mainstreaming); (5) support actions to promote accessibility and the rights of persons with disabilities to an independent life, to participation in the community, including fighting stigma and violence; (6) support actions to combat all forms of intolerance XCIX ; (7) raise awareness on the benefits of diversity and inclusion; (8) promote and protect the rights of the child, including their right to meaningfully participate ; (9) in synergy with objective 1.4, support actions to combat hate speech and hate crime and promote freedom of expression, including by increasing knowledge of EU and national legislation, improving reporting and recording mechanisms, empowering victims and witnesses and enhancing resilience of civil society organisations; (10) support actions to protect and promote rights and values in the digital space, including data protection; (11) nurture a vibrant civic space by building the capacity, empower and fund the activities of civil society organisations at all levels, and human rights defenders ; and (12) reinforce the protection of whistleblowers, including through better implementation of EU legislation.

Specific objective 1.2: Contribute to fighting against gender-based violence, violence against children and other groups at risk

The EU financial intervention will contribute to (1) support good practice exchanges among stakeholders, build the capacity of stakeholders and relevant professionals to address issues related to gender-based violence, and strengthen integrated child protection systems and the deinstitutionalisation of child care and care systems for persons with disabilities; (2) support actions for the protection of and support for victims and survivors of violence, including by increasing knowledge about victims’ rights, improving data collection and protection and support standards for victims; (3) strengthen a multidisciplinary and multi-actor approach to prevent and combat violence; and (4) support the EU implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence and the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Specific objective 1.3: Contribute to enhancing democratic resilience and participation.

The EU financial intervention will contribute to (1) promote all citizens‘ participation and engagement in democracy, through elections (including electoral turnout), democratic debates and engagement in public policy making; (2) promote and protect Union citizenship rights, including by raising awareness of the value and benefits deriving from those rights; (3) support to free, fair, resilient, accessible and inclusive electoral processes and democratic check and balances, processes and frameworks (including by supporting independent elections observers) as well as by addressing foreign information manipulation and interference; (4) raise awareness, facilitate exchanges and engagement in democratic processes, and build citizens’ knowledge in view to better understand the Union, its history, cultural diversity, and European remembrance; and (5) strengthening of situational awareness and preparedness across societies, in synergy with the objective below (on the protection of the integrity of the media and information space).

Specific objective 1.4: Contribute to supporting news media, media independence and tackling disinformation.

The EU financial intervention will strive to enhance a viable and diverse information ecosystem in the EU. It will promote, on the one side, free, independent and viable media; and on the other, contribute to fighting disinformation. It will enhance the availability and consumption of professionally produced news media content, including on EU affairs and in peripheral areas, addressing the fact that 25% of citizens currently believe that news are divisive, harmful or spread lies C . It will protect media and journalists, address risks to market plurality, financial viability and increasing political interference, and contribute to the implementation of the media freedom regulatory rulebook. CI  As regards disinformation, it will enhance an independent monitoring of the information ecosystem and role of entities detecting and analysing disinformation, including fact-checking. It will promote digital and media literacy, to empower EU citizens to make well-informed choices. Promoting media independence and media pluralism and fighting disinformation were signalled as an important policy objective by 83.1% of OPC respondents.

Specific objective 1.5: Enhance production, CII circulation, and consumption of EU audiovisual/media content.  

The current EU support to the audiovisual industry has successfully contributed to the sectors’ competitiveness and cultural diversity. Building on this, a renewed financing intervention will enhance the societal, economic and cultural relevance of media and audiovisual content. Citizens’ access to high quality European media and audiovisual content (films, TV series, documentaries) will be fostered to promote a sense of mutual understanding whilst strengthening the competitiveness of the industry. The potential of such content to appeal to wider audiences across borders will be enhanced by fostering European collaborations, notably cross-border productions, distribution and promotion. Efforts will be renewed to increase cross-border circulation of EU audiovisual, and media works as well as to reach isolated communities in media and cinema “deserts”. Actions will be updated to respond to market trends, notably the increasing shift of audiences online. The participation of all Member States will be broadened through increased collaborations between countries with different audiovisual capabilities. Support will promote crossovers among media content sectors, transmedia IP development and exploitation to foster audience engagement in Europe and beyond. CIII It will also support the development, marketing and promotion of videogames and interactive content, which are particularly popular among young audiences. CIV  

Specific objective 1.6: Increase in cross-border cultural cooperation, cultural participation and accessibility, and circulation of diverse cultural works, while strengthening cultural and creative sectors.

A renewed financing intervention will keep a strong focus on cooperation to promote cultural diversity, circulation and mobility, to test innovative solutions, scale up good practices and accelerate the development curve in the CCS, while giving local/national initiatives a European dimension/perspective. Through cooperation, the financing intervention would help address pressing common needs, in particular the needs to continue supporting cultural and artistic creation in full respect of artistic freedom, to promote inclusiveness and intergenerational fairness through culture, to help the CCS be more resilient and competitive and benefit from the dual transition, and to promote the use of new (for example digital) tools, including protecting cultural heritage. The financing intervention would also contribute to building trust and forging long-term partnerships with the EU’s neighbours and partners. Finally, there would be a focus on participation and access of all, especially the younger generation, to a diversity of cultural and creative contents, in particular those coming from beyond national or linguistic borders as well as to all forms of cultural heritage, be it tangible, intangible or, more and more often, also in digital format. CV  

Specific objective 1.7: Spur cross-cutting innovation and promote sustainability of media, cultural and societal entities.

Media and CCS are well positioned to spearhead innovation in Europe’s economy and society, as they blend creativity and design with digital tools, accessible solutions and new business models. However, innovation in media and CCS is underfinanced and mainly relies on non-European technologies and foreign private investments CVI . Innovation can help tackle the problem of media viability, with media organizations turning to alternative income sources (e.g. event organisation, e-commerce) CVII : for example, the ‘promotion of trustworthy AI that respects EU values’ was mentioned as an ‘important’ policy objective by 73% of OPC respondents CVIII . Furthermore, the current intervention has shown the value of blended instruments combining funds from different programmes in attracting private funding in nascent markets and should be expanded in the future. Finally, there is a need to enhance professionals’ skillset to adapt to the emerging media, cultural and societal needs.

4.2.2.Specific objectives linked to general objective 2

Specific Objective 2.1: Support transnational cooperation around education and skills

The EU action will support cross-border cooperation, allowing for pooling of expertise, exchange of good practices, networking, peer learning and capacity-building of education and training, youth, sport and volunteering organisations. EU investments will also cover systematic, large-scale institutional cooperation (through support for example to European University Alliances or Centres of Vocational Excellence), to promote innovation in curriculum design, joint degrees, partnerships with businesses, recognition of qualifications and validation of skills, as well as and research across borders. This will build on a more integrated Education Area and contribute to the creation of the Union of Skills.

Actions to foster the development of high quality and state-of-the-art teaching and training practices as well as youth work methods will be supported. They will aim to enhance inclusion, digitalisation, innovation and excellence in education and training, youth and sport and lead to improvements of performance and modernisation of the overall functioning of the institutions and organisations thus increasing their capacity to develop the skills and competences needed for jobs and life. It will also aim to attract and retain top talent and securing and keeping high-quality educators and staff crucial to enhance academic reputation and drive institutional success.

Specific Objective 2.2: Support to transnational learning mobility and learning opportunities.

The goal is to make learning mobility a reality for all, as early as possible, ensuring that opportunities are accessible across all sectors of education and training, youth, and sport. CIX EU action will help address the current obstacles and support cross border learning mobility for all learners and staff, providing as well sufficient funding and support measures to promote diversity and ensure equal access for individuals regardless of their gender, cultural, social, economic, or geographical background, or any special needs they may have.

By supporting learning mobility for all, and exposing learners from an earlier age, allowing them to develop key competences, language skills, and adaptability, those EU actions contribute to build skilled, engaged, united and prepared individuals. Through active involvement in cross-border learning mobility opportunities, organisations increase their capacity as well to operate at international level, improve ways of operating and integrate good practices enhancing their overall performance. In addition, transnational mobility for workers will be facilitated by supporting the transparency and recognition of skills and qualifications across borders.

Specific Objective 2.3: Promote lifelong learning, improving skills and new competences.

EU action will promote lifelong learning enabling individuals to gain invaluable skills and competences across their life span, through formal education but also upskilling and reskilling opportunities, non-formal and informal learning experiences, sport or engagement in volunteering.

EU action will aim to contribute to build a skilled and competitive workforce through supporting the acquisition of the whole spectrum of skills (including digital and STEM skills) from basic to highly specialised skills for all - from learners to staff, at all levels of formal, non-formal and informal education and training. It will also aim to support the development of the transversal skills (such as critical thinking, civic skills, socio-emotional skills) enabling full and meaningful participation in society and making citizens more resilient, thus enhancing social cohesion and contributing to the Union’s preparedness efforts. Strengthening and orchestrating funding to cover all the skills acquisition spectrum in a lifelong learning perspective would increase reach and achieve critical mass, enabling more systemic impact.

Specific Objective 2.4: Support policy experimentation and development accelerating modernisation.

EU action will aim to facilitate and accelerate reforms of education systems (early childhood education and care, primary, secondary, higher education, VET) as well as support the development of national policy initiatives in the field of youth and sport, in line with the EU policy agenda. Such EU action would take the form of testing innovative solutions, scaling-up of successful initiatives and practices, evidence and knowledge gathering about education, training, youth and sport systems and policies and policy dialogues.

Specific Objective 2.5: Foster solidarity, civic education and engagement

EU action will aim to empower and support all young people to acquire relevant knowledge and skills to become active and engaged citizens and Europeans. It will also promote solidarity, intergenerational fairness and common values, and contribute to reduce social divergences, advancing social inclusion and cohesion. EU action will also address physical and mental health challenges, particularly of young people, and contribute to building citizens’ resilience, in line with the preparedness strategy. To this end, EU support will also enhance opportunities for exposure to transnational solidarity from an earlier age.

EU action will support opportunities to engage in non-formal and informal learning opportunities, volunteering activities, youth participation, and promote healthy lifestyles through sport. Additionally, EU action will build capacity of those who work with young people and organisations that represent their interest, contributing, and include all young people’s voices in EU policymaking. Civic and education will be supported, including for media literacy in schools Capacity for meaningful participation and civic engagement in EU and cross-border affairs among young people and among all organisations that represent their interest should contribute to young people’s voices becoming more central in EU policymaking.

4.2.3.Specific objectives linked to general objective 3

Specific Objective 3.1: Increase effectiveness of EU funding by addressing linked EU challenges, improving cooperation, and fostering coordination of the main policy areas

There is a need for a policy-based EU intervention aligning political priorities and funding support, taking as a basis the political guidelines of the new Commission. This will mean, for instance, setting objectives aligned with EU priorities, which may change over time. Prioritising projects with high added value that contribute to the EU strategic priorities was mentioned by 73% of OPC respondents CX as something that could help the EU budget become more effective and efficient.

The design of the programmes and the approach to funding should steer cooperation between EC services and agencies, as well as between institutions and organisation within EU member states, where relevant. Performance indicators should help track outcomes beyond actual expenditure or participation levels and monitor horizontal policy goals. “Feedback to policy” mechanisms, addressing monitoring challenges identified in the mid-term evaluations, should be strengthened to make sure that the result of the EU intervention inform policy making. Given the increased focus on policy monitoring, resources may need to be reallocated through efficiency savings on project selection and execution. CXI Similarly, blending financial instruments which have proved their value in one policy area, will also be expanded to other relevant policy fields, ensuring economies of scale and reducing overheads.

Specific Objective 3.2: Improve efficiency for applicants and beneficiaries, and at EU level

The future programmes should streamline EU management, governance and implementation of EU programmes to improve efficiency for applicants, beneficiaries and EU institutions. Application and reporting procedures should be simplified and further harmonised, through the introduction of common or aligned rules, making it easier for applicants to apply to calls addressing complementary policy objectives. The application, management and reporting should be less complex and entail fewer administrative burdens.

To simplify implementation and reduce administrative burden for beneficiaries, the use of simplified forms of funding (including financing not linked to costs and lump sums) should become the standard form of contribution for reimbursing grants. The use of financial support to third parties, which has proven efficient in making EU funding more accessible to small organisations, should also continue and could be extended where appropriate. Moreover, increasing the use of multi-annual grants would also have a positive impact.

Obstacles encountered by grassroots organisations and first-time applicants should be addressed through targeted simplification measures addressing their circumstances, enhanced communication, and promotion of funding opportunities. Pooling of resources, including in areas such as monitoring, internal and external communication could bring economies of scale and enhance the predictability of EU funding more widely among beneficiaries, stakeholders and EU citizens.

Specific Objective 3.3: Increase coherence by promoting synergies and complementarities

Maximising policy impact requires moving from fragmented implementation to coherent, complementary, and coordinated funding. Fewer programmes would facilitate coordination and consistency, thereby helping to reduce existing overlaps and gaps and increasing synergies and complementarities within this cluster and with other clusters. This would also maximise synergies with national,regional and local levels, by providing overall direction and strategy across various policy areas. It should also help better coordinate with and leverage national, regional, local, private and institutional financing – thereby strengthening complementarities in relevant policy areas.

Programming should ensure synergies through cross-cutting actions and integrated calls that span multiple policy domains, currently covered by different programmes in this cluster. The design of the programmes should allow to re-channel funds between areas within a programme and reduce overlaps between funding actions. For instance, actions could be launched to combine news media funding with supporting the role of civic society organisations (CSOs) active in the civic and media spheres.

Building bridges between the different funding instruments at EU, national,regional and local levels will be important. This will be particularly beneficial for enhancing inclusion, scaling up projects, ensuring sustainability and a sense of ownership of results, supporting different dimensions of activities and removing silos between specific fields, e.g. such as education, research and innovation. Similarly, strengthened provisions to ensure easy transfer of funds between the different EU instruments and timely and appropriate coordination will enable to increase effectiveness of EU interventions and better address policy priorities.

Specific Objective 3.4: Ensure proportionality by improving reactiveness to new challenges and minimising risks

Greater flexibility should be built-in to be able to respond quickly to new emerging challenges and priorities, through easily adaptable funding instruments or rapid response mechanisms CXII . Achieving operational excellence in programme management will require harmonising programme arrangements, based on annual and multiannual work programmes, streamlining evaluation procedures, and leveraging IT tools. Increasing the flexibility of funding instruments to re-allocate funding can also help to improve their reactiveness to new challenges. At the same time, it is crucial to ensure that policy goals are not diluted.

5.What are the available policy options?

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

In a baseline “continuity” scenario, the current programmes would continue to exist. They would continue providing added value on their respective areas of intervention, as evidenced by the respective evaluations. However, the same evaluations highlight the needs for the Union to further enhance and improve its action. For instance, the existing programmes have a limited scope in addressing emerging challenges such as those linked to threats to media freedom, pluralism, and to addressing disinformation; face funding gaps in areas such as gender equality CXIII ; or need to further address accessibility challenges, continuing to expand their reach to participants with fewer opportunities CXIV . The megatrends referred to in Annex 9 would likely reinforce these issues in a baseline scenario.

5.2.Description of the policy options

Commission services have explored several strategic options to address the challenges described in the previous sections, considering that the current matrix of challenges is likely to persist in the future and that there is scope for valuable EU intervention. The three options described hereafter illustrate architectural designs to meet the specific objectives presented under Chapter 4. Additional options, which were considered yet discarded at an early stage, are also presented.

The options were developed using various criteria CXV , based on an initial mapping and analysis of components and implementation aspects of each relevant, existing programmes and policy areas. Options were subsequently organised in three distinct and mutually exclusive packages.

The first option represents the baseline, continuing existing programmes and instruments as stand-alone programmes. The second option proposes to align policies and instruments in two programmes, based on the two policy-driven general objectives outlined under Chapter 4. The third option considers a full integration of all policies in this cluster under a single programme. The extent to which each option addresses the objectives presented under Chapter 4 is shown in Annex 4. For legal reasons, as explained in this chapter, the Justice programme remains standalone in all scenarios.

