COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 'Erasmus': the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Regulation (EU) 1288/2013
Date: 2018-05-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation in the field of education, education, education policy, sport, vocational training, youth policy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.5.2018 SWD(2018) 277 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 'Erasmus': the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Regulation (EU) 1288/2013 {COM(2018) 367 final} - {SEC(2018) 265 final} - {SWD(2018) 276 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 4 

1.1.  Political context ................................................................................................. 4 
1.2.  Scope of the impact assessment ........................................................................ 6 
1.3.  Lessons learned from previous programmes ..................................................... 6 

2. 

THE OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 13 

2.1.  Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF ............................................ 13 
2.2.  Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF .............................................. 22 

3. 

PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES ........................................................................... 23 

Improvements proposed for the post 2020 Erasmus programme .................... 24 
3.1. 
3.2.  Summary .......................................................................................................... 40 
Improvements according to budget scenarios ................................................. 41 
3.3. 

4.  DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING ...................................................... 48 

4.1.  Management modes ......................................................................................... 48 

5.  HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?....................................... 49 

5.1.  Monitoring arrangements of the future programme ........................................ 49 
5.2.  Formal evaluation framework of the future programme ................................. 51 
5.3.  Legal basis indicators ...................................................................................... 53 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 54 

 

DG EDUCATION, YOUTH, SPORT AND CULTURE (DG EAC) IS THE LEAD DG 
FOR THE ERASMUS POST 2020 INITIATIVE. .............................................................................. 54 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 58 

Stakeholder consultation synopsis report .................................................................. 58 
Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation consultation activities ............................................. 58 
Open Public Consultation on EU funds in the area of values and mobility .............. 59 
Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 61 

ANNEX 3: EVALUATION RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 63 

ANNEX 4: SYNERGIES WITH OTHER MFF FUNDING INSTRUMENTS ........................................... 69 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

EACEA 

EAFRD 

EC 

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Commission 

ECVET 

European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training 

EFTA/EEA  

European Free Trade Association/European Economic Area  

EIPA 

EIT 

European Institute of Public Administration 

European Institute of Technology 

ENIC/NARIC 

European Network of Information Centres in the European Region 

National Academic Recognition Information Centres in the European Union 

EPALE 

EQAR 

Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe 

European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education 

EQAVET 

European Quality assurance for VET systems 

EQF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ESIF 

European Qualifications Framework 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

ET Monitor 

Education and Training Monitor 

ETF 

European Training Foundation 

ETY Forum 

Education, Training and Youth Forum 

EU 

EUs  

European Union 

European Universities  

Horizon Europe 

Research and Innovation Framework Programme  

IA 

IDOC 

Impact Assessment 

Investigation and Disciplinary Office 

IT tools/systems 

Information Technology tools/systems 

2 

 
 
KICs 

KIIs 

Knowledge and Innovation Communities 

Key Informant Interviews 

LEADER  

Links between actions for the development of the rural economy  

MFF  

MSCA  

NAs 

NGOs 

OECD 

OLAF 

OPC 

PIAAC 

PISA 

Multi-annual Financial Framework  

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions  

National Agencies 

Non-governmental Organisations 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

European Anti Fraud Office (Office européen de lutte antifraude) 

Open Public Consultation 

Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies 

Programme for International Student Assessment (OECD Survey) 

SALTO Resource 
Centres 

Support, Advanced Learning, and Training Opportunities  

STE(A)M 

Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics 

SWD 

TALIS 

TCAs 

Staff Working Document 

Teaching and Learning International Survey 

Training and Cooperation Activities 

UN SDGs 

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 

VET 

Vocational Education and Training 

3 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

1.1. 