Option 1: Continuity

This option would maintain the current programmes untouched: CERV, Creative Europe, European Solidarity Corps, Erasmus+, and relevant prerogative lines (i.e. Multimedia Actions, activities on fundamental rights), in addition to the Justice programme. Each programme would continue to be established by its own legal act and would follow its specific rules and objectives. Under a dynamic baseline, some incremental improvements could be introduced, for instance building on the simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 period. However, aligning the programmes (in their current architecture), with the Political Guidelines for 2024-2029 would be partial, at best CXVI .

Option 2: Objective-based consolidation

This option proposes to align instruments based on the two main policy-driven general objectives. It would result in targeted mergers of existing programmes: on one hand, it would bring together programmes primarily aimed at protecting fundamental rights, EU values, democracy, media and culture, thus upholding mutual understanding. It would thus address all objectives under General Objective 1, combining policy areas currently covered by CERV, Creative Europe and related budgetary prerogative lines, as well as addressing emerging challenges (e.g. disruptions of the democratic and media space), and increase action on cross-cutting priorities and synergies affecting the societal, media and cultural sectors (e.g. sectoral skills, access to finance, innovation uptake, etc.). 

On the other hand, it would merge Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, two instruments predominantly supporting cross-border education and training, youth, sport and solidarity, contributing to the acquisition of skills for jobs and life (cf. General Objective 2), and thus to competitiveness and social cohesion.

In conclusion, this option would result in two EU funding programmes, aligning the architecture of the EU budget with existing actions and two basic priorities outlined in the Political Guidelines: (i) Protecting democracy, upholding values and increased societal resilience (primarily addressed by the first merger) and (ii) the Union of Skills (primarily addressed by the second merger). The two instruments would be designed with a view to fostering adequacy of funding to policy, simplification, coordination and synergies, thus in line with General Objective 3.

Option 3: Full integration

The third option proposes a full integration of all policies under this cluster under a single instrument. This would result in a new single fund integrating all policies covered today by CERV, Creative Europe, Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps CXVII . This would thus consolidate all policy-oriented general and specific objectives, supporting current policy priorities while addressing all emerging challenges and new policy areas through a single instrument.

5.3.Options discarded at an early stage

A discontinuation of the EU funding

The option of discontinuing the EU intervention in these policy areas was discarded at an early stage, given the importance of the problems affecting the sectors, the prominence given to these policies in the Political Guidelines and the added value of the EU interventions (see Chapter 3), underpinned by the respective mid-term evaluations (see Annex 8). A discontinuation of the EU funding in these areas would also contradict the responses to the OPC (see Annex 2).

Merging the Justice programme with other programmes in this cluster

The interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Justice programme confirms that the programme provides unique added value that would be difficult to replicate at national level (see Annex 8). However, for legal reasons, this programme cannot be merged with others, as not all 27 EU Member States participate in the Justice programme (contrary to the other existing programmes in this cluster). The legal bases of the Regulation establishing the 2021-2027 Justice programme are article 81(1) and (2) and article 82 TFEU. These articles are part of Title V TFEU, which covers the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. By virtue of Protocols annexed to the Treaty, Denmark does not take part in decisions made under Title V in line with Protocol No 22 – known as ‘opt-out’ – and Ireland can choose to take part in certain measures if it decides to ‘opt-in’, in line with Protocol No 21.  The other programmes in the scope of this impact assessment are open to all Member States, and they are thus incompatible with the legal bases of Title V CXVIII .

Other potential merging configurations

The analysis considered different, partial merging combinations across policies and existing programmes. None of those offer a similar level of consistency compared to the three proposed options. Alternative configurations for merging programmes (for instance, merging only the Media strand of Creative Europe with the CERV programme) would not effectively align with political priorities, and/or would not adequately cater for the challenges as presented in chapters 1 and 2, notably the need to reduce the fragmentation of funding, as they would offer less potential for synergies CXIX .

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

This section outlines the main potential impacts of the chosen options across the social, economic and environmental dimensions. It also analyses, where relevant, costs and benefits, impacts on competitiveness and SMEs and on digitalisation, as well as their contribution to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Policies under this cluster target a wider variety of groups and a stronger impact on people’s lives, as shown by the Public Consultation, which registered 5,845 responses, the largest across the consultations on the MFF CXX . More information on the results of the consultation is provided in Annex 2 while on target groups and benefits in Annex 3.

7. How do the options compare?

7.1.Description of the analysis’ methods

On top of the impacts presented in the table above, the policy options were compared by applying the Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE). The SMCE was deemed useful due to the diversity of policies and interventions in the cluster. This analysis compares the three options along four dimensions, namely effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality. For each of these dimensions, a set of objectives were agreed upon, reflecting the priorities outlined under General Objectives 1, 2 and 3 (see Figure below). For each objective, a set of indicators was selected (39 indicators overall).

Figure 2: relationship between SMCE objectives and IA intervention logic

For each indicator, a score was given, evaluating the impact of the three policy options. This was based on an expert assessment from the relevant Commission services, relying on current sets of data presented in Annex I (Evidence, Sources and quality), and on results of current evaluations, Spending Reviews, political guidelines and policy reports, studies, OPC, and independent sectoral reports and surveys. The criterion scores were measured in the following range: --- (the most negative), --, -, =, +, ++, +++ (the most positive). The neutral score (=) was understood as the option not having impact on the assessed indicator, or where the positive and negatives were seen as to balance out. A ranking was obtained, under the assumption that all indicators have the same weight, by applying the SOCRATES model. CLIX

The robustness of results was checked by means of local and global sensitivity analyses. It should however be acknowledged that data available was used for the triangulation of the results to the extent possible, as there remain gaps at EU27 level. Annex 4 provides further explanation of the methodology, the expert assessment, including argumentation behind each criteria score, the sensitivity analysis, and the ranking of the policy options.

7.2.Results of the Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)

7.2.1 Effectiveness

Objective 1.1: continue to promote fundamental rights, EU values, democracy, media and culture: Option 2 achieves strong score (++ across all) in reducing discrimination, strengthening media independence and pluralism and tackling disinformation, enhancing audiovisual content circulation and boosting civic engagement and participation, and creating opportunities for cross-cutting innovation and sustainability of media, culture and societal entities. It brings together key programmes in a way which will allow both policy coherence and cooperation between beneficiaries working on areas like democracy, media, and anti-discrimination efforts, while preserving sufficient thematic clarity to avoid undermining dedicated objectives. The narrative coherence of Option 3 is less clear. Although Option 3 has positive impact on each indicator, it risks diluting cultural, democracy, and rights-focused programmes by absorbing them into a broad, less focused framework with less clarity of goal. In contrast, the status quo (Option 1) offers strengths in preserving specific objectives for areas like culture and prevention of violence, but it fails to address fragmentation and underfunding in areas like media independence, countering disinformation, and democratic participation.

Objective 1.2: continue to improve cross-border education and training, youth, sport, and solidarity, contributing to skills for life and jobs: Concerning learning mobility, transnational cooperation, lifelong learning, policy experimentation, and social engagement, Option 2 stands out as the preferred alternative. Option 2 delivers clear added value by fostering greater synergy between Erasmus + and European Solidarity Corps, by supporting learning mobility (+) and lifelong learning (+) and enabling stronger transnational cooperation (++). It also encourages policy experimentation (+) and significantly enhances social engagement via education and solidarity (++). In contrast, while Option 3 shows some potential advantages in terms of support to mobility (++) and lifelong learning (+), it risks dilution and loss of coherence in key areas such as transnational cooperation and policy experimentation. At the same time, Option 1 largely maintains the status quo with limited progress (=), and with a negative impact on policy experimentation and development (-).

Objective 1.3: Addressing linked EU challenges: Considering the contribution to democracy and competitiveness, Option 2 emerges as the strongest and most balanced choice. While all options score positively in enhancing democracy and competitiveness, Option 2 offers a notable improvement in policy coherence and alignment with EU priorities on democracy. Specifically, Option 2 (++) enhances democracy via two areas – one focused on rights, values, media, and democracy, and another on skills, education, and solidarity – ensuring tailored approaches for both. This option provides a closer alignment with two priorities outlined in the political guidelines for the new mandate (i.e., Protecting democracy, upholding values and increased societal resilience; and the Union of Skills). In contrast, Option 3, also scoring highly (++), contributes to democracy through many different angles than the baseline, but risk diluting priorities and losing focus due to the complexity and broad scope of a full integration model. For competitiveness, Option 2 (++) scores the highest, as it enables economies of scale without undermining the specific objectives of key programmes, whereas Option 3 risks weakening the focus on competitiveness due to fragmented priorities (+). Status quo has a positive but still limited contribution to democracy (+) and competitiveness (+).

Objective 1.4: Improve cooperation: Both Option 2 (Objective-based consolidation) and Option 3 (Full integration) outperform the status quo (which is limited by legal basis and fragmented funding) in terms of cooperation between EC services and agencies (+), cooperation between institutions/organisations in EU Member States (+), transnational cooperation within EU, and potentiality to integrate inter-related projects (++). However, Option 2 is deemed more efficient than Option 3 in terms of cooperation between EU and Third Countries (+), due to avoiding additional governance requirements and coordination costs associated with full integration (Option 3).

Objective 1.5: Foster coordination of main policy areas: Option 2 stands out as the most balanced and effective approach in fostering coordination of main policy areas. While Option 1 would have a positive impact in continuity (+), it has a low flexibility between programmes (-) and does not prevent the dilution of policy goals (=). Option 3 offers the highest flexibility (++), but this comes at the cost of significant risks to continuity (--) and potential dilution of policy objectives (-). In contrast, Option 2 strikes an effective balance; it introduces valuable flexibility (+) to respond to emerging policy needs, although maintains a low risk to continuity (-), and strengthens the alignment of planning with policy goals (+).

7.2.2 Efficiency

Objective 2.1: Improve efficiency for applicants and beneficiaries: In terms of accessibility, time required and administrative burdens for beneficiaries, Option 2 emerges as the most favourable approach. It scored the highest for ease of access (++) given the expected simplifying procedures without introducing excessive complexity, unlike Option 3 (+), where the full integration risks making requirements heterogeneous for certain calls. Both Option 2 and 3 reduces the time required for applications (+) thanks to streamlined calls, but Option 2 has a more positive impact in reducing the administrative burdens for beneficiaries (+). Although both Option 2 and 3 might imply administrative complexities, in the case of Option 2, these are offset by introduced administrative simplifications, whereas Option 3 does not sufficiently counterbalance its added complexity (=).

Objective 2.2: Improve efficiency at EU level: From a governance and implementation standpoint, Option 2 delivers meaningful simplifications without the excessive complexity introduced by a full integration under Option 3. It is expected that Option 2 reduces the number of FTEs (+), although Option 3 offers a higher reduction in FTEs in long run (++). Option 2 scores the highest (++) among the alternatives in streamlining types of management (direct and indirect) as it would lead clusters to broadly align with existing management structures, whereas Option 3 risks of mixing different types of management modes (-). In terms of impact on comitology, Option 2 would lead to a slight improvement compared to status quo/Option 1 (+) due to fewer programme committees. Conversely, in Option (3), there would be too much heterogeneity for committee members, leading to a negative impact (-). The status quo, by comparison, offers no improvements (=) and maintains fragmented, less efficient governance.

7.2.3 Coherence

Objective 3.1: Promote synergies and complementarities: Option 2 has the best prospects in promoting synergies and complementarities. Both Option 2 and Option 3 would improve synergies and complementarities between clusters, compared to the status quo (+). Within the cluster, synergies and complementarities would be achieved more under Option 2 (++), by enabling organic synergies with logical groupings. Option 3 risks creating links that dilute coherence (+). In terms of synergies with national and regional policies, both Option 2 and 3 offer improvements (+) over the status quo (=). Moreover, Option 3 would have the highest flexibility in rechannelling funds (++), while Option 2 provides a meaningful but more moderate increase (+) compared to the rigid status quo (-). In reduction of overlaps, Option 2 is the strongest (++), having a structured way to reduce overlaps while maintaining policy focus; Option 3 risks introducing dilution despite some overlap reduction (+).

7.2.4 Proportionality

Objective 4.1: Improve reactiveness to new challenges: In terms of reactiveness to new challenges, Option 2 consistently emerges as the most suitable alternative across all criteria. Option 2 is the most effective in addressing each of the specific problem drivers (++), as new areas are covered (which are currently not addressed by existing programmes), and overlaps are avoided. Option 2 also stands out by addressing some of the unaddressed policy objectives (++) and allows to sufficiently priorities each of the main policy areas (++), such as those addressed by the Political guidelines (‘Promoting our democracies and upholding our values’, the Union of Skills, etc.). In contrast, Option 3 introduces risks of fragmentation and complexity, weakening its capacity to address problem drivers (+), effectively addressing specific objectives (=), and maintaining clear policy priorities (=). Meanwhile, the status quo under Option 1 is the weakest (- across all criteria), being limited by existing legal bases and an inability to cover emerging policy areas such as media and countering disinformation.

Objective 4.2: Minimise risk: Option 1 and Option 2 register the same score in terms of minimising risks. In terms of risk of loss of customised approaches to (policy) specific needs and target groups, Option 2 offers a clear advantage (++) by enabling better delineation of policy boundaries and improved alignment between EU policy priorities and funding. In contrast, Option 3 risks excessive heterogeneity by merging highly diverse target groups and beneficiaries (-), leading to challenges in addressing the distinct needs of groups as varied as Erasmus+ students and business in the media sector. The status quo already functions reasonably well in targeting (+), however, without the added clarity and coordination provided by Option 2. Regarding the risk of losing established programme branding and visibility among target audiences, the status quo maintains the strongest position (+). Option 2 entails some loss of visibility for programmes well known to the public (-); Option 3 introduces the highest risks in this criterion (--), with larger programmes possibly eroding the identity of smaller programmes.

7.3.How do the options compare?

The ranking of the social and economic impacts (SMCE) is thus:

Third ranked option. The “continuity” option would build on the achievements of the current programmes under this cluster and incrementally improve their implementation, while maintaining the current architecture. While the programmes benefit from well-established brands, which would continue ensuring visibility and recognition among target groups, this option would not be fully aligned with the Political Guidelines for 2024-2029, nor with the ambition set for the next Multiannual Financial Framework to build a more focused, simpler and more flexible EU budget. This option would not build synergies between programmes and would lack the flexibility to address new challenges. It would continue to rely on a multiplicity of implementation modes, work programmes, and stakeholder relations, including those with non-EU countries (e.g. on mobility of students and young volunteers).

Second ranked option. The “full integration” option would generate efficiency gains by streamlining relevant implementation processes and enhancing coordination. It would also offer flexibility. However, despite these potential benefits, several downsides must be considered. The new and growing focus on supporting democratic and societal resilience might be overshadowed by the skills and education component and differing budget shares within the cluster. It might result in lesser focus being put on enhancing democracy and respect of rights, the rule of law, and EU values. The option might more generally result in less tailored approaches to specific needs and target groups and make it more challenging to combine EU spending with the right policy tools, as the combination of all the policies significantly widens the spread of EU activities involved. This option is unlikely to provide significant extra synergies compared to option 2, due to different management modes, varying degree of EU competences, and different constituencies. Existing stakeholders might find it challenging to adapt to such an all-encompassing merger, which in addition might negatively impact brand recognition and the visibility of EU interventions.

First ranked option. The objectives-based merger achieved the best scoring on all four dimensions of the SMCE (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality), being the highest ranked option in nine out of the ten SMCE objectives CLX and in 21 out of the 39 criteria CLXI . Conversely, this objectives-based merger registered negative scores for just 2 out of the 39 criteria considered.