Political context 

"Every euro that we invest in Erasmus+ is an investment in the future of a young person 
and of our European idea. I cannot imagine anything more worthy of our investment 
than these leaders of tomorrow. As we celebrate the 9 millionth person to take part, let’s 
make sure we are 9 times more ambitious with the future of our Erasmus+ programme". 
President Juncker, Strasbourg, 13 June 2017 

Education,  training  and  youth  have  recently  come  to  the  forefront  of  EU  Leaders' 
attention. In the Bratislava Declaration of 16 September 2016, the leaders of 27 Member 
States underscored their determination to provide "better opportunities for youth". In the 
Rome  Declaration,  of  25  March  2017,  the  leaders  of  27  Member  States  and  of  the 
European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission"  pledged to 
work towards "a Union where young people receive the best education and training and 
can  study  and  find  jobs  across  the  continent."  Furthermore,  the  1st  principle  of  the 
European Pillar of Social Rights solemnly proclaimed and signed on 17 November 2017 
by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, holds that: "Everyone has 
the  right  to  quality  and  inclusive  education,  training  and  life-long  learning  in  order  to 
maintain and acquire skills that enable them to participate fully in society and manage 
successfully transitions in the labour market."  

The  importance  of  education,  training  and  youth  for  Europe's  future  has  also  been 
reflected in  the Commission's Communication of 14 February  2018 on  A new,  modern 
Multiannual Financial Framework for a EU that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-
2020"  for  a  European  Union  that  delivers  efficiently  on  its  priorities  post-2020.  It 
highlights that the Union budget will need to deliver on the promises made by Leaders, 
"including through the full implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, and 
supporting  young  people  and  the  mobility  of  European  citizens."  Specifically  on  the 
future  Erasmus  programme,  the  Communication  underlined  that  "There  is  a  strong 
consensus  for  the  need  to  step  up  mobility  and  exchanges,  including  through  a 
substantially strengthened, inclusive and extended Erasmus+ programme".  

On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual 
Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 "A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, 
Empowers  and  Defends1",  calling  for  a  stronger  “youth”  focus  in  the  next  financial 
framework. Building on its successful 30-year history, the Commission thus proposes a 
inclusive  and  extended  Erasmus  programme,  further 
substantially  strengthened, 
promoting opportunities for more young people across the EU to study, train and work 
abroad. Under these proposals, the budget for the Erasmus programme will be doubled in 
size to reach €30 billion Euros (in current prices) over this period. The focus of the new 
Programme  will  be  on  inclusiveness  and  on  reaching  more  young  people  with  fewer 
opportunities. 
This  impact assessment reflects the decisions  of the  MFF proposals and focuses on the 
changes and policy choices which are specific to this programme.  

The ambition for the next Erasmus programme goes hand in hand with the Commission's 
vision for a European Education Area by 2025. As announced in the Communication 
on  Strengthening  European  Identity  through  Education  and  Culture  of  14  November 

1 

COM(2018) 321 final https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/communication-modern-budget 
may_2018_en.pdf  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2017, the European Education Area stands for "a Europe in which learning, studying and 
doing research would not be hampered by borders. A continent, where spending time in 
another  Member  state  –  to  study,  to  learn,  or  to  work  –  has  become  the  standard  and 
where, in addition to one's mother tongue, speaking two other languages has become the 
norm; a continent in which people have a strong sense of their identity as Europeans, of 
Europe's  cultural  heritage  and  its  diversity".  One  of  the  prominent  work  strands  under 
the European Education Area is "to boost the tried-and-tested Erasmus+ programme in 
all categories of learners that it already covers (pupils, students, trainees, apprentices) 
and  teachers  with  the  aim  of  doubling  the  number  of  participants2and  reaching  out  to 
learners coming from disadvantaged backgrounds by 2025", while equipping Europeans 
with  competences3  and  skills  needed  in  a  society  that  is  mobile,  multicultural  and 
increasingly digital.  

At  the  European  Council  of  14  December  2017,  EU  heads  of  state  or  government 
confirmed this ambition and called "on Member States, the Council and the Commission, 
in line with their respective competences, to take work forward with a view to stepping 
up  mobility  and  exchanges,  including  through  a  substantially  strengthened,  inclusive 
and extended Erasmus+ programme". 

In  its  Resolution  of  14 September 2017  on  the  future  of the  Erasmus  programme,  the 
European Parliament emphasized "that Erasmus+ should ultimately be targeted towards 
all young people and that these higher sights for the next programming period should be 
reflected in an increased budget so as to unlock the full potential of the programme."  

While  a  key  component  on  the  road  towards  the  creation  of  the  European  Education 
Area,  the  future  Erasmus  programme  must  also  be  equipped  to  provide  an  optimal 
contribution to the realisation of the Skills Agenda for Europe with a shared commitment 
to the strategic importance of skills for sustaining jobs, growth and competitiveness, the 
EU agenda to support young people through 'Investing in Europe's youth' and to the Paris 
Declaration on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and 
non-discrimination through education.  

Mobility,  intercultural  exchange  and  language  learning  will  strongly  contribute  the 
promotion  of  common  values  and  European  identity.  In  addition,  the  next  Erasmus 
programme  should  be  prepared  to  serve  the  future  overarching  and  sectoral  policy 
agendas in education, training, youth and sport, in particular (a) school development 
and  excellent  teaching;  (b)  the  Copenhagen  process4  on  vocational  education  and 
training; (c) the renewed EU agenda for higher education and the Bologna process5; (d) 
the EU agenda for adult learning; (e) the renewed EU Youth Strategy6; (f) the EU work 
plan for sport. 

The  EU  Global  Strategy  on  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  of  June  2016  and  the 
European Consensus for Development adopted by Council on 19 May 2017 underline 
the  importance  of  education  and  human  development  as  instruments  to  address 
concerns linked to demographic trends outside the EU, and to migration, radicalisation 
and security challenges. 

2  Without prejudice to the outcomes of the next MFF discussions 
3  Council Recommendation on Key Competences 

https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/recommendation-key-competences-lifelong-learning.pdf  

4  https://www.eqavet.eu/What-We-Do/European-Policy/Copenhagen-Process  
5  http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/bologna-process_en  
6  https://ec.europa.eu/youth/policy/youth-strategy_en 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
These agendas must continue to rely on the support from the integrated nature of the 
Erasmus programme that covers lifelong learning in all contexts – whether formal, non-
formal or informal (including through youth and sport activities) – and at all levels: from 
early  childhood  education,  schools  and  vocational  education  and  training,  to  higher 
education  and  adult  learning.  A  coherent  lifelong  learning  approach  is  central  to 
managing the different transitions that people will face over the course of their life cycle. 
In  taking  this  approach  forward,  the  next  Erasmus  programme  will  maintain  a  close 
relationship with the overall strategic framework for European cooperation in education 
and  training  for  the  period  after  2020,  as  well  as  reinforcing  and  developing  new 
synergies  with  other  related  EU  programmes  (e.g.  the  future  European  Structural  and 
Inverstment  Funds  and  the  Research  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme  post  2020 
(Horizon Europe) and other policy areas. 

1.2. 

Scope of the impact assessment 

In compliance with Article 30.4 of the EU Financial Regulation, this impact assessment 
accompanies  the  Commission's  legislative  proposal  for  the  establishment  of  the  EU 
spending  programme  in  the  field  of  education, training,  youth  and  sport,  for  the period 
after 2020. This initiative is being prepared in the context of the post-2020 Multi-Annual 
Financial Framework and builds on the results of the mid-term evaluation of the current 
Erasmus+ programme and its predecessor programmes. It aims specifically to:  

1.  propose a clear and coherent intervention logic for an EU programme promoting 
learning mobility, cooperation and policy development in the education, training, 
youth and sport fields; 

2.  assess  a  possible  set  of  improvements  compared  to  the  Erasmus+  programme 
currently implemented, bearing in mind in particular the principles of subsidiarity 
and  proportionality  –  and  taking  into  account  the  lessons  learned  from  the 
implementation of predecessor programmes; 

3.  analyse  the  outcomes  of  the  open  public  consultation  and  other  stakeholders' 
consultation activities organised by the Commission in the context of the impact 
assessment exercise.  

1.3.  Lessons learned from previous programmes 

1.3.1 Mid-term evaluation 

The recently completed mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+7 builds on National Reports 
submitted  by  all  33  Programme  Countries,  an  evaluation  report  by  an  external 
independent  contractor,  reviewed  studies,  stakeholders'  experience  in  managing  the 
programme,  and  1 million  responses  from  all  interested  parties  regarding  retrospective 
achievements and offering views on future evolution of the programme. Its key findings 
are the following: 

Relevance: the mid-term evaluation of the Erasmus+ demonstrated that the programme 
is highly relevant towards its objectives. Overall, the programme is greatly valued by a 
broad variety of stakeholders8 as well as by the general public, benefiting from a strong 
brand name, recognised well beyond the group of direct beneficiaries. The single brand 

7  https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents.evaluations_en  
8  education, training, youth and sport organisations, representatives of the labour market as well as of civil society 

6 

 
 
 
  
    
  
 
 
 
                                                            
name has contributed to the programme's increased visibility and a progressively strong 
adherence by the sectors covered.  