·From the standpoint of effectiveness, Option 2 offers an optimal balance between greater integration and the preservation of policy-specific objectives. First, it strengthens cooperation, consolidating relationships between EU, Member States and third countries, and enhancing cooperation among Commission services. Secondly, by allowing greater adaptability within its defined policy areas, it overcomes the current rigidity of the status quo while maintaining clear thematic boundaries and preventing policy dilution that may occur under option 3. Finally, this option enhances the contribution to the political priorities. 

·In terms of efficiency, option 2 strikes a balance between simplifying processes and keeping operational complexity manageable. It would ease access and reduce administrative burdens for stakeholders through harmonisation of documentation, calls and processes. Option 2 would also better consolidate existing programmes under common management modes. This would allow implementing bodies to work within familiar operational models, while preserving clarity of roles and responsibilities. Likewise, the same agencies would be working on the same clusters (or parts of them), following the same implementation logic.

·From the perspective of coherence, option 2 would create meaningful and targeted synergies and complementarities, bridging gaps while reducing overlaps between funding and policy objectives. In terms of synergies with other EU programmes, the more focused structure of option 2 would make it less prone to inefficiencies or conflicting priorities and create new opportunities for alignment, for instance with programmes in shared management. Option 2 brings important benefits in rechanneling funds for evolving policy needs.

·Lastly, in terms of proportionality, option 2 strikes a balance between 1) flexibility to react to new challenges by enabling reallocation of resources and 2) addressing specific problem drivers and policy objectives. Clearer lines of accountability and strategy due to the grouping by objectives and management modes would increase the performance and impact of these policy priorities. At the same time, this option presents only minor risks of loss of customised approaches to policy-specific needs and target groups. To address the concerns related to brand recognition, a way forward could allow for strands of actions within programmes, to preserve brands and identity of the policies.

8.Preferred option

The evidence gathered shows that option 2 (“objective-based consolidation”) offers better potential compared to the two alternatives and the discarded options. This option allows for reinforced coordination, targeted flexibility, and a more impactful use of the EU budget – without sacrificing policy focus or accessibility. It offers the optimal balance between simplification and policy relevance. It is congruent with stakeholders’ calls, who ask for the simplification of access to funding, flexibility of resource allocation and the application of common rules (see Annex 2).

The option follows a ‘funding-follows-policy’ principle, clustering the programmes around the most salient and core policy-related challenges. It will build on the success of current programmes, best practices of the current MFF, as evidenced by evaluations, better addressing transnational and common challenges, filling funding gaps at Member States level, and enhancing coherence between internal and external policies, while enhancing synergies, efficiency and effectiveness, and reducing overlaps. It will simplify operations and enable a rationalisation of resources by streamlining work programmes and developing harmonised rules as well as reporting and monitoring mechanisms. It will pay due visibility to each of the policy areas under this IA.

Further information on this option is presented in Annex 3 (Table 1, expected benefits) and Annex 11 (with examples of how proposed actions would contribute to the new policy priorities).

9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

This initiative will be monitored through the performance framework for the post-2027 budget, which is examined in a separate impact assessment. The performance framework provides for an implementation report during the implementation phase of the programme, as well as a retrospective evaluation to be carried out in accordance with Article 34(3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509. The evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines and will be based on indicators relevant to the objectives of the programmes.

Logical links between specific objectives and areas of intervention and examples of how success will be measured, are illustrated in Annex 10.

ANNEX 1: Procedural information

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references

The lead DGs are (alphabetical order) CNECT, EAC and JUST.

There is no DECIDE Planning reference number.

The proposals for the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework are listed as Item 44 in Annex I of the Commission Work Programme 2025, under the headline “Delivering together and preparing our Union for the future”.

Organisation and timing

This impact assessment was coordinated by an Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG), involving the following Commission services: Secretariat-General (SG); Legal Service (SJ); Directorate-General for Budget (BUDG); Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (CNECT); Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (EAC); Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL); Eurostat (ESTAT); Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW); Joint Research Centre (JRC); Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (JUST); Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (REGIO); Reform and Investment Task Force (SG REFORM).

The Inter-Service Steering Group met four times in 2025: 28 January, 21 February, 17 March, and 15 May. It was consulted throughout the different steps of the impact assessment process, notably on the questionnaire for the open public consultation and the draft staff working document.

The IA is based on an extensive desk review, including the results of the midterm-evaluations for 2021-2027 and ex post evaluations for 2014-2020 for the programmes within the scope of this initiatives. The report is underpinned by a broad public consultation (no call for evidence). The analysis of the policy options is based in particular on a Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SOCRATES) model developed and carried out by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission.

Consultation of the RSB

The draft report was submitted to the RSB on 21 May 2025 and was discussed by the Board on 11 June 2025. The RSB gave an opinion to the impact assessment on 13 June 2025. RSB made a series of comments and recommendations on scope, problem definition and the use of evaluations, intervention logic and objectives, comparison of options and cost-benefit analysis, governance, coherence and future monitoring and evaluation. The text of the IA has been adjusted taking into account the comments made by the RSB.

Table: Overview of the RSB board’s recommendations addressed

The text of this Impact Assessment (IA) has been adjusted taking into account the comments made by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and its recommendations. The IA was revised further to these comments. The following table provides information on how the RSB comments, when possible, were integrated in the text.

The Impact Assessment has been further adapted to take into account the latest comments received from other Commission services during consultations leading to the adoption of the new MFF programme proposals.

Evidence, sources and quality

The impact assessment is based on several sources, including those listed hereafter (non-exhaustive list):

·Report on the ex-post evaluation of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) programme (second part), the ex-post evaluation of the Europe for Citizens (EfC) programme, and the interim evaluation of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme.

·Report on the ex-post evaluation of the 2014-2020 Justice programme and interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Justice programme.

·The final evaluation of the 2014-2020 Creative Europe programme and interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Creative Europe programme.

·The final evaluation of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme and the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme.

·The final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 programme.

·Spending review for the 2021-207 multiannual financial framework.

·Mario Draghi’s report on the future of EU competitiveness. 

·Enrico Letta’s report on the future of the Single Market.

·Niinistö Report on Strengthening Europe’s Civilian and Military Preparedness and Readiness. 

·Results of Standard Eurobarometers; results of Special Eurobarometers as referenced in the footnotes 

·The Open Public Consultation, carried out between 12 February 2025 and 7 May 2025.  

·The Media Industry Outlook SWD European Commission (to be published early July).

·The analysis of the impacts was carried out with the Social Multi-criteria Evaluation (SOCRATES) model developed by the Joint Research Centre. SOCRATES (SOcial multi CRiteria AssessmenT of European policieS) is a multiple criteria assessment software tool, explicitly designed for ex-ante Impact Assessment (IA) problems CLXII . Details of the analysis are presented in Chapter 7 and Annex 4.

ANNEX 2: Stakeholder consultation

Introduction

This report provides a detailed overview of stakeholder participation in the Open Public Consultation (OPC), which informed the impact assessment for EU programmes in the domains of cross-border education, youth, culture, media, values and civil society under the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Conducted between 12 February and 7 May 2025, the OPC was designed in line with the European Commission's standards for consultation and aimed to ensure inclusiveness, transparency, and evidence-based policymaking.

In total, the consultation gathered 5,845 valid replies. The consultation was structured around 133 closed questions and four open-ended questions, and participants were also invited to submit supporting materials such as position papers, analyses, and practical testimonies. A total of 383 attachments were submitted. These inputs helped assess public perception of programme relevance, EU added value, barriers to impact, and potential improvements to programme architecture. The wide scope and accessibility of the questionnaire allowed for a nuanced data set that reflects a diversity of lived experiences, professional assessments, and institutional capacities across sectors and countries.

Methodology

The analysis and synthesis presented in this annex was developed through a structured and iterative process combining both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the OPC. The extraction of key thematic clusters was informed by three primary data streams: (1) aggregate response trends to closed questions, (2) disaggregated data by respondent type, age, and geography, and (3) content analysis of 383 attached documents and open-text answers.

Quantitative data from the OPC questionnaire were processed using dashboards provided by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), dashboards developed by DG EAC (Qlik) which enabled segmentation by respondent category and geographic origin, as well as other categories. Response rates for each question and dimension were evaluated based on Likert-scale responses. Items scoring consistently above 60% across both citizens and organisations were flagged for inclusion as broadly endorsed priorities. Cross-tabulations were used to identify divergence or reinforcement patterns by age (especially under-30s), stakeholder type (NGOs, academic institutions, public authorities, SMEs), and regional clusters (Eastern vs. Western Europe).

Qualitative analysis was carried out using a combination of AI-assisted text mining and manual coding. Open-text submissions and attachments were run through a dual-model NLP pipeline (informed by values, emotion, sentiment, and keyword clustering) to identify recurring themes and positions. Manual validation ensured thematic accuracy and representative phrasing of cited quotes. Contributions advocating structural reforms (e.g. simplification, funding scale-up, integrated campuses) were tracked and tagged with frequency indicators, then cross-checked against closed-question alignment. This triangulated methodology ensured that the analysis distils stakeholder sentiment in a transparent, proportionate, and evidence-grounded manner—aligned with Better Regulation Tool #54.

Demographics

Overall participation

The public consultation received 5,845 responses.

Responses were relatively evenly split between individuals and organisations. Just under half (2,780) were submitted by EU citizens. Within this group, around 1,372 respondents were under the age of 30, meaning that nearly half of citizen participants came from a younger demographic. This demographic had a particularly high level of engagement with questions concerning solidarity, mobility, digital transition, and democratic values, and their views will be revisited in later analytical sections through the lens of the Commission's Youth Check priorities. Additionally, 169 respondents (3%) declared themselves as non-EU citizens.

The remaining 2,896 responses (50%) were submitted by organisations and institutions. These included 952 submissions from academic and research bodies, making up 16% of all responses. The majority of these institutions were large in size, with 69% employing more than 250 people. Another 835 submissions came from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), representing 14% of the total number of respondents to the consultation but with several of them representing either large quantities of individuals or representing themselves several other organisations (e.g. umbrella networks of civil society organisations or representing the interests of various cultural and creative sectors). Roughly half of the NGO respondents reported that they were micro-organisations with fewer than ten employees.

Public authorities accounted for 317 submissions, including a mix of international, national, regional, and local entities. A further 259 responses came from companies and businesses, especially those active in the culture, media, and audiovisual sectors. A small number of responses (123) were received from trade unions, business associations, consumer groups, and environmental organisations. These groups often contributed through both survey replies and technical attachments outlining sector-specific needs.

Geographically, participation spanned 110 countries, with EU Member States a accounting for 94% of all contributions. Germany submitted the largest number of responses, contributing 2,228 in total (38% of all replies). Among these, 1,302 were from citizens (including 862 from citizens under 30), and 926 from organisations. A notable concentration of responses occurred between 10 and 13 March 2025, potentially indicating a coordinated mobilisation campaign. Italy and France were the next most represented Member States, each accounting for around 552 and 467 responses (or 9% and 8% of the total respectively). The remaining EU Member States together submitted approximately 2,253 responses. Participation from outside the EU totalled 345 responses, or 6% of the total. Ukraine was the most represented third country, contributing 41 responses (0.7%). This international component is of interest not only for its scale, but for the qualitative focus of the submissions, which often related to EU values, enlargement, and external action.

Youth engagement stood out as a strong feature of this consultation. About 50% of citizen respondents were under the age of 30, and this age group consistently expressed strong support for funding initiatives that promote democratic engagement, equality, mobility, and civic cooperation. Their feedback aligned well with the Commission’s strategic focus areas for youth, including those highlighted under the Youth Check initiative. Their engagement also demonstrated a high level of awareness and investment in the values-based and cross-border elements of EU programming. In addition to this, responses from youth organisations and informal youth groups (especially within the NGO category) emphasised the importance of accessibility, digital inclusion, and opportunities for direct co-creation in programme design. Several called for greater recognition of non-formal learning outcomes and closer integration of volunteering, civic service, and mobility schemes.

Among the 383 attachments submitted, 189 came from NGOs, 38 from academic or research institutions, and about 26 from public authorities. The remaining 130 came from umbrella organisations or networks representing youth groups, media stakeholders, and cultural or civil society sectors. These documents took various forms—formal position papers, project assessments, or thematic policy proposals. A number of them came from established EU-level platforms and civil society coalitions, while others were submitted by local or regional organisations. In several cases, contributions included detailed examples of successful or problematic project experiences under Erasmus+, Creative Europe, CERV, and related programmes. Collectively, these contributions enriched the consultation’s quantitative findings by providing deeper, context-specific insight into stakeholder challenges and ideas for programme reform. They also revealed areas of emerging policy interest, such as the intersection between cultural participation and democratic resilience, or the role of mobility and volunteering in inclusion and labour market integration.

Justification for the validity of results

A key methodological consideration was the substantial share of responses originating from Germany, which represented 38% of the total submissions (2,228 out of 5,845 responses). This figure is notably higher than Germany’s share of the EU population (approximately 18%) and far exceeds the expected range of 15–20% based on previous consultations. Given the demographic weight of German respondents, a detailed analysis was conducted to assess whether this disproportionality might have introduced bias into the overall consultation findings.

To examine this issue, responses from Germany were statistically compared with the responses submitted from all other countries combined. The analysis focused on the proportion of answers selecting the most positive categories—"very important" or "to a large extent"—across all closed questions (133 in total), and more specifically for the seven main policy clusters assessed in the questionnaire.

The data were analysed using dashboards created by the JRC in Tableau, enabling segmentation by country and cross-comparison by question. The key indicator used was the similarity in ranking and distribution of positive responses between German respondents and the aggregate of other EU countries. If significant discrepancies were found in how Germany answered compared to the rest of the EU, it would raise the possibility that the overall results were being skewed. However, the analysis revealed a high level of alignment.

The distribution of answers from German respondents did not diverge meaningfully from pan-European trends in either absolute values or relative importance. The overrepresentation was found to be largely quantitative rather than qualitative in nature. Additionally, there was no evidence of coordinated campaigning or form responses, and no single narrative or agenda dominated the free-text submissions or attachments from Germany. The peak in responses between 10 and 13 March 2025 – when 851 entries were received – prompted a further quality check. However, closer examination revealed this spike did not correspond to identical answers or suspicious response patterns. Instead, it is likely the result of increased awareness and mobilisation by youth and academic networks, which remain consistent with open democratic participation. A similar pattern occurred in the previous MFF OPC in 2018, suggesting that mid-campaign outreach or advocacy events can sometimes generate temporary surges in responses.

In conclusion, while the high share of responses from Germany initially raised a methodological flag, robust internal controls and comparative analysis confirmed that this did not compromise the representativeness or interpretability of the OPC data. The consultation findings can therefore be considered valid and reflective of broader stakeholder perspectives across the EU. Germany’s higher turnout should be interpreted as a reflection of greater awareness and mobilisation within the country rather than a source of analytical distortion. These findings reinforce the overall credibility of the evidence base supporting this impact assessment.

Respondent’s views on policy priorities

Question 1/7 – How important are these policy priorities to you?

The responses to Question 1 reveal a clear affirmation of the EU’s continued role in fostering cross-border cooperation and supporting democratic and social objectives. Among answers, “support for study/training abroad” was ranked as “very important” by 81% of citizens and 70% of organisations. This priority was frequently tied to the broader theme of long-term investment in skills, employability, and European identity. Respondents linked learning mobility not only with educational benefit but with social integration, civic engagement, and labour market readiness. Many referenced the role of EU funding in supporting student exchanges, vocational training, language learning, and cross-border partnerships as levers for developing a more inclusive and competitive society. Similarly, “protect democracy, promote democratic standards” received 80% support among citizens and 72% among organisations, showing high convergence between individual and institutional stakeholders. Respondents saw democratic protection as a foundation for participation, rule of law, and social trust – frequently noting the link between educational investment and democratic resilience. Several contributions argued that inclusive access to learning, critical thinking, and civic education are essential pillars in safeguarding European democratic systems.

Geographic variations

Some differences in emphasis emerged based on respondent geography:

·Respondents from Eastern and Southern Europe more frequently rated EU action in education, youth mobility, and inclusion as "very important," reflecting structural inequalities and a higher dependency on EU funding.