The  mid-term  evaluation  also  found  evidence  that  the  programme  is  contributing  to  a 
more  cohesive  Union.  However,  while  acknowledging  that  the  current  programme  is 
reaching  out  to  disadvantaged  young  people  more  than  its  predecessors  (11.5%  of  the 
total number of participants in the current Erasmus+), the evaluation pointed out the need 
to widen the access to the programme, reach out to people with fewer opportunities and 
to  facilitate  the  participation  of  smaller-sized  organisations.  The  evaluation  also 
identified insufficient or lack of foreign language skills as important factors that limit the 
access of hard-to-reach groups to transnational activities. 
The actions in the youth field have been the most successful in this regard, reaching out 
to young people with fewer opportunities (31% of beneficiaries), by applying inclusive, 
non-formal learning approaches.  

The mid-term evaluation found that the programme is effective in triggering  innovation 
among  organisations  that  participate  in  the  programme.  Nevertheless,  such  effects 
generally  do  not  seem  to  go  beyond  the  beneficiaries  of  the  Erasmus+  grant.  A  limited 
level  of  innovation9  is  achieved  in  particular  in  those  sectors  that  do  not  benefit  from 
dedicated actions such as knowledge alliances and sector skills alliances. The evaluation 
also found that the programme provided multiple opportunities for policy innovation and 
policy  learning,  but  that  the  take-up  of  these  innovations  at  national  level  remained 
inadequate. 

Erasmus+ has also proved important for the EU’s global outreach, notably by facilitating 
the  cooperation  between  Europe  and  Partner  Countries10.  The  opening  of  Erasmus+  to 
Partner Countries around the world has contributed to the internationalisation of the EU's 
universities, opened up new opportunities - especially for participants and organisations 
from  enlargement,  neighbouring  and  developing  countries  -  and  contributed  to 
disseminating EU values.  

The  evaluation  noted  that  there  is  potential  to  introduce  better-targeted  actions  to 
maximise  the  relevance  of  Jean  Monnet,  sport  and  adult  learning  activities.  There  is  a 
need for greater understanding of European integration and a greater sense of belonging 
to  Europe  among  the  youngest  generations,  in  the  aftermath  of  economic  and  political 
crises of the last ten years. 

Effectiveness:  robust  evidence  has  been  produced  about  the  effectiveness  of  the 
programme  at  various  levels  i.e.  strong  and  clear  positive  effects  on  individual  young 
people  and  staff  benefiting  from  the  programme,  as  well  as  valuable  impact  on 
organisations and systems. The restructuring of the seven predecessor programmes  into 
one single programme, with an integrated and simpler architecture, has strengthened its 
coherence  in  terms  of  alignment  between  types  of  actions  funded  and  the  programme's 
intervention logic. The programme has shown its capacity to expand and to adapt to new 
target groups as well as to continuously improve its delivery mechanisms. The evaluation 
also highlighted the increase of cooperation between actors from different education and 

9  The mid-term evaluation indicates that 42% of the projects are moderately innovative, while 15% and respectively 

2% were considered as highly or very highly innovative projects.  

10  A 'partner country' means a third country which does not participate fully in the Programme but whose 
organisations and individuals may benefit from the Programme depending on the nature of the action. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
training sectors, youth and sport; the improved geographical balance with small countries 
and countries from Central and Eastern Europe being better integrated.  

The  evaluation  recommended  inter  alia  for  the  future  programme  to  rationalise  policy 
and thematic priorities as well as to reinforce the volume of activities in those sectors – 
notably  school  education,  VET  and  youth  -  where  the  impact  of  the  programmes  was 
proven  although  not  yet  as  widespread  as  in  higher  education  due  to  smaller  budget 
allocations.  It  also  noted  that  the  Master  Loan  Guarantee  Facility  has  not  lived  up  to 
volume expectations due to delays to its launch, low take-up among financial institutions 
and a lack of awareness among students. 

Efficiency:  Erasmus+  has  partially  reduced  the  administrative  burden  for  stakeholders 
and beneficiaries – e.g. enhancing digitalisation and introducing fast-track grant selection 
procedures. The mid-term evaluation found that the streamlined use of simplified grants 
improved  all  stages  of  the  financial  project  management,  especially  by  simplifying  the 
processes  of  budget  planning,  reporting  and  accounting,  while  increasing  flexibility. 
Reduced administrative burden enhanced the non-financial performance of the supported 
projects as beneficiaries were able to focus more on their projects' content. The mid-term 
evaluation called for even more simplified administrative procedures e.g. the amount of 
information required from the beneficiaries during the grants lifecycle, while the use of 
IT management tools should be lightened and made more proportionate with the grants 
levels.  
The evaluation acknowledged that the monitoring of programme implementation is more 
comprehensive  and  clearer  than  in  predecessor  programmes,  but  there  is  scope  for  a 
smarter  collection  and  a  better  exploitation  of  data,  enhancing  transparency  and 
accountability, and minimising reporting burdens. 
The hybrid combination of different programme management modes (direct and indirect) 
is  fit  for  purpose  with  a  good  overall  coordination,  while  the  costs  of  programme 
management appear reasonable (6% of Erasmus+ administrative and operational budget) 
and  lower  than  for  similar  programmes  at  national  level  (14%  in  average).  Through 
decentralised actions (managed by the National Agencies), the programme gets close to 
their target audience and offers the possibility to align with national priorities, while  the 
centralised actions support EU level priorities. 
The mid-term evaluation also recommends simplifying the application forms, reviewing 
the award criteria to better reflect key success factors for effectiveness and strengthening 
the review at mid-term in particular for bigger projects. 
However,  the  implementation  of  international  actions  in  higher  education  increases  the 
complexity of the programme. 

EU  added  value:  the  EU  added  value  of  the  programme  is  uncontested.  No  other 
programmes funding mobility and cross-border cooperation in the sectors covered offer 
comparable  scale  and  scope,  efficiency,  sectors  and  countries  as  Erasmus+.  The 
evaluation  found  that  in  absence  of  the  programme,  the  learners  and  staff  mobility,  as 
well  as  European  cooperation  in  the  sectors  covered  by  the  programme,  would  be 
substantially  reduced.  The  mid-term  evaluation  also  showed  that  the  programme  is 
actively  building  positive  attitudes  towards  the  EU11  and  is  contributing  to  the 
development  of  European  identity,  transversally  across  all  activities  funded.  The 
evaluation  also  outlined  the  benefits  of  expanding  activities  specifically  focused  at 

11  The positive association between participation in the programme and feeling of belonging to the EU is found across 
all sectors and all forms of participations. Learners benefiting directly from Erasmus+ were 19% more likely to feel 
as  being  EU  citizens  and  6%  more  likely  to  have  positive  feelings  towards  the  EU  –  Source  Staff  Working 
Document of Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
improving  knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  EU  through  the  Jean  Monnet  strand  to 
cover other target groups, in particular school pupils and VET learners.  

Coherence  and  synergies:  The  evaluation  found  a  high  level  of  complementarity 
between  Erasmus+  and  other  relevant  EU  policies  and  programmes  (e.g.  the  Structural 
Funds and Horizon 2020) although the level of synergy varies and could be significantly 
enhanced. 

Table 1: Areas of improvement according to Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation  

1. Relevance 

a)  Inclusiveness: widen access to the programme (both for 

individuals and organisations). Better reach out to individuals 
with fewer opportunities 

b)  European awareness: reinforce measures to foster 

understanding of European integration and sense of belonging 
to Europe 

c)  Innovation: optimise the actions aimed at stimulating 

innovation, contributing to bridge the skills and competences 
gap 

d)  Global outreach: increase international opportunities 

e)  Maximise relevance and impact of adult learning, Jean Monnet 

and Sport actions 

f)  Rationalise policy priorities support to strategic thematic areas 

2. Effectiveness 

expand their impact (VET, Schools and Youth) 

g)  Reinforce the volume of activities in sectors which could 

h)  Review the Master Loan Guarantee Facility 

i)  Better involve policy-makers in the design and implementation 

of policy calls 

j)  Further simplify programme rules and administrative 

procedures, including on international actions 

3. Efficiency 

k)  Further optimise IT tools 

l)  Reduce amount of information required from participants and 

beneficiaries 

4. Synergies 

m)  Reinforce and develop new synergies with other EU legal 

instruments and funds. 