·Western and Northern countries placed relatively more emphasis on excellence, innovation, and internationalisation.

·Respondents from non-EU countries (notably Ukraine, Western Balkans) emphasised the EU’s role in solidarity, external cooperation, and value promotion. This was particularly evident in open responses highlighting expectations of the EU as a democratic partner.

Natural patterns in priority attribution

Statistical correlation analysis revealed consistent and statistically significant groupings among priority responses, highlighting interlinked policy preferences cutting across stakeholder categories. Looking at response matrices for closed-question data, several clusters emerged, indicating how respondents evaluated related priorities.

·Respondents who rated study/training abroad as highly important (78%) also tended to prioritise policies promoting cross-border cooperation (88%), language learning opportunities (77%) mutual recognition of qualifications (75%), and cooperation with non-EU countries (65%), but also stressed the importance of protecting democracy and promoting democratic standards (79%) and fundamental/human rights (73%). This cluster reflects a mobility-driven integration logic.

·Those who prioritised democracy and civic participation (62%) also prioritised support for fundamental rights (84%), grassroots civil society organisations (77%), as well as media pluralism and independence (76%), suggesting a coherent rights-based governance cluster. These preferences were especially pronounced among NGOs, youth organisations, and respondents from countries experiencing civic space contraction.

·Respondents who assigned high scores to youth participation also showed strong affinity (at least 60%) for non-formal education, access to cultural life, and media literacy training. This reflects a participatory empowerment cluster linking civic and cultural engagement.

These patterns suggest a coherent internal logic in how stakeholders understand and connect EU policy priorities, reinforcing the notion that programme effectiveness in one area (e.g. mobility) depends on complementary support in others (e.g. recognition frameworks, inclusive access, civic rights). This correlation-based clustering substantiates the case for maintaining synergies across programmes that contribute from complementary perspectives to overall policy objectives.

Qualitative reflections from open text contributions

Narrative responses and attachments frequently expanded on the policy priorities identified in Question 1. For example:

·Many NGOs stressed that inclusion and participation are not only desirable goals but preconditions for democratic legitimacy and societal cohesion.

·Academic networks spoke of the transformative potential of transnational cooperation and student/staff mobility to foster European identity and institutional innovation.

·Media contributors warned that without greater protection for journalism and media pluralism, democratic erosion could become irreversible.

·Several youth-led submissions demanded that the EU go beyond tokenistic youth engagement and instead mainstream youth participation into all areas of policymaking, monitoring, and implementation.

Analysis of obstacles preventing the EU budget from delivering on its objectives (Q6)

Question 6/7 – To what extent do you see the following as obstacles that prevent the EU budget from fully delivering on its objectives in these policy areas?

Respondents were asked to evaluate to what extent specific obstacles hinder performance, including administrative burden, complex funding rules, fragmentation, lack of flexibility, and delays. Respondents generally welcomed the Commission’s focus on greater efficiency in funding, and advocated to keep “identity” and “trust”, preserving thematic clarity and stakeholder ownership of the interventions. This section provides an in-depth analysis of Q6, based on 5,845 total responses, distinguishing between different respondent groups (citizens vs. organisations), stakeholder types, regional origin, and age group. It also integrates insights from qualitative responses and statistical correlations to unpack how obstacles interact and what implications they hold for policy design.

Quantitative results show that the most frequently cited obstacles across all groups were administrative burden (identified by 52% of citizens and 58% of organisations) and complex, fund-specific compliance rules (50% of citizens and 53% of organisations). These issues reflect concerns not only with regulatory complexity but also with fragmentation between instruments and inefficiencies in delivery.

Additional barriers included lack of flexibility to reallocate resources in response to emerging needs (32% of citizens and 32% of organisations), delays in programme implementation and funding disbursement, and insufficient communication or clarity about funding opportunities. Public authorities and NGOs in particular emphasised delays as a source of reduced impact and local credibility.

Variation by stakeholder type

Disaggregated analysis reveals significant differences in the perception of obstacles based on stakeholder identity, with each type of respondent highlighting distinct structural and procedural challenges that hinder their participation and impact.

·NGOs and micro-organisations were consistently the most vocal about the administrative burden and procedural complexity. 66% of small NGOs rated these issues as "to a large extent" problematic. These organisations often operate with limited staffing, rely heavily on volunteers, and lack dedicated financial management expertise. The reporting requirements and co-financing rules were seen as disproportionate to their operational capacity, particularly for smaller grants. Many NGOs also expressed concern about unstable funding timelines and shifting eligibility rules that added unpredictability to project planning.

·Academic institutions, particularly large universities and university alliances were more concerned with systemic inefficiencies across funding programmes. While acknowledging bureaucratic complexity, they pointed to overlapping rules between Erasmus+, Horizon Europe, Digital Europe, and regional development funds (e.g., European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)). These respondents highlighted duplicated registration processes, inconsistent cost categories, and mismatched timelines. The lack of interoperability between platforms and evaluation frameworks was flagged as a missed opportunity for integration and strategic alignment.

·Public authorities, especially those at regional and local levels, emphasised the rigidity of programme design and the limited discretion available to adapt funding to emerging local needs. Respondents referred to crises such as the Ukrainian refugee influx, the COVID-19 pandemic, and climate-related emergencies as situations where EU programmes lacked the necessary responsiveness. Several contributions argued for the creation of emergency reallocation mechanisms within mainstream programmes to allow rapid funding shifts under predefined governance rules.

·Youth organisations, both formal and informal, described complex rules and administrative procedures as a primary deterrent to participation. This was especially true for informal groups of young people, often active in remote or rural areas, who do not have legal personality or administrative infrastructure. These groups are typically ineligible under current application models, even when their objectives align with programme goals. The absence of flexible formats such as microgrants or simplified sub-granting schemes was cited as a structural barrier, especially for first-time applicants lacking national-level intermediary support.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

The findings from Q6 suggest that perceived obstacles are not isolated or episodic but systemic and interlinked. Administrative burden, complexity, rigidity, and delays reinforce each other and create barriers to access, especially for smaller actors, first-time applicants, and those in less developed regions.

To address these challenges, stakeholders proposed a mix of short- and long-term solutions:

·Simplification and proportionality: Respondents called for the creation of tiered compliance systems that distinguish between small and large grants. For instance, organisations proposed that microgrants below €60,000 should use simplified cost options, lighter reporting, and reduced audit risk. One NGO suggested a "compliance light" track for first-time applicants with capped administrative requirements and pre-filled templates.

·Better digital tools: Several stakeholders highlighted the need to unify fragmented digital platforms such as, e.g., EU Login, the Participant Portal, and the Beneficiary Module. Respondents called for a one-stop-shop interface with integrated guidance, live chat support, and multilingual features. One proposal recommended adapting national public grant platforms that already offer predictive text, auto-save functions, and flexible management of ongoing applications.

·Flexible envelopes: Public authorities and cultural operators in particular advocated for setting aside flexible budget components within larger programme envelopes, allowing dynamic reallocation in response to crises. Examples included a “local priorities window” within Erasmus+ or ESC that regions could activate for targeted challenges such as post-disaster recovery or refugee inclusion.

·Technical assistance: Many stakeholders proposed regional hubs or rosters of "EU funding coaches" to support onboarding for new applicants, especially in remote and underrepresented areas. Some suggested replicating the European Social Fund’s Technical Assistance Units model, including template kits, peer learning sessions, and pre-submission clinics.

·Transparency and predictability: Respondents requested a publicly accessible, regularly updated calendar of calls and deadlines with 12-month visibility. Proposals included harmonised guides for cost eligibility and evaluation standards, as well as a requirement to publish reviewer feedback summaries, enabling unsuccessful applicants to learn and reapply more effectively.

In-depth stakeholder analysis revealed differentiated preferences and priorities for improving budgetary effectiveness:

NGOs and youth organisations strongly endorsed simplification, especially as it relates to first-time and grassroots applicants. Many underscored the disproportionate burden posed by complex financial reporting, cost justification, and delays in fund disbursement. Their emphasis on procedural equity reflected broader concerns about structural exclusion from funding opportunities. Several youth organisations recommended pre-defined lump sum schemes and the expansion of localised sub-granting via trusted intermediaries to support smaller, less formal groups.

Academic and cultural institutions prioritised predictability, continuity, and programme alignment. They called for unified grant management systems across Erasmus+, Horizon Europe, and Creative Europe. Recurring recommendations included a harmonised cost model and standardised eligibility rules to reduce duplication and misalignment between parallel programmes. Institutions managing multiple grants reported cumulative inefficiencies, citing the lack of interoperability between EU portals as a drain on human resources.

Public authorities—particularly at regional and municipal levels—emphasised the need for vertical and horizontal coordination. They supported interoperability between EU and national funding frameworks and proposed integrated calendars, joint application formats, and aligned eligibility criteria. Some also called for multi-programme investment platforms to allow bundling of cultural, youth, and education funding under territorial development plans. This approach, they argued, would strengthen regional policy coherence and improve impact traceability.

Small and micro-organisations, especially in the media, culture, and social innovation sectors, advocated for proportionate rules, simplified cost accounting, and faster disbursement processes. Their contributions frequently cited the value of microgrant schemes with low entry barriers and minimal administrative obligations. Many urged that future programmes expand the use of fixed-cost and flat-rate options under simplified cost models (SCOs). A number of independent cultural professionals and creative SMEs also noted that infrequent calls and short application windows limited their ability to plan, apply, and scale up impact.

Analysis of attached papers and free-text responses

A detailed review of the 383 submitted documents - including position papers from NGOs, educational institutions, local authorities, and sectoral organisations – revealed complex, differentiated, and in many cases deeply relevant inputs across all thematic areas.

Education: Across nearly 40% of the position papers, education emerged as a pillar of European integration and competitiveness. Stakeholders underscored the foundational role of Erasmus+ in fostering transnational mobility, employability, and institutional innovation. They called for a significant expansion of the Erasmus+ programme (Erasmus for all), with many advocating for a significant increase, aligned with inflation and the cost of living in high-cost countries. Numerous papers cited the disproportionate administrative burden as a deterrent to smaller institutions and first-time applicants. Stakeholders proposed a simplification roadmap, which included flat-rate financing, enhanced lump sums, and modular budget architectures. The lack of parity in access across Member States – especially between Western/Northern and Eastern European regions – was cited repeatedly. Respondents also stressed the importance of maintaining Erasmus+ as a standalone brand, warning against dilution through broader programme integration. Several university alliances advocated for reinforced synergies with Horizon Europe, Digital Europe, and ESF+ without compromising the autonomy or identity of the programme.

Youth and Solidarity: Documents from youth organisations, national youth councils, and solidarity networks highlighted the European Solidarity Corps (ESC) as a critical tool for civic engagement and soft skills acquisition. Stakeholders demanded structural and multiannual funding for youth-led projects, arguing that current project-based financing often excluded less experienced applicants or those from underserved areas. Respondents proposed participatory budgeting mechanisms and a minimum percentage of the programme reserved for grassroots youth initiatives. A dominant theme was the geographical imbalance in volunteer distribution, with rural, peripheral, and Eastern areas systematically disadvantaged. Recommendations included financial incentives for placements in less popular regions, standardised recognition tools for ESC learning outcomes, and digital platforms for matchmaking. Many respondents tied ESC objectives to broader EU values, urging that any future architecture reinforce the rights-based and inclusive nature of youth engagement.

Culture and Creativity: Cultural operators and creative professionals stressed that the Creative Europe programme must remain autonomous and sufficiently funded. A widely shared concern was that merging CREA with broader values or youth programmes would lead to "mission drift". Stakeholders argued for a recalibration of funding rules to accommodate the operational realities of artists and micro-enterprises. Recurrent themes included cultural sovereignty, support for at-risk professionals (e.g. in exile or post-pandemic recovery), and the need to codify fair remuneration as an eligibility criterion. With over a dozen submissions referencing generative AI, the growing unease around intellectual property protection in the digital era was prominent. Respondents advocated for a dual-track approach: preserving support for traditional forms of cultural expression while also investing in capacity-building around digital distribution, audience analytics, and platform regulation. Minority and regional languages, often underrepresented in mainstream funding calls, were another critical concern, with proposals for linguistic equity earmarks.

Media: Media and audiovisual stakeholders – from independent newsrooms to European film distributors – emphasised the geopolitical and democratic stakes of a robust, pluralistic media landscape. A majority supported retaining the MEDIA strand within Creative Europe but called in addition for dedicated budget lines for investigative journalism, digital transition of audiovisual SMEs, and copyright frameworks supporting EU rules and values. Many flagged growing asymmetries between large streaming platforms and local producers, urging regulatory counterbalances and safeguards. Views on cross-border collaborations were nuanced: while some stressed their importance for market access and resilience, others argued that rigid co-production rules or linguistic quotas limited flexibility. Several stakeholders from smaller Member States asked for upward budget adjustments to reflect higher relative costs in small markets. Ethical journalism, media literacy, and training for next-generation journalists were also highlighted as emerging priorities.

Civil Society and Values: Almost all civil society actors reiterated concerns about the shrinking space for civic action, particularly in Member States facing democratic backsliding. Respondents advocated for a massive expansion of the CERV programme – many suggested tripling its budget – to match the rising scope of its mission. Emphasis was placed on ensuring regional balance, predictable multiannual funding, and a stronger role for CSOs in monitoring, evaluation, and agenda-setting processes. Several organisations proposed the creation of a European Civil Society Forum, co-financed under CERV, to serve as a consultative body for EU democracy and values policies. Key barriers identified included lack of core funding, legal uncertainty, and administrative burden. Proposals ranged from specific policy instruments (e.g. civic action observatories, solidarity grants) to structural reforms, such as recognising CSOs as strategic implementation partners within the MFF logic.

Across all thematic clusters, stakeholders converged around a demand for systemic equity, stable and predictable financing, proportionality in compliance, and clearer eligibility guidance. Framing patterns in the documents leaned heavily on EU identity, intergenerational justice, and the imperative of democratic renewal amidst global turbulence. Many stakeholders explicitly linked programme success to broader geopolitical resilience, competitiveness, and social cohesion within the Union

Youth respondents

Youth respondents made up nearly half of all EU citizen contributions, equating to approximately 1,367 participants out of 2,780 EU citizen submissions. The high level of engagement highlights the relevance of EU programmes to young people and offers an important opportunity to understand the emerging expectations, policy preferences, and engagement patterns of younger Europeans.

The analysis draws on both quantitative indicators and qualitative content, enabling a layered understanding of how youth perspectives align with or differ from the general respondent pool. By comparing under-30 responses with those from individuals aged 30 and above, the report identifies key points of convergence and divergence in support levels, values, priorities, and ideas for programme reform. This approach ensures that youth views are not only heard but analytically integrated into the broader findings of the consultation.

Quantitative overview of youth response patterns

Youth respondents consistently indicated higher support for most proposed EU actions compared to their older counterparts. These differences were particularly notable in areas linked to democratic values, inclusion, mobility, non-formal education, and international solidarity. For example:

In Question 1, which assessed the importance of various policy priorities, young respondents were more likely to rate support for study and training abroad, civic participation, and equity-focused measures as "very important."

Question 5, which evaluated potential future actions in the area of values and civil society, showed that 74% of under-30s prioritised mutual learning, exchange of good practices, and coalition-building, compared to 69% of those aged 30 and over. Similarly, 65% supported actions strengthening grassroots civil society organisations, aligning with their emphasis on bottom-up engagement.

In Question 6, youth respondents ranked administrative complexity, lack of clarity in procedures, and burdensome compliance mechanisms as more significant barriers than other age groups.

Qualitative overview of youth-specific themes and priorities

A more detailed review of open-text answers and attached position papers revealed several recurrent themes among youth respondents:

·Inclusion and accessibility: Young people strongly advocated for making EU programmes more inclusive by simplifying application processes, reducing bureaucratic hurdles, and providing better support for newcomers and marginalised groups. Many emphasised the need for multilingual outreach, local partnerships, and targeted funding for rural youth.