The  mid-term  evaluation  findings  have  been  duly  analysed  by  the  Commission  and 
correlated with the stakeholders' positions, as well as with the experience gained in the 
implementation  of  the  programme.  The  Commission  is  addressing  the  mid-term 
recommendations in order to improve the programme implementation by accounting for 
actions  that  were  critically  evaluated,  to  reinforce  the  programme's  efficiency  and  EU 
added value, and to mitigate any associated risks. Not all the problems identified in the 
mid-term evaluation will be necessarily tackled by new actions, nor would they require 
additional  budget,  but  they  could  be  addressed  by  better  focus  and  rationalisation  to 
increase efficiency. 

In line with the EC Report, two time horizons are proposed: 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a)  Within  the  current  programming  period.  Certain  recommendations  can  be 
addressed  already  in  the  on-going  programme,  as  they  entail  streamlining  and  better 
focusing the running actions: 

 

 

the mid-term evaluation shows that the programme does reach out to people with 
fewer opportunities - 11.5% of the total number of participants in Erasmus+, but 
that  further  efforts  can  be  made  towards  a  more  inclusive  programme.  Thus 
additional measures have been introduced in the 2018 calls for proposals: Top-up 
of  financial  support  for  mobility  in  Higher  Education,  providing  additional 
financial support for students with fewer opportunities; coverage of exceptional 
costs under VET  
further  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden  and  bureaucracy  through 
mainstreamed  use  of  online  web  forms  that  simplify  the  application  process, 
simplified  formats  of  actions  targeting  small-scale  actors  such  as  the  School 
Exchange Partnerships that organise mobility activities for pupils. 

b) Post 2020. The future programme is an opportunity to address the mid-term evaluation 
recommendations  by  improving  the  existing  actions  directly  in  their  design  and 
implementation  methods,  while  envisaging  the  programme  within  the  broader  logic  for 
the education, training, youth and sport policy objectives (as detailed in section 3). 

1.3.2 Stakeholder consultation during the Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation 
Without  prejudice  to  the  next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework,  Member  States 
expressed  support  for  a  more  ambitious  and  more  inclusive  next  generation  Erasmus+ 
and for a substantial increase in its budget.  
When  launched  in  2014,  Erasmus+  merged  seven  existing  programmes  into  one  single 
programme  with  a  streamlined  architecture  based  on  three  key  actions  as  well  as  three 
specific  strands  for  Youth,  Jean  Monnet  and  Sport  activities.  This  integrated  approach 
was a radical change from the past and caused a considerable amount of upheaval at the 
beginning  of  the  implementation  of  the  programme,  but  is  now  fully  supported  by 
Member States and stakeholders. 
The  data  collected  during  the  consultations  carried  out  by  the  Commission  within  the 
framework  of  the  Erasmus+  mid-term  evaluation,  showed  unanimous  support  from 
Member  States,  learning  institutions  and  participants  for  further  strengthening  of  the 
programme  while  maintaining  stability  of  the  programme's  basic  architecture  and 
structures:  evolution,  not  revolution.  Main  areas  of  future  improvement  identified 
concerned  further  simplification  and  inclusiveness,  and  reviewing  the  balance  between 
funding allocated and the subsequent volume of activities across the sectors.  
Stakeholders  also  underlined  that  the  future  Erasmus+  programme  should  remain 
integrated  and  underpinned  by  the  lifelong  learning  concept.  In  their  views,  a  modern 
programme must boost flexible learning paths and permeability between learning sectors, 
while  combatting  "dead  ends”  in  education  and  training.  Any  attempt  to  unravel  this 
integrated approach would be strongly resisted by stakeholders as it would be seen as a 
return to the previous century’s outdated separation of the education and training sectors.  
On  the  management  side,  stakeholders  called  for  further  decreasing  the  administrative 
burden, simplifying procedures and processes – also through the optimisation of IT tools 
as  well  as  increasing  budget  flexibility.  As  regards  the  international  actions  of  the 
programme  in  the  field  of  higher  education,  which  include  a  geographical  matrix,  they 
would benefit from further simplification in the implementing structures.  