·Recognition of non-formal and informal learning: Many young participants stressed the importance of acknowledging the educational value of volunteering, youth work, activism, and digital learning. They proposed including microcredentials, experience-based assessments, and digital portfolios as part of recognition frameworks.

·Democracy, rights, and civic space: Young respondents consistently identified EU funding as a tool to counter disinformation, hate speech, and shrinking civic space. They called for greater investment in civic education, participatory democracy projects, and support for youth-led initiatives that promote tolerance, equality, and critical thinking.

·Digital and green skills and transitions: Many highlighted the need for EU programmes to support climate education, youth-driven green innovation, and environmental volunteering. In digital fields, youth expressed interest in digital literacy training, support for ethical AI education, and safe online participation platforms.

·Mobility and international solidarity: Respondents endorsed continued and expanded investment in Erasmus+, European Solidarity Corps, and partnerships with candidate and neighbouring countries. This was framed not only in terms of individual development but as a collective European project rooted in solidarity and intercultural understanding.

Youth-driven proposals and innovations

Beyond endorsing existing initiatives, many youth respondents offered forward-looking ideas to enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of EU programmes. Some of the most recurrent proposals included (examples):

·Establishing a "European Youth Civic Campus" combining education, solidarity, and civic action across Erasmus+, ESC, and CERV frameworks.

·Setting aside a dedicated percentage of funding within each major programme for youth-led, grassroots initiatives, including microgrants and project incubators.

·Developing tools for participatory monitoring, enabling young people to co-create indicators, assess programme impacts, and shape annual priorities.

·Creating digital hubs or local support centres to connect rural and underrepresented youth with EU-level opportunities.

Youth check

These trends underscore a forward-looking, collaborative, and values-based approach among youth respondents. Their consistently higher response positivity also suggests a strong belief in the potential of EU programmes to address current and future challenges. Findings from the OPC align strongly with the Commission’s Youth Check framework, confirming that the perspectives of young people not only match the broader results but reinforce the most forward-leaning policy directions. While there are no fundamental divergences in terms of programme objectives or values, youth inputs offer important added value in their emphasis on intersectionality, long-term social impact, and innovation.

Their responses offer – in particular in this cluster of interconnected policies – strong justification for embedding youth considerations into every stage of programme design – from conception and budgeting to delivery and evaluation. It also supports the case for stronger youth representation in governance structures, including advisory groups and midterm review panels.

ANNEX 3: Practical implications of the initiative

Who is affected and how?

The following groups can be distinguished as the most affected groups by the future instruments under this cluster.

1)Individuals

Citizens and communities at large – Citizens are impacted insofar the respect of their fundamental rights is ensured, and by the rights and opportunities they have to live freely, participate in the democratic process and engage in society, access quality education and culture, regardless of their gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Between 2021-2024, more than 60 million people were expected to be reached by the activities supported by the CERV programme. Through the focus on access to cultural content and heritage in the Culture strand of Creative Europe, the general public is also impacted: according to a conservative estimate, under the first iteration of the Creative Europe programme, cultural activity funded by this strand was accessed 91.5 million times in the period 2014-2020.

Children and young people: this group is particularly affected by the environment in which they are growing up and by all forms of violence, both offline and online, including in the domestic sphere and at school. They are increasingly facing mental health issues, heightened by unhealthy use of digital media and the repercussions from Covid-19 pandemic. They are also the most impacted by the quality and methods of teaching and training, as well as access to formal education and other learning opportunities (for example non-formal and informal learning, volunteering or sport), which equip them with the necessary skills and competences needed for their future life and jobs. Their capacity to participate to the democratic life at all levels of society needs to be increased.

Education and training, youth and sport staff: Teachers, trainers, educators, coaches, youth workers need continuous opportunities to expand their professional and personal skills. This ensures that they can deliver high-quality content and methods, which not only benefits learners but also enhances their own job satisfaction and motivation. Under the current Erasmus+, 200.000 staff in the field of education and training, youth and sport are directly involved yearly. 

Human rights defenders, whose work is essential to protect and promote EU values on the ground.

Artists, media and cultural and creative professionals: This group relies on opportunities to explore cultural and creative endeavours, directly impacting their capacity to innovate and create. As an example, around 7,200 artists and creative professionals have benefited from the individual mobility scheme of the Creative Europe’s Culture strand from 2021 to 2024.

2)Public authorities

EU and national public authorities, who are often the ones implementing EU policies and legislations on the ground, thus contributing to the achievement of overall EU objectives. Local authorities and public institutions, notably in town twinning, civic education, and rule of law promotion, improve enhanced democratic culture, memory and cohesion through citizen-centred projects.

Education and training institutions and providers, including schools, VET providers, higher education institutions (HEIs), adult education providers, as well as Erasmus+ National Agencies and Jean Monnet centres, which promote EU studies, in their ability to deliver improved teaching quality, institutional capacity and European cooperation in education, enhanced institutional modernisation, internationalisation and innovation capacity. Under the current Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps, close to 20.000 unique education and training institutions and providers are directly involved yearly.

Other public authorities at local, regional and national levels in charge of education, youth, sport, and training systems, non-governmental and public entities hosting and coordinating solidarity activities, including municipalities, social enterprises and non-profits, and local communities, through enhanced civic participation, intergenerational solidarity and support to vulnerable populations. They will strengthen their ability to steer reforms, address challenges, and coordinate EU-wide actions in the policy areas of the cluster but also deliver increased social capital and community development from e.g. volunteer involvement.

3)Civil society at large

Civil society organisations play a vital role in European society and democracy, contributing to the enrichment of the sectors in this cluster through community involvement and advocacy, promoting EU values, citizens' rights, cultural diversity, representing young people’s voices etc. Their work benefits from opportunities to build capacity, network and (co)operate transnationally. Between 2021-2024, more than 5000 civil society organisations were directly supported by the CERV programme.

Civil society organisations and rights defenders, including those working on inclusion, gender equality, anti-discrimination, child protection, and LGBTIQ rights, who will see improved ability to sustain advocacy, inclusion and watchdog roles contributing to EU fundamental values. Victims of violence or discrimination, as well as organisations offering legal, psychological and social support, offering better protection, support and visibility of victims' rights and services. Academic and legal networks, supporting evidence-based rights policy and democratic resilience, who will see better informed rights-based policymaking and enhanced rule of law awareness.

Youth and grassroots sport organisations, including NGOs and clubs promoting participation, inclusion and healthy lifestyles, who will increase capacity and make use of quality and innovative practices, leading to broader reach and impact in fostering inclusion, active citizenship and social cohesion. Under the current Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps, close to 6.000 unique youth and sport organisations are directly involved yearly.

Cultural and creative entities of various types CLXIII that benefit from the cooperation, networking, peer learning and exchange of ideas and experiences. 80% of beneficiaries of the Culture strand of the current Creative Europe programme are entities employing less than 49 employees, 9% are medium-sized entities (between 50 and 249 employees) and 11% are large entities (250 or more employees), reflecting the general structure of the CCS in the EU. Between 2021 and 2023, the Culture strand of Creative Europe benefitted 2,176 organisations.

4)Companies

Companies across sectors that are facing skill shortages, underscoring the need for effective education and training systems that equip individuals with the skills required by the labour market.

According to the Erasmus+ evaluation, the connection with businesses has increased, especially in the Vocational education and training (VET) sector, while the adult education sector was the second – after VET – registering the highest level of participation of SMEs in indirectly managed actions supporting cooperation projects  CLXIV .

Audiovisual and media companies: According to 2023 European Media Industry Outlook, SMEs account for 99.8% of all companies active in the audiovisual, news media and video games, mainly independent companies. In the current MEDIA Strand under Creative Europe, 99% of the direct beneficiaries were SMEs (reflecting the 99% of SMEs amongst European AV enterprises), of which 25% were small and nearly 70% micro. Micro and Small organisations account for 50% and 40% of total value of grants respectively under Creative Europe 2014-2020.

5)Countries

Partner, candidate and third countries and organisations and institutions in these countries which benefit from increased cooperation and people-to-people contacts with the EU. This is particularly relevant for candidate and potential candidate countries, as enhanced cooperation can aid their integration efforts and prepare them for future EU membership. In addition, learning mobility will support the cooperation efforts with third countries in the framework of e.g. talent partnerships. Under the current Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps, some 2.5000 unique organisations and institutions from non-EU countries are directly involved yearly.

Overview of benefits

Overview of costs

(1)Estimates (gross values) to be provided with respect to the baseline; (2) costs are provided for each identifiable action/obligation of the preferred option otherwise for all retained options when no preferred option is specified; (3) If relevant and available, please present information on costs according to the standard typology of costs (adjustment costs, administrative costs, regulatory charges, enforcement costs, indirect costs;).

Relevant sustainable development goals

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS

1. MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS

This Annex describes the analysis of the impacts with the Social Multi-criteria Evaluation (SOCRATES) model developed by the Joint Research Centre (BR Tool#62, pp. 550-553).

1.1. Description of Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE) methodological framework and software tool

SOCRATES (SOcial multi CRiteria AssessmenT of European policieS) is a multiple criteria assessment software tool, explicitly designed for ex-ante Impact Assessment (IA) problems CLXXVI .

Quantitative evidence plays an important role in many IAs, but also qualitative data such as stakeholder input, conclusions of evaluations, as well as scientific and expert advice are frequently used. This generates a multitude of criteria, which should be consistently integrated and evaluated when comparing policy options. The most widespread multidimensional approach to ex-ante IAs is multi-criteria decision analysis, which forms the basis for social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE CLXXVII ), which has been explicitly designed for public policy.  

Overall, the objective of SOCRATES and the underlying SMCE methodology is not to substitute policy-makers through a mathematical model, but to improve their understanding of the main features of the problem at hand, such as key assumptions, degree of uncertainty, robustness of results and overall technical and social defensibility of options chosen. While SMCE has about three decades of applications in a multitude of policy problems around the World, its recent technical implementation SOCRATES has been applied in various EC Impact Assessments.

SMCE proceeds on the basis of the following main concepts: dimensions, objectives, criteria, weights, criterion scores, impact matrix and compromise solution.

·Dimension is the highest hierarchical level of analysis and indicates the scope of objectives, criteria and criterion scores.

·Objectives indicate the direction of change desired, e.g. growth has to be maximized, social exclusion has to be minimized, and carbon dioxide emissions have to be reduced.

·A criterion is a function that associates alternative actions with a variable indicating its desirability.

·Weights are often used to represent the relative importance attached to dimensions, objectives and criteria. The idea behind this practice is very intuitive and easy, that is, to place the greatest number in the position corresponding to the most important factor.

·A criterion score is an assessment of the impact consistent with a given criterion with reference to a policy option. Criterion scores can be both qualitative and quantitative.

·The impact matrix presents in a structured way the information on the various criterion scores, i.e. each element of the matrix represents the performance of each option according to each criterion.

In general, in a multi-criterion problem, there is no solution (ideal or utopia solution) optimizing all the criteria at the same time, and therefore “compromise solutions” have to be found.

In summary a SMCE approach can supply a methodological framework where the hierarchical structure of the option comparison step of a typical ex-ante IA (including dimensions, objectives and evaluation criteria) is clarified as much as possible by means of well-established concepts in the decision theory literature. This might help in increasing the degree of homogeneity across IA studies. The SOCRATES software helps structuring such a methodological framework.

A typical SOCRATES input requires the definition of policy options (called alternatives) dimensions, objectives and criteria. This information leads to the construction of an impact matrix, which may include crisp, stochastic or fuzzy measurements of the performance of an alternative with respect to an evaluation criterion. Qualitative information can be introduced too (in the form of linguistic or ordinal criterion scores). Weights as importance coefficients, may also be introduced. They can be attached to dimensions or criteria. Indifference and preference thresholds can also be introduced when needed. A social conflict matrix can also be constructed, where the impacts of each policy option on each social group are presented in a transparent way.

2.1 Assessment structure, criterion scores and impact matrix

This analysis compares the three options along four dimensions, namely effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality. For each of these dimensions, a set of objectives were agreed upon, reflecting the priorities outlined under General Objectives 1, 2 and 3 (see Figure below). For each objective, a set of indicators was selected (39 indicators overall).

For each indicator, a score was given, evaluating the impact of the three policy options. This was based on an expert assessment from the relevant Commission services, relying on current sets of data presented in Annex I (Evidence, Sources and quality), and on results of current evaluations, Spending Reviews, political guidelines and policy reports, studies, OPC, and independent sectoral reports and surveys. The criterion scores were measured in the following range: --- (the most negative), --, -, =, +, ++, +++ (the most positive). The neutral score (=) was understood as the option not having impact on the assessed indicator, or where the positive and negatives were seen as to balance out. A ranking was obtained, under the assumption that all indicators have the same weight, by applying the SOCRATES model. CLXXVIII

The assessment structure developed here has the following dimensions, objectives and criteria:

1.EFFECTIVENESS

1.1.Continue to promote fundamental rights, EU values, democracy, media and culture

1.1.1.Upholding the rule of law and fundamental rights, degree of reduction of discrimination

1.1.2.Contribute to fighting against gender-based violence, violence against children and other groups at risk

1.1.3.Enhance democratic resilience and participation

1.1.4.Support to news media, media independence and capability of tackling disinformation

1.1.5.Production, circulation, and consumption of EU audiovisual/media content

1.1.6.Increase in cross-border cultural cooperation and increased cultural participation and accessibility, and circulation of diverse cultural works

1.1.7.Cross-cutting innovation and promote sustainability of media, cultural and societal entities

1.2.Support cross-border education and training, youth, sport and solidarity, contributing to skills for life and jobs

1.2.1.Support transnational Cooperation in the area of education and skills

1.2.2.Support to transnational learning mobility and learning opportunities

1.2.3.Promote lifelong learning, improving skills and new competences

1.2.4.Support policy experimentation and development accelerating modernisation

1.2.5.Foster solidarity, civic education and engagement

1.3.Addressing linked EU challenges

1.3.1.Enhance contribution to democracy

1.3.2.Enhance contribution to competitiveness

1.4.Improve cooperation

1.4.1.Cooperation between EC services and agencies

1.4.2.Cooperation between institutions/organizations in EU member states

1.4.3.Cooperation between EU and Third Countries (international cooperation)

1.4.4.Transnational Cooperation (within EU)

1.4.5.Potentiality to integrate inter-related projects

1.5.Foster coordination of main policy areas

1.5.1.Planning impacts continuity

1.5.2.Prevention of dilution of policy goals

1.5.3.Flexibility between programs to address policy issues

2.EFFICIENCY

2.1.Improve efficiency for applicants and beneficiaries

2.1.1.Ease of access for applicants

2.1.2.Time required for application

2.1.3.Reduction of administrative burdens for beneficiaries

2.2.Improve efficiency at EU level

2.2.1.Number of FTEs managing the program

2.2.2.Potential to streamline types of management (direct and indirect) to simplify EU governance

2.2.3.Potential to use the same implementing bodies/agencies/institutions/approaches for several programmes/policy areas

2.2.4.Impact on comitology/ interaction with national authorities

3.COHERENCE

3.1.Promote synergies and complementarities

3.1.1.Synergies/complementarities between clusters

3.1.2.Synergies/complementarities within the cluster

3.1.3.Synergies/complementarities with national & regional policies

3.1.4.Possibility of a rechannelling of funds between areas within a program

3.1.5.Reduce overlaps between funding actions addressing a policy objective

4.PROPORTIONALITY

4.1.Improve reactiveness to new challenges

4.1.1.Ability to address each of the specific problem drivers

4.1.2.Ability to address each of the specific programme objectives

4.1.3.Ability to sufficiently prioritise each of the main policy areas

4.2.Minimize risk

4.2.3.1.Risk of loss of customised approaches to (policy) specific needs and target groups

4.2.3.2.Risk of loss of branding fostered by visibility of current programmes vis-à-vis existing target groups

Table 1: Impact Matrix

Table 2: Explanation of criterion scores

2.2 Ranking of policy options 

The importance of mathematical approaches in SMCE is their ability to allow a consistent aggregation of the diverse information. Otherwise, even if everybody would agree on the multidimensional nature of an IA study, the implementation in a real-world assessment exercise would be impossible. The standard objection might be that the aggregation of apples and oranges is impossible. Multi-criteria mathematics does answer to this objection in a definitive way. When using mathematical rules, consistency between the problem structuring and the ranking of policy options is guaranteed, this makes the overall IA study much more defensible. 

SOCRATES makes all required computations. From a mathematical point of view, the information contained in the impact matrix useful for solving the so-called multi-criterion problem is: 

·Intensity of preference (when quantitative criterion scores are present). 

·Number of criteria in favour of a given alternative. 

·Weight attached to each single criterion. 

·Relationship of each single alternative with all the other alternatives. 

Combinations of this information generate different aggregation conventions, i.e. manipulation rules of the available information to arrive at a preference structure. The aggregation of several criteria implies taking a position on the fundamental issue of compensability. For example, in evaluating a policy option that presents a very bad environmental impact and a very good economic impact, it is clear that allowing or not for compensability and to which degree is the key assumption.  

An aggregation rule that is simple, non-compensatory and minimises the rank reversal phenomena is the Kemeny rule. Its basic idea is that the maximum likelihood ranking of policy options is the ranking supported by the maximum number of criteria (or criterion weights) for each pair-wise comparison, summed over all pairs of options considered. There is agreement in the literature that the Kemeny method is “the correct method” for ranking options, and that the only drawback of this aggregation method is the difficulty in computing it when the number of options grows. A numerical algorithm solving this computational drawback in an efficient way has been developed recently at JRC and it has been implemented in SOCRATES 137. 

Overall, the objective of SOCRATES is NOT substitution of policy-makers through a mathematical model, on the contrary, the objective is to improve their understanding of the main features of the problem at hand, such as key assumptions, degree of uncertainty, robustness of results and overall technical and social defensibility of options chosen. The philosopher Socrates said: “I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think.” This is the main inspiring principle of the SOCRATES software too. 

Three main components constitute the core of SOCRATES: multi-criteria, equity and sensitivity analyses. Multi-criteria analysis requires the definition of relevant dimensions, objectives and criteria. It uses weights as importance coefficients and clarifies their role in the hierarchical structure. The impact matrix may include quantitative (including also stochastic and/or fuzzy uncertainty) and qualitative (ordinal and/or linguistic) measurements of the performance of an alternative with respect to an evaluation criterion. It supplies a ranking of the alternatives according to the set of evaluation criteria (i.e. the technical compromise solution/s).  

By applying SOCRATES to the information contained in the impact matrix (see Table 2), the following ranking, described in Figure 1 is obtained (under the assumption that all dimensions have the same weight, see Figure 2).  

Figure 1. Ranking of all options 

The ranking shows that “Objective-Based Merger” is the best choice followed by “Full Integration of all programmes”, while “Status Quo” is definitely the worst option.  

Figure 2. Equal dimension weighting assumption 

2.3 Sensitivity analysis  

The result robustness will be further checked by means of local and global sensitivity analyses. A degree of uncertainty always affects all model outcomes; consequently, effective and transparent practice in policy support requires identifying and quantifying the different sources of uncertainty as much as possible. In decision sciences, the main objective of sensitivity analysis is reinforcing the arguments supporting a decision recommendation. 

 In the framework of SOCRATES, the objective of sensitivity analysis is to check the ranking robustness and determine which of the input parameters influence more the results. Consistently with this objective, local sensitivity analysis looks at the sensitivity of rankings obtained with respect to a) the exclusion/inclusion of different criteria and dimensions; and b) dimensions and criterion weights changes; all parameters are changed one per time. A very important point is that both dimension/criterion weights are increased up to a maximum of 50% of the total importance, consequently any “dictator” effect is avoided. Global sensitivity analysis explores the whole weight space, thus accounting for all possible combinations and interactions of criterion weights; all parameters are changed simultaneously. The whole information produced by local and global sensitivity analyses is synthesised into simple graphics.  

Let us then first look at the influence of the exclusion of the various criteria and dimensions, one per time, and at the effect of using the subset of criteria belonging to one dimension only (i.e. first one criterion per time is eliminated and the corresponding ranking is obtained later a whole dimension with all its criteria is eliminated and the effect on the final ranking is checked). The objective of local sensitivity analysis is to better understand the overall assessment structure. 

When considering dimensions, “tilde” means without that specific dimension, while without “tilde” means considering only that specific dimension. Figure 3 presents the results of this exercise. As one can see ranking of options is very robust. “Objective-Based Merger” is always the winner, followed by “Full Integration of all programmes” and “Status Quo”. Only when considering the assessment structure without “Proportionality”, there is an uncertainty in the comparison between “Full Integration of all programmes” and “Status Quo”, since both of them might be second or third, however, also in this case, there is no doubt that “Objective-Based Merger” is the most desirable one. 

Figure 4 describes the influence on the overall ranking of each single criterion deletion (the “tilde” means without that specific criterion). No criterion alone can modify the ranking, thus from this point of view results are very robust, “Objective-Based Merger” is the clear winner, “Full Integration of all programmes” is second and “Status Quo” is third. 

Figure 5 synthesises all results as a frequency matrix, where it is indicated how many times each option is present in any rank position, and the percentage each rank position is occupied by each single option. In this way, it becomes clear that option “Objective-Based Merger” is the most desirable one, in fact it occupies the first position in the 100 per cent of all the rankings obtained, while “Full Integration of all programmes” is second in the 97.2 per cent of all rankings and “Status Quo” is in the bottom position with no doubt.  

Figure 3. Rankings obtained by eliminating one dimension per time or by using only one dimension  

Figure 4. Rankings obtained by eliminating one criterion per time 

Figure 5. Summary of results on criteria and dimensions  

Finally, the issue of robustness of results with respect to weights is particularly relevant. The ranking robustness can be further checked by means of local and global sensitivity analyses. In local sensitivity analysis, the weight corresponding to one dimension/criterion per time is increased till a maximum of 50 per cent of the total importance, while all other weights are reduced proportionally and they are all identical. In global sensitivity analysis, all possible combinations of criterion weights are considered (all weights are changed at the same time and extreme cases are considered, too).  

As one can see in Figure 6, describing local sensitivity analysis of dimension weights, the ranking is corroborated in the 100 per cent of simulations; the same result applies when performing local sensitivity analysis of criterion weights, as shown in Figure 7. This ranking stability is confirmed by global sensitivity analysis in which, as shown in Figure 8, all simulations confirm the original ranking. In summary, we can conclude that the weights attached to dimensions and criteria have no role in determining the final ranking which is very stable.  

Figure 6. Local sensitivity analysis of dimension weights 

Figure 7. Local sensitivity analysis of criterion weights 

2.4 Pairwise comparison

Finally, more information can be obtained by checking the pairwise comparisons, which allow one to be fully aware of the mutual weaknesses and strengths on each single assessment criterion. This information is summarised graphically in Figure 9, where the degrees of credibility that any option is preferred or indifferent with respect to another one on each single criterion are illustrated.

From Figure 9 it is possible to deduce that option “Objective-Based Merger” is better than “Status Quo” in most of criteria considered, with the exception of “Degree of fighting against gender-based violence, violence against children and other groups at risk”, “Increase in cross-border cultural cooperation and increased cultural participation and accessibility, and circulation of diverse cultural works”, “Planning impacts continuity” and “Risk of loss of branding fostered by visibility of current programmes vis-à-vis existing target groups”.

When comparing “Objective-Based Merger” with “Full Integration of all programmes”, there are various criteria where the two options show a similar performance (ten criteria), but most of the remaining ones are in favour of “Objective-Based Merger” (25 criteria). Only four criteria evaluate “Full Integration of all programmes” better than “Objective-Based Merger”.

Figure 9: Pairwise comparison

Annex 5: Competitiveness check

Contribution of media industries to competitiveness

Overview of impacts on competitiveness

Synthetic assessment CXCII

Challenges and Contextualisation    

Beyond their societal and cultural importance, copyright intensive sectors with a very broad user base such as audiovisual, news and publishing, video games and music, are strategic for the EU economy and are similarly disrupted due to digitalisation. Valued at EUR 206bn in 2023, these sectors together are expected to reach EUR 240bn by 2030. In the EU, online distribution already makes up around 30% of the revenues of these sectors, in the US this is close to 50% CXCIII . The audiovisual market (cinema, TV, streaming) is the biggest segment, accounting for almost half of revenues. Video games are the second largest segment, followed by news/publishing and audio (music/radio/podcasts).

Global companies outweigh EU companies in the dynamic online segment of the audiovisual market. Global video sharing platforms such as YouTube and TikTok have grown enormously over the last few years, reaching 23% of the audiovisual sector and forecast to double by 2029. Global, mainly US, streamers control 80% of European subscriptions. Streaming as a whole has grown to 17% of audiovisual revenues and is projected to grow by 31% by 2029. EU companies have the strongest position in the traditional segment of broadcasting (53% of revenues) but this is under severe competitive pressures in terms of advertising revenues and audiences.  Cinema represents under 5% of audiovisual revenues.  Meanwhile the share of US companies in the revenues of the top 100 audiovisual companies in Europe went up to 40% in 2023. CXCIV  

The EU audiovisual sector is fragmented, and dependent on public funding (mostly national). 99% of the almost 100,000 EU audiovisual companies, especially producers and distributors (the main beneficiaries of MEDIA), are SMEs. EU audiovisual players, including larger players like broadcasters, typically have a national focus in contrast to global competitors (Hollywood majors, large tech companies and Netflix). National public funding to public sector broadcasters accounts for around half of EU broadcasting revenues and public funding is also the main source of financing for EU films. Furthermore, there are substantial differences between funding across Member States leading to uneven audiovisual capacities across the EU CXCV . 

The EU video games industry captures a limited share of global revenues (13%), with only two companies among the 25 biggest game industry firms. It is mostly characterised by the high fragmentation of its industrial ecosystem, with a vast array of developers and a limited number of leading publishers. Europe’s lag is aggravated by the dependence on non-European technologies (e.g., game engines and cloud) and distribution platforms. The number of available games is increasing in almost all segments (nearly tripled for PC between 2020 and 2024), making European games less discoverable since consumers are spending much of their time on older and non-EU titles (in 2024, games over 6 years old accounted for 57% of playtime on PC and consoles). CXCVI

The news media sector is experiencing a decline of total revenues, with a decrease of 8% between 2019 and 2023. Traditional sources of revenues accounted for 89% of the total revenues generated by the sector in 2024, despite a general gradual decline. Digital advertising rose from EUR 4.4 billion in 2019 to EUR 5.4 billion in 2023 and is expected to reach EUR 7.1 billion by 2028 but does not compensate for the drop in traditional revenues, leading to a revenue gap. In addition, the total number of news media companies in the EU-27 is decreasing, and small enterprises dominate the market across the EU. In 2023, there were 85.087 news media companies operating across the EU-27. The total number of employees shrank by 7.5%, between 2021-2023. Material and staff costs for news media companies have increased over the last 10 years by 13% and by 14%, respectively. All in all, media viability is at risk in nearly all EU countries. In 2023, nearly all countries (except the Netherlands and Luxembourg) experience a medium to high risk on media viability (i.e. lack of sufficient resources to finance the media).

Cost and price competitiveness

The preferred option is expected to increase competitiveness, by further encouraging international co-productions with a potential to achieve popularity with transnational audiences online. International co-productions allow for more cost efficiency in audiovisual productions (through more diverse sources of financing, economies of scale and sharing know-how) and access to additional national markets, thereby increasing addressable demand. 55% of MEDIA supported projects over the past 10 years were co-productions vs. unsupported projects, and the difference has increased under the current MEDIA programme (82% of all supported projects are co-productions). CXCVII Moreover 30% of developed works were produced and released, thus reducing the commercial risks in investing in production by thorough pre-production preparations which increase the potential for quality works.

Regarding video games, more support would be granted to European developers and their quality IPs who have been behind many recent commercial and critical successes. The EU has a strong mobile gaming ecosystem that could be, if supported appropriately, an asset for the EU economy as the mobile gaming sector is forecast to grow CXCVIII . The video games industry also needs support to be able to cooperate with other European creative industries in digital and non-digital value chains to strengthen local and national game developer communities CXCIX .

Moreover, the preferred option is expected to increase competitiveness, by extending current blended equity instruments to other copyright-intensive sectors which face funding gaps. Further funding of the loan guarantee facility launched in 2016 and of the equity investment instrument launched in 2022 (MediaInvest, targeting €400 millions in private investment) is also crucial. This will continue attracting capital in the video games and other creative sectors, where EU market operators have not yet demonstrated mature investment dynamic. CC  MediaInvest provides risk capital, encouraging the creation of dedicated equity funds and enlarging the available sources of financing for audiovisual and gaming companies. In 2023, the value of private equity deals in the audiovisual sector (including movies, video games and entertainment) was close to its lowest annual level since at least 2019 CCI , leaving the gap in equity financing of €399 to €649 million per year identified in the Media and Audiovisual Action Plan partially unaddressed.

Finally, the preferred option will scale up support to news media, promoting new business models and economies of scale, thereby improving the viability of news media outlets. In the field of news media, the limited EU-level funding (under existing Creative Europe MEDIA and Multimedia Actions line) has enhanced cost efficiency and supporting sustainable business models, especially through cross-border collaborations and multilingual content production CCII . This indicates a direct contribution to production efficiency, partly due to innovative business models (e.g., podcasting) and centralised coordination.

International competitiveness

The preferred option will further improve international competitiveness, through better IP exploitation and an increased focus on discoverability of works, including online. There will be a strengthened emphasis on supporting business models leading to a broader exploitation of IP, also across different content formats. The preferred option would also continue supporting the non-national demand for European films, building on the success of MEDIA so far.

a) Cross media IP exploitation

Exploiting the same IP across different content formats (films, series, books, games, music) can have a positive impact on competitiveness. It can reduce costs (development, distribution and marketing) and increase access to consumers e.g. gamers may watch a film adaptation of a game and vice versa. Young people especially seem to be loyal to IP CCIII . Transmedia exploitation helps with discoverability and increases commercial success for both the original and adapted version. For example, the box office revenues of a film adapting pre-existing content (books) is around 50% higher than films with an original screenplay, while TV dramas adapted from books attract 58% more viewers. CCIV  Music tracks, similarly, can generate substantial revenues from their inclusion in video games, films or TV series.

However European industry needs support in this regard. More than two-thirds of the top 100 films and series in 2024 were based on pre-existing ideas and IP CCV . However, none of the top 20 franchise commissions were from the EU. Also, none of the titles reaching more than 10 million admissions in the EU were from the EU. Therefore, there is a considerable gap in performance, with potential opportunities for growth. Producers and distributors are mainly micro and small national enterprises which often do not have the resources, expertise or contacts to forge links with other creative sectors and explore collaborative projects across Europe. Similarly, writers, editors, game developers and publishers and music labels lack structured opportunities to collaborate at European level. Therefore, the European IP industries need support to structure their collaboration.

This option would have added value in promoting the exploitation of IP across different formats on a pan-European basis. MEDIA already has a relevant track record. The broadcasting of Babylon Berlin, a TV series based on a book and co-financed by MEDIA for EUR 1 mio, was followed by the book series selling hundreds of thousands of copies in 22 languages. CCVI The release of the MEDIA-supported videogame The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was followed by the book series selling over 15 million copies worldwide CCVII . Under this option MEDIA would build on this experience to support cross media IP through the value chain through a dedicated “IP hub”. This would enhance support to development and production of IP with cross-media potential. It would also create professional fora which would bring together professionals from across the IP industries to stimulate collaboration. Distribution through relevant channels, notably online, would be funded.

b) Boost circulation and consumption of European content

The European audiovisual industry needs to reach wider audiences to increase its market share, generate revenues, strengthen its independence and grow. As currently only an average of 25% of admissions for EU films come from abroad, there is great potential to increase growth across the EU single market. Whilst there has been a high level of production by Member States this has not been translated into higher European audiences and therefore more efforts are needed in particular to boost circulation and discoverability.