The  key  messages  from  stakeholders  are  summarized  in  Annex  2  Stakeholders' 
consultation of the present Impact Assessment document. 

Table 2: Areas of improvements according to Erasmus+ consultation activities  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
a)  Stability and continuity (in terms of scope, architecture and 

delivery mechanisms). 

1. Intervention 
logic  

b)  More inclusive programme (reinforcing mobility of school 
pupils and targeting more participants with disadvantaged 
backgrounds). 

c)  Build on the success of higher education and further expand 

other sectors. 

2. Efficiency 

d)  Simplify programme rules and reduce administrative burden, 

notably on decentralised international higher education actions. 

4. Synergies 

e)  Reinforce and develop new synergies with European Structural 
and Investment Funds and Research and Innovation framework 
programme.  

1.3.3 Stakeholder consultation on the EU funding in the areas of values and mobility 
In  addition  to  the  consultations  that  were  part  of  the  Erasmus+  mid-term  evaluation,  a 
separate open public consultation12 was carried out to seek inputs into the design of the 
future  Erasmus  programme  post  2020.  Erasmus  is  perceived  as  one  of  the  EU’s  most 
successful and highly relevant programmes. The stakeholders strongly underlined the EU 
added  value  of  Erasmus  as  compared  to  similar  national  programmes  (80%  of 
respondents stated the programme adds value to a large or fairly good extent).  
Its  main  positive  achievements  and  effects  outlined  by  the  results  of  the  public 
consultation  encompass:  the  unique  combination  of  actions  targeted  at  the  individual, 
organisation and system levels in education and training, youth and sport; support for key 
competences,  basic  and  transversal  skills  development,  active  citizenship,  increased 
employability or career development, but also increased networking and mutual learning 
for organisations involved. The programme is perceived as sufficiently flexible to allow 
for  adaptation  to  emerging  policy  challenges,  while  its  integrated  architecture  and 
management modes are considered appropriate and fit for purpose.  
The  main  challenges  of  the  future  programme  as  underlined  by  the  stakeholders  cover 
competences  and  skills  development,  limited  capacity  of  the  programme  to  effectively 
reach  out  to  most  disadvantaged  target  groups;  difficulties  for  grassroots  organisations 
and newcomers to access the funding; limited possibilities for cross-sectoral cooperation.  
Current  funding  levels  are  perceived  as  a  barrier  for  the  programme  to  reach  its  full 
potential  –  i.e.  unmet  demand  for  funding  as  well  as  insufficient  levels  of  individual 
mobility  grants.  Simplification  was  strongly  advocated  by  the  stakeholders  -  the  main 
areas for improvement identified are the application and the reporting processes, as well 
as the financial rules, currently perceived as  too complex. The Student Loan Guarantee 
Facility has proven limited efficiency thus the stakeholders recommend its phasing-out. 
With regard to the future programme objectives, the stakeholders emphasised the need 
to  re-focus  priorities  towards  more  social  inclusion  and  fairness,  modernization  of 
education and training, as well as more emphasis on European identity, active citizenship 
and  participation  to  the democratic  life.  In  this  regard,  Jean Monnet  activities  could be 
opened up to sectors other than higher education, in line with the recommendations of the 
Erasmus+  mid-term  evaluation.  Stakeholders'  key  messages  referred  to  (not  in  order) 
enhanced  short-term  mobility  options,  opportunities  for  pupil  mobility  and  enhanced 
adult  mobility,  mutual  recognition  of  diplomas,  more  virtual  tools,  more  small  scale 

12  The Consultation was led by the European Commission Secretariat General and covered a cluster of programmes in 
fields of education/ training, culture, citizenship and justice. The OPC received 1127 responses which were directly 
relevant to the Erasmus + programme. Open public consultation on EU funds in the area of values and mobility 

11 

 
 
 
                                                            
projects,  increased  budget  for  the  programme,  build  stronger  links  with  neighbouring 
countries and widen the geographical scope for the cooperation with the rest of the world, 
increased flexibility, extended opportunities of cross-sectoral co-operation. Stakeholders 
also  called  for  greater  synergies  with  European  Social  Fund  and  the  Research  and 
Innovation  Framework  Programme,  as  well  as  improvement  of  the  dissemination  and 
effective exploitation of project results.  
Table  3  Most  important  challenges  to  be  addressed  by  the  future  programme