Therefore, MEDIA funding will be particularly relevant since it is focused on the cross-border dimension. MEDIA support between 2014-2020 is correlated with increased circulation of films and series with over 9 more EU countries across TV, 6 more countries on TV and 3 more countries on online streamers. MEDIA is also correlated with an over 240 million more non-national admissions in EU27 cinemas. Also, 80% of works supported are co-productions, which several studies have confirmed are more successful internationally.

Under this option there will be more focus on content creation, promotion and marketing for works online as this sub-segment is driving growth and attracting younger audiences. Activities to support distribution of works online will be increased including through European VOD services. Innovative hybrid business models between cinema theatres and streamers will be pursued, drawing on findings which show that theatrical releases increase chances of success online CCVIII . Innovative online marketing tools CCIX will be further encouraged, as well as the use of Artificial Intelligence for data analytics on audiences to assist in content creation and distribution CCX and boost the performance of promotion campaigns.

Beyond the EU, films represented only 1% of screenings in cinemas CCXI . However, the highest share of EU content was reached in Mexico and Argentina, largely driven by the popularity and success of Spanish films in these markets: the share of Spanish titles within EU showings there has been more than 30% CCXII . Online, only a few EU works are in the top 10 worldwide in a market dominated by three giant US streamers.

Thus, MEDIA will also be relevant in increasing the focus on supporting circulation and consumption of European works in key international markets beyond the EU, both theatrically and online.

AlsoAlso, the preferred option will provide enhanced opportunities to increase the international appeal and exposure of the European gaming sector. MEDIA funding for game development significantly increased the chances of videogames being finalised and released (on average, 89% of development projects supported became prototypes). The central role of non-European global digital platforms for the distribution of European games creates the need for enhanced EU funding support to improve the exploitation of these games CCXIII . These include marketing, promotion and post-release operations.

Capacity to Innovate

The audiovisual and other content media sectors are among the most disrupted when it comes to digital technology and AI. For example, Generative Artificial Intelligence in audiovisual (including music) outputs are projected to grow significantly, with a recent study forecasting a market size of EUR 48 bn by 2028 for AI-driven virtual production, with a compound annual growth rate of 85% between 2023 and 202837.  Media markets in the EU are increasingly influenced by global tech companies who have made major forays into all copyright intensive, mass-market content sectors (audiovisual, games, news, music, books). Other major global players include online players e.g. Netflix and Hollywood studios who cooperate on technology through a structure called ‘MovieLabs’.  Netflix allocated approximately 7% of its annual revenue (EUR 2.4 bn) to R&I, while Walt Disney has more than 6,000 patents, outpacing EU players overall. 

European media companies need support to take up tech innovation as they lag behind other sectors. The 2024 EU R&D Investment Scoreboard shows that among the top 2,000 companies analysed, only 23 are media companies, including Denmark's TV2 and France's Vivendi. Venture capital investment into media technology is much lower than in the US. In 2023, US tech companies in the audiovisual sector attracted EUR 3.6 bn while EU counterparts only EUR 520 million in venture capital investment38. Based on a recent survey of companies in the creative and cultural sectors, only 30% have adopted a digital transformation strategy and companies have indicated that investment in AI represents less than 1% of their total investments.39 Therefore European media companies, which are mainly small enterprises, are widely dependent on non-EU tech tools, for example as regards AI. They need funding to develop and/or use innovative tools and business models which are operational and adapted to their activities on content production and distribution.  Also the mid-term evaluation of the current Creative Europe programme confirmed these needs are more pronounced for a number of specific copyright-intensive, mass-market content industries40.  

The preferred option will increase the capacity to innovate by focusing on larger-scale collaborations in innovation with a stronger focus on cross-sectoral deployability for the creation, discoverability, marketing and monetisation of EU-produced content across all media segments. Collaborative projects at European level can be effective in sharing knowledge and gaining economies of scale.  Funding will thus aim to bridge current gaps by supporting larger-scale collaborations and more directly aligning funded projects with industry needs for scalable content creation, discoverability, and monetisation solutions.  MEDIA support will build on its record of supporting innovation, notably through the Innovative Tools and Business Models action launched in 2021 which is starting to deliver results, notably in analytics and AI tools to support production, marketing and subscription models41.  This option would also exploit synergies with other programmes such as the European Innovation Council funding of start-ups and scale ups, which could scale up project seed funding of MEDIA. Also it would complement the fundamental research and innovation projects of Horizon and Digital Europe, for example the media data spaces project which has the potential to provide a pool of data relevant for media applications.   

SME competitiveness

Over 99% of companies in the creative and cultural sectors are SMEs. EU funding for the IP-intensive industries is overwhelmingly targeted at SMEs, notably in the independent production, distribution and theatrical exhibition as well as the independent gaming development sector. Therefore, the above findings on competitiveness apply to SME competitiveness as well. For a detailed analysis of the impact on SMEs, consult Annex 6.

Conclusion

All in all, the preferred option (Option 2) is deemed to have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the audiovisual and media industries. The proposed architecture will enhance effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality of the EU intervention, CCXIV which in turn, would strengthen the existing contribution to competitiveness. The current interventions, which were proven to be successful, will be enhanced, this concerns promotion of cross-border circulation of films and series, international co-productions, with a stronger focus on other types of media content, but also optimising IP exploitation across different formats and strengthening and expanding the existing blended equity instrument. The intervention will be enhanced through improved cooperation and coordination of main policy areas; improved efficiency for applicants and beneficiaries, by streamlining EU management, governance and implementation; synergies and complementarities, and reduced overlaps; improved reactiveness to new challenges.

Contribution of the other cultural and creative sectors to competitiveness

Challenges and contextualisation

The cultural and creative sectors other than the media and audio-visual sectors encompass a wide range of sectors from heritage to music, from books & publishing to visual arts, performing arts and architecture. Some of these sectors are partly industry-based while others are much more dependent on public support. These sectors are mostly made off a myriad of small and medium-sized entities of all types (organisations, associations, institutions, SMEs, self-employed workers etc.). The development and competitiveness of these sectors is impacted by different global trends. Digitalisation has already changed the value chains in some CCS subsectors (for example in the music industry). Digital technologies are more than a ‘contextual factor’; they are often an ‘enabling factor’, or even a radical step in the context of the new industrial revolution, changing the way culture and CCS products and services are produced and accessed, and how knowledge is transferred. Other trends that have an impact on, or offer new possibilities to, entrepreneurship and innovation in the CCS include the sharing economy, new technologies (virtual reality, real-time data, smart home technology, AI etc.), changes in working life, and climate change. CCXVII Finally, Europe’s market fragmentation by language and country has sometimes impeded the emergence of globally dominant players in these fields. Additionally, digital giants from the US control much of the distribution (e.g. streaming platforms, app stores), posing challenges for European content creators to capture value.

The preferred option would impact on the CCS international competitiveness and capacity to innovate through providing CCS organisations and professionals with capacity-building and networking opportunities on how to market works and reach new audiences including at international level, to develop greener cultural activities or to to developing funding applications, testing new business models in a rapidly evolving digital context and developing managerial capacity.

Contribution of education, training, youth, sport and skills to competitiveness

The preferred Option – objectives-based merger – is expected to have a positive overall impact on EU competitiveness across all pillars (cost and price competitiveness, innovation capacity, international competitiveness and SME competitiveness).

Table below summarises the key competitiveness impacts and indicators, with comparative benchmarks where relevant.

Overview of impacts on competitiveness

Synthetic assessment

7.

8.

9.

10.

10.3.

Investment in education and skills are very important. A JRC paper analysed the impact of EU investment in skills (ESF, YEI, and React-EU) and found one of the highest multipliers by 2030: investing 1 euro would yield 1.603 euro CCXVIII

Simulations CCXIX assuming a gradual improvement over 15 years show that increasing basic skills by 25 PISA points could lead to a 0.5 pp higher average annual growth rate in EU GDP in the long term. At national and European level, it has been estimated that if Europe achieved its current literacy benchmark, this could lead to an aggregate GDP gain of 21 EUR trillion over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010 CCXX .

Evidence also shows that low-income countries with higher shares of graduates with tertiary education experienced stronger catching-up towards the average GDP per capita between 2008 and 2021.

VET graduates generally have good employment prospects. In 2023, 81.0% of young medium-level graduates who had completed their VET programme were in employment, putting the 2025 EU-level target of at least 82% within reach CCXXI .

An analysis of the OECD (2013) shows that countries with high rates of participation in adult learning are more competitive. PIAAC data illustrate the central role that basic skills play in shaping economic outcomes. In the EU17, an increase of skills by around 40 points (slightly less than one skills level) is linked with an increase in wages ranging from approximately 5% in Denmark, Finland and Italy to more than 10% in the UK. In the upskilling scenario (7.4% ) of the low-skilled, total net benefits over ten years could equal 2 013 billion EUR278 and 3,528 billion EUR in a zero low-skilled (0%) scenario with increases in annual GDP (2025-50) at 200 billion EUR and 410 billion EUR respectively die to the reduction or elimination of low skilled adults CCXXII .

Education and skills reforms are important. Efficient spending ensures that resources are channelled to areas where they have sufficient impact and are spent effectively, enhancing value for money. Research suggests that reducing inefficiencies in spending on education could lead to substantial gains in the EU, with the potential to increase annual growth of GDP per capita by 0.8 pp in the long term CCXXIII .

Cost and price competitiveness

The preferred option contributes to cost and price competitiveness largely through efficiency gains and improved productivity in the education, training and CCSIs.

Cost competitiveness: Since education is largely publicly provided in Europe, cost competitiveness is less about firm operating costs and more about system efficiency. Europe’s systems tend to be cost-effective relative to outcomes (e.g. EU countries spend roughly 30% less per tertiary student than the US, yet produce comparable skill levels in many fields). One advantage the EU has internationally is affordability of education – low or no tuition in many countries – which can be seen as a competitive strength in attracting foreign students (where cost is a factor, in contrast to high tuition in the US). The preferred option’s continued support for student mobility (often with scholarships) and potential new talent attraction schemes (like expanding Erasmus Mundus) will reinforce this cost advantage by reducing financial barriers for incoming talent. On the flip side, the sector’s cost competitiveness can be hindered by demographic changes (declining student populations in some countries could raise per-student costs) and by administrative overhead. The merger helps by streamlining funding – meaning universities and schools face less administrative cost when tapping EU funds for innovation or exchange projects, improving their operational efficiency.

Streamlined administration and economies of scale: the double merger is projected to reduce overhead and compliance costs for both participating organisations and managing authorities. By sharing resources, IT systems and support structures, the more integrated implementation will contribute to eliminate, over the long run, certain duplicative processes for beneficiaries and achieving economies of scale. For example, better coordination, common application portals and harmonised reporting and support will lower the cost of accessing funds for schools, universities, cultural SMEs, entreprises active under the EU education, training, youth and sport programmes, small-scale organisations active in training, and civil society and will also reduce access costs for applicants and project holders. In addition, the Commission and National Agencies can expect potentially lower management and transaction costs (e.g. fewer committees, unified monitoring and evaluation), translating into savings that can be reallocated to core activities, cutting administrative costs in the long run, improving the cost-efficiency of EU funding delivery.

Lower costs for participants and SMEs: A unified programme simplifies the funding landscape for small organisations, including SMEs CCXXIV . Currently, an estimated one-third of Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps beneficiaries are the same entities. Under the preferred option, they would face a single process and interface rather than navigating multiple programmes. This will reduce application overhead, especially benefitting SMEs and micro-organisations that often have limited administrative capacity. Also, exploiting strong synergies between the two sets of merged instruments, will avoid duplicated effort (for instance, one joint call can cover both educational, citizenship and cultural objectives), the initiative lowers compliance costs and improves small organisations’ cost competitiveness.

Sector-specific cost considerations: In education and training, better recognition of learning (including non-formal learning) and skills portability facilitated under the preferred option across the spectrum of learning activities can reduce the cost of re-training or remedial education. Workers will carry portable, certified EU skills (including those gained via volunteering or informal learning) which employers trust, reducing duplication of training efforts.

Enhanced labour productivity through skills: in the medium to long term, the preferred option will indirectly reduce unit labour costs by improving the skill level and productivity of the European workforce. Continuous upskilling and reskilling, emphasised by the Draghi report as key to competitiveness, will be supported through a more flexible, lifelong learning-oriented Erasmus+ that works in tandem with the Competitiveness (skills) agenda. A better-skilled workforce means higher employability and output, helping firms produce more value with the same or lower cost. For example, digital and STEM skill investments can support the mitigation of skill shortages that currently force firms to pay a premium for digital talent. As of 2023 only 56% of EU adults have at least basic digital skills and companies lacking skilled ICT specialists incur higher costs and lost opportunities. The preferred option’s integrated funding for digital education and training addresses this gap, eventually lowering hiring and training costs for employers in all sectors. In sum, by raising productivity and reducing skill mismatches, the initiative strengthens cost competitiveness across the economy.

More generally, by making the use of EU funds more efficient (yielding more output per euro spent) and by enabling small organisations and institutions in the targeted sectors to operate more cost-effectively, saving would be generated. These savings may not dramatically alter unit labour costs economy-wide in the short term, but they provide important support for SMEs and educational or training institutions, strengthening their financial sustainability. The magnitude of cost competitiveness gains is moderate but meaningful: for example, administrative cost reductions in the high double-digit millions of euros annually are plausible, and participating organisations could see cost overheads drop in certain funding actions. These gains, which would need to be monitored consistently, are likely to be permanent, accruing each year, as the streamlined structures are expected to remain in place through the MFF programming period and likely beyond.

International competitiveness

International competitiveness refers to the ability of EU sectors to compete globally – attracting talent and investment, and achieving success in international markets. The preferred option has a strong international dimension, which is vital for Europe’s education to thrive on the world stage.

Europe’s education sector competes globally primarily in higher education and research. By metrics like international student enrolments and universities in top-100 rankings, Europe is competitive but behind the very top. For example, the UK (previously part of EU) and some EU countries like Germany and France attract many international students, but the US still hosted the largest number (1.1 million) until recently and countries like Australia and Canada have rapidly increased their share by aggressive recruitment policies. The EU’s collective 1.66 million foreign students in 2022 shows strong performance, and with the preferred option we anticipate this could grow (due to more integrated promotion and possibly new joint offerings). Retaining talent is a noted weakness – many international graduates from EU universities currently depart (either home or to third countries) after studies. The preferred option will put emphasis on talent retention (for instance, through follow-up opportunities in the Solidarity Corps or easier transitions to work) can improve Europe’s “yield” from its education attractiveness. When European education retains global talent, it directly boosts the skilled workforce available to EU industries and research. Inter-sectorally, the education sector’s internationalisation is behind sectors like tourism or tech in pure economic terms, but it has strong value in soft power and long-term influence. Every international alumnus of an EU programme can become an ambassador for Europe or even an entrepreneur in Europe.

Europe as a talent magnet: a core goal of the merged programmes is to increase the international attractiveness of Europe’s education and training systems. By uniting Erasmus+ (known worldwide for mobility) with solidarity corps and enhancing synergies with other instruments, and by potentially branding the initiative around global competitiveness, the preferred option can elevate Europe’s profile as a destination for all learners, also attracting present and future researchers. The EU already hosts about one-third of globally mobile tertiary students (with Germany and France in the top host countries), roughly on par with the US share. In 2022, 403,500 international students studied in Germany and 265,000 in France. This performance is strong, but competition is intensifying from Anglophone and Asian education hubs. Through expanded Erasmus Mundus joint degrees, scholarship schemes, and more flexible mobility pathways, the new programme will allow the EU to grow its share of global talent. An integrated approach means students can more easily move between European universities (including through the alliances), making a pan-European education more seamless. Similarly, the new programme will also seek to boost the internationalisation of VET to increase its attractiveness at global level, including capacity building in VET and expansion of mobility of vocational learners worldwide.

Additionally, the inclusion of cultural and solidarity components can make European education unique – offering not just academic excellence but also rich cultural experience and civic engagement, which can be a selling point for globally minded students. The international competitiveness of EU higher education is expected to improve, contributing to the goal of retaining Europe’s status as a leading academic destination. This also feeds the talent needs of European industry and research. However, a noted risk is varying national immigration rules for graduates; the programme can encourage Member States to align on policies that allow talented graduates to stay, complementing the attractiveness of the study experience itself.

Global skills and mobility networks: The preferred option will deepen international partnerships, not only within the EU but also with third countries. Erasmus+ already has a global outreach component, and Creative Europe engages with international cultural partners. Although the programmes will not merge, enhanced synergies could create coherent international cooperation frameworks, for example, linking an EU university alliance with universities in Africa or Asia under a common project, or supporting cultural exchanges that also have an educational dimension, leading to increase skills for the labour market. These efforts, including cultural diplomacy, strengthen the EU’s international ties and influence. They also prepare Europeans to succeed globally: participants gain language skills, intercultural competencies, and international experience, all of which improve the competitiveness of European firms and institutions abroad. Survey data (impact study) shows employers value international experience – e.g. in some countries, half of employers are willing to pay higher salaries to hires with study-abroad experience. By producing more globally savvy graduates and professionals, the programme enhances the international competitiveness of Europe’s workforce. Intra-EU mobility also indirectly boosts competitiveness by optimising the allocation of skills across Member States (helping fill labour shortages and spreading knowledge).

Benchmarking and competitive position: From a sectoral competitive position standpoint, European education sectors are not in a state of crisis but face intense competitive pressures. European higher education boasts many top universities, but in global rankings it is somewhat eclipsed by the US (and increasingly Chinese universities) in terms of research output and funding. The Draghi report noted that formal lifelong learning and skills development need to scale up for Europe to maintain a competitive economy. The preferred option addresses these issues by fostering integration and critical mass: scaling up talent pipelines, aligning efforts across countries, and focusing resources on strategic areas (e.g. digital skills, green skills in culture) will improve each sector’s competitiveness relative to global peers. Quantitatively, Europe’s share of world R&D and innovation in education is expected to rise (academic R&D spending in the EU-27 already reached €100 billion, topping the US in absolute terms), and the gap in cultural export performance between the EU and Asia/US should narrow as European creative firms innovate and collaborate more effectively.

In summary, the preferred option strengthens international competitiveness by enhancing Europe’s ability to attract talent, by improving the global market performance of its education, and by leveraging synergies to present a compelling international profile. The effects are expected to be significant: higher inflows of international students and researchers (potentially boosting EU international student numbers by a few hundred thousand over the next decade), and greater global engagement by European youth and professionals.

Capacity to Innovate

Option 2 is strongly oriented towards boosting the EU’s capacity to innovate through investments in human capital, cross-border cooperation in research and education, and support for the creative and cultural ecosystems that drive innovation.

Education, skills and innovation performance: a well-educated, mobile and skilled population is the foundation of innovation. The preferred option’s emphasis on lifelong, lifewide and long-term skills development and a “Union of Skills” is expected to strengthen Europe’s innovation potential. By merging the Erasmus+ and solidarity corps programmes and exploiting internal and external synergies, the new framework encourages cross-sectoral knowledge exchange – for instance, universities, vocational institutes and companies can collaborate in projects that link Erasmus+ mobility with innovation-oriented objectives (such as joint curricula in emerging technologies or entrepreneurial training in the creative arts). European University Alliances (fostered under Erasmus+) will benefit from a more coherent funding stream, enabling deeper integration of universities across borders in teaching and research. These alliances aim to create “European campuses” pooling expertise and resources, which can become globally competitive hubs of innovation. Over the long term, such integrated networks should increase the quality and quantity of R&D outputs in the education sector. Already, the EU-27’s academic R&D intensity (roughly 0.5% of GDP) has been on the rise, surpassing the US in relative terms (0.36% of GDP) and narrowing the gap with innovation leaders like South Korea. Strengthening higher education collaboration through Option 2, which encompasses strong synergies between sources of funding, can further raise R&D intensity and innovation outcomes in the education and training sphere.

Research and development in targeted sectors: the merger of Erasmus and Solidarity Corps, operating under a more effective MFF enabling stronger and more flexible synergies, will allow leveraging complementarities between educational mobility programmes and future research funding to spur innovation. For example, joint funding could support more industry-academia partnerships in doctoral training or post-doctoral research applied to societal challenges. Moreover, Erasmus+ projects focusing on digital and STEM skills will feed more qualified graduates into R&D roles. Innovation in educational methods themselves will also accelerate, as the future instruments can fund digital education pilots, EdTech development, and innovative pedagogies at scale across the EU. This addresses the historically low innovation investment in the education and training sector; by treating educational outcomes as part of competitiveness, the initiative may encourage education systems to adopt new technologies and evidence-based practices more rapidly (helping modernise curricula, use AI tutors, etc.). The innovation capacity of Europe’s education and training sector will thus be improved, with spillover benefits as students bring advanced skills into the labour market.

Talent development and retention for innovation: Europe’s capacity to innovate depends on attracting and retaining top talent. Option 2 explicitly targets talent circulation and retention through enhanced mobility and exchange schemes. By expanding opportunities for students, researchers, and young professionals to gain international experience (within Europe and globally), the future programme not only broadens their skills but also encourages knowledge transfer across borders – a known catalyst for innovation. Importantly, the programme can help retain talent in Europe by creating more attractive conditions: for instance, European University Alliances and excellence-driven projects can entice high-potential students from around the world to study and stay in the EU. While the EU already hosts a large number of international students (1.66 million in 2022 - tbc), many historically chose the US or other countries for post-graduation opportunities. By improving integration of foreign students (through language support, work placements, and post-study mobility via the Solidarity Corps or other streams), the preferred option can convert a higher share of these students into skilled workers in Europe’s innovation ecosystems. Some Member States are adopting more welcoming post-study visa policies, but a coordinated EU approach under this programme could further boost retention. In addition, Erasmus+ alumni themselves are a proven source of innovation and entrepreneurship: they have higher rates of developing start-up ideas and managerial roles. The mobility experience fosters an entrepreneurial mindset – in Eastern Europe, 38% of Erasmus alumni plan to start a company, significantly higher than non-mobile peers. By nurturing entrepreneurship and leadership skills, the merged programme will increase the pool of innovators and business founders in Europe. Over time, this replenishes and expands Europe’s innovation capacity in both established and emerging industries.

Non-formal learning and social innovation: Option 2 will also support non-formal learning and civic engagement, which can drive social innovation. Volunteer projects, youth exchanges, and community initiatives often produce innovative solutions to local problems (e.g. new approaches to social inclusion, digital literacy training for seniors, creative community spaces). These kinds of innovations, while not always commercial, enhance societal resilience and indirectly benefit economic competitiveness by fostering a more adaptive and cohesive society. Social innovations can be scaled up across the EU via the networks built in the programme, creating a culture of innovation at all levels – from classrooms to community centers.

Overall, the preferred option significantly strengthens the EU’s capacity to innovate by investing in the human and creative capital that underpins innovation. The effects will materialise progressively: improved educational outcomes and research cooperation yield dividends over years and decades in the form of higher innovation rates, productivity growth, and new ventures. The risk that innovation benefits do not fully materialise (e.g. due to absorption capacity limits or coordination challenges) is mitigated by the clusters programmes’ design, which focuses resources on known drivers of innovation (skills, collaboration, creativity), including through synergies. By reinforcing both the supply side of innovation (skilled and innovative people) and the demand side (creative industries, digital transformation needs), Option 2’s competitiveness impact on innovation is expected to be high and enduring.

Competitive position of key sectors and ecosystems: the education and training ecosystem (covering schools, vocational education and training (VET), higher education, and adult learning) is crucial for the EU’s competitiveness, as it produces the human capital for all other sectors. It stands for a significant economic sector itself – primarily public-funded – employing millions of staff (teachers, trainers, researchers) and consuming about 5% of EU GDP in public expenditure. While not a tradable sector in the traditional sense, its outputs (skilled graduates, research, innovation) directly affect productivity and competitiveness across the economy. For instance, with 81%, the employment rate of recent medium-level VET graduates is very high, which underlines the relevance of VET for the labour market and companies’ competitiveness. In terms of global standing, European education systems rank among the world’s best on many indicators: several Member States consistently score above OECD averages in school achievement, and the EU-27 produces a large share of the world’s STEM graduates (e.g. over 2.0 million tertiary graduates per year, ~25% in STEM fields).

The EU’s tertiary educational attainment for young people has risen to 41% (2022), catching up to levels in the US and exceeding those in most emerging economies. However, acute challenges remain: skill mismatches and shortages (particularly in digital, engineering, and ICT fields), brain drain from certain regions (talented graduates moving to richer Member States or outside EU), and varying quality of education and training across the Union. Evidence shows that low-income countries with higher shares of graduates with tertiary education experienced stronger catching-up towards the average GDP per capita between 2008 and 2021.

Productivity and innovation: The education sector’s productivity is hard to measure in economic terms, but one indicator is the student performance per expenditure. Many EU countries manage to achieve high learning outcomes at moderate cost (e.g. Poland and Finland have strong PISA results with average spending), indicating good efficiency. Nonetheless, there is room to innovate and adopt new methods to improve learning gains without proportional cost increases – a process which has been slower in education than in other sectors. R&D and innovation within the education and training sector (such as developing new pedagogical technologies or evidence-based teaching methods) have historically been limited. Academic R&D spending in the EU is mostly directed to scientific fields rather than education science itself, and the sector has lacked a strong culture of R&D in schooling. EU funding and in particular a adequately funded EU intervention like the preferred option can help change this by funding pilots and scaling up successful innovations in education and training. In higher education, European universities are a backbone of R&D (contributing ~21% of total EU R&D expenditure) and perform well on research output, but they face increasing competition for talent and research leadership from the US and China. The competitiveness gap in higher education often comes down to funding and integration: the US spends more per student and attracts more top researchers, while Europe’s efforts are split across countries. The European University alliances and greater mobility for researchers (supported by this initiative) aim to give the EU a more unified higher education R&D area, boosting critical mass and efficiency. An inter-sectoral comparison is relevant in this: the education sector’s cost structure is dominated by labour (teachers, professors). Wage levels in Europe are moderate and generally aligned with productivity, but global competition for star professors and researchers means European universities sometimes struggle to offer competitive salaries compared to top US institutions. By enabling transactional collaborative networks between institutions and resource pooling, the preferred option can alleviate some cost pressure (for example, synergies across EU funding for shared digital infrastructure for e-learning across universities reduces the need for each to invest separately).

Innovation capacity: The education and skills ecosystem is both a recipient of innovation (using new tech in classrooms) and a generator of innovation (through research and the creation of innovators). Currently, the EU’s capacity for educational innovation is improving – accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic which forced adoption of digital learning. Under the preferred option, with dedicated funding for digital education and STEM, broader uptake of innovative teaching tools may be expected (such as online platforms, virtual labs, AI-driven personalised learning). European initiatives like the Digital Education Action Plan align with this and will find support through the merged programme’s objectives. A more innovative education sector means students graduate with better skills (critical thinking, adaptability) that feed into the economy’s overall innovative capacity. Additionally, synergies between education and industry will be strengthened – e.g. VET programs cooperating with SMEs to update curricula for new technologies, or students working on real-world innovation projects (hackathons, etc.). Such linkages ensure the skills developed are at the cutting edge of industry needs, thereby improving the innovative output when these students join the workforce CCXXV .

A key strength of Europe’s education ecosystem is its diversity and quality – multiple centers of excellence and a strong foundation of public education. The preferred option builds on this by fostering cooperation rather than competition among European institutions, turning diversity into complementarity. Another strength is the ingrained culture of mobility and multilingualism in Europe, which the programme leverages – intra-European mobility is far higher than mobility within other world regions. This gives EU students a comparative advantage in adaptability. A risk, however, is that reforms and innovation in education can be slow due to governance and consensus needs; if the programme’s incentives and support are not sufficient to overcome inertia in curricula or qualifications recognition, some competitiveness benefits might take time to emerge. There is also the risk of unequal uptake: top universities might benefit more from EU networks than smaller or less experienced institutions, potentially widening gaps. To mitigate this, the preferred option includes an inclusive approach (widening participation, supporting capacity building for less experienced organisations), ensuring broad-based improvement. The magnitude of competitiveness effects in education is substantial in the long run – improved skills can raise GDP growth, with studies showing that even a small increase in average skills has large economic returns over decades. These effects are also permanent – once a population is more skilled, it tends to remain so, and institutions built up (like strong university networks) continue to generate benefits. 

SME competitiveness

The preferred option links skills development directly more closely with market needs (including SMEs’ needs). SMEs can more easily partner with educational actors to define curricula or offer apprenticeships (Erasmus+ and other funding will be more flexible to support such collaborations). This SME competitiveness aspect is crucial: SMEs form the vast majority of businesses and often lack in-house training capacity. By tapping into EU-supported talent pipelines and innovation projects, SMEs, including those in traditional sectors, can become more innovative and competitive. For example, a small manufacturing firm could host an Erasmus+ VET apprentice who brings the latest digital techniques from their training, boosting the firm’s productivity. The SME check (Annex 6) further ensures that impacts on SMEs will be scrutinised and optimised in the detailed design of the Option 2.

Cross-sectoral synergies and other competitiveness dimensions

One of the distinctive benefits of the preferred option is the promotion of cross-sectoral synergies withing the future two instruments that themselves can enhance competitiveness. By merging programmes following an objectives-based merger, the initiative creates interfaces between EU values, fundamental rights, media and culture on one side and education, skills, and civic engagement on the other that did not exist formally before.

Social inclusion and competitiveness: While social policy and competitiveness were once seen as separate, it’s increasingly recognised that inclusive growth supports competitiveness by mobilising all of society’s talent and maintaining social stability. Option 2’s strong inclusion dimension (e.g. specific measures to involve people from diverse backgrounds, vulnerable groups, and a “leave no one behind” ethos) means that the competitiveness gains are broadly shared. This helps regions with weaker starting positions (such as rural areas or poorer Member States) to catch up through capacity building in education and culture – reducing internal EU disparities. A more balanced development across the EU can in this context prevent brain drain within the EU (talent leaving less developed regions), thereby optimising the use of talent domestically.

In a way, the preferred option contributes to cohesion competitiveness: every region building on its strengths (be it a cultural heritage sector or a technical university) to compete in its niche, adding to the EU’s mosaic of competitiveness. Moreover, enhanced social cohesion has economic benefits – as noted in the analysis, it leads to more stable environments and can increase productivity and innovation.

Equality, non-discrimination, regulatory and values environment: Investing in promoting rights, equality, non-discrimination, and EU values strengthens the foundation of a just and prosperous society, also ensuring that the benefits of growth and development are shared by all CCXXVI . The EU’s efforts to hone its competitive edge need to be guided by EU values, which contribute to our region’s prosperity. Integrating equality, diversity and inclusion considerations also helps foster a more innovative and competitive economy, promotes social cohesion, and strengthens democracy. Competitiveness is also affected by the regulatory and values environment. The preferred option will boost support to rule of law, good governance, and active citizenship. Over time, this reinforces a business-friendly environment (fair courts, engaged civil society, low corruption) which is a comparative advantage of the EU in attracting investment. Companies, especially innovative ones, thrive in open societies with freedom of expression and robust legal protections (for IP, for example). By investing in these “intangibles”, the future programmes indirectly safeguard Europe’s competitiveness model – one built on high standards, creativity, and trust.