The most important challenges to be addressed by the future programme are, according 
to the respondents to the OPC: 

  Support 

lifelong  skills  development 

through 

learning  mobility  (69%  of 

respondents see this challenge as very important and 25% as rather important);  

  Promote social inclusion and fairness (68% and 24%); 
  Support active citizenship, democratic participation in the society and the rule of 

law (61% and 26%); 

  Promote modernisation of education and training (61% and 31%) 
  Promote rights and equality (61% and 26%) 

The main obstacles to effectiveness identified by OPC respondents are:  

  Lack of programme budget to satisfy the demand (44% think this is an obstacle to 

 

a large extent, 25% to a fairly large extent and 19% to some extent); 
Insufficient  support  for  small  scale  stakeholders  (30%  large  extent,  28%  fairly 
large extent and 19% some extent) 

  Limited support for funding cross-sectoral actions (27% large extent, 27% fairly 

large extent and 23% some extent) 

  Low  value  of  individual  grants  (26%  large  extent,  25%  fairly  large  extent  and 

27% some extent) 

  Lack  of  support  for  first  time  participants  (25%  large  extent,  29%  fairly  large 

extent and 24% some extent) 

The preferred areas for simplification as seen by OPC respondents are: 

  Simplify  application  forms,  reports  and  grant  selection  processes  (71%  believe 
this would be helpful to a large extent and 19% believe it would be helpful to a 
fairly large extent and 7% to some extent) 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
  Simpler  access  for  newcomers  and  grassroots  organisations  (54%  large  extent, 

 

25% fairly large extent, 13% some extent) 
Incentives for people with fewer opportunities (48% large extent, 27 fairly large 
extent, 14% some extent) 

  Better coordination between different programmes and grants (42% large extent, 

30% fairly large extent and 18% some extent). 

2.  THE OBJECTIVES  

2.1.  Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF  

2.1.1 Current Erasmus+: key features (baseline scenario) 
Erasmus+  is  one  of  the  European  Union's  most  successful  and  iconic  programmes.  Its 
well-known  brand  name  projects  a  positive  image  of  the  Union:  the  programme  is 
perceived as the third best EU achievement by the European citizens after peace and free 
movement13. Over the past 30 years of existence, Erasmus+ has given 9 million people 
the  chance  to  expand  their  horizons  and  acquire  new  knowledge  and  skills,  including 
language  competences,  through  study,  traineeships,  apprenticeships,  youth  exchanges, 
teaching and sport activities all over Europe and beyond. 

With  an  indicative  financial  envelope  of  €14.714  billion  for  the  period  2014-2020, 
Erasmus+  also  supports  European  countries  to  modernise  and  improve  their  education 
and  training  systems  as  well  as  their  youth  and  sport  policies,  reinforcing  their  role  as 
drivers for growth, competitiveness, innovation and social cohesion.  

The programme has the following architecture: 

Education and Training* 

Youth 

Sport 

Key Action 1 (mobility) 
Key Action 2 (cooperation) 
Key Action 3 (policy reform) 
Jean Monnet activities  
* covering higher education, school education, vocational education and training, adult education  

Key Action 1 (mobility) 
Key Action 2 (cooperation) 
Key Action 3 (policy reform) 

Sport activities  

The  mid-term  evaluation  shows  that  the  current  integrated  programme  architecture  in 
three key actions covering all sectors of the programme - has delivered positive results, 
notably  in  terms  of  improved  quality  and  relevance  of  education  and  training  systems, 
youth and sport; global outreach; internal coherence; efficiency gains and simplification; 
as well as cross-sectoral fertilisation and increased synergies across education, training, 
youth and sport sectors.  
Key Action 1 Mobility for young people, students, learners, and practitioners continues 
to be the backbone of the programme (ca. 65% of the budget for education, training and 
youth) and is well on track to meet its target of supporting 4 million people to undertake 
learning, training and personal development activities abroad, in Europe and beyond, by 
2020.   

Under Key Action 2, the programme supports a significant number of transnational and 
cross-sectorial  partnership  activities  (representing  ca.  25%  of  the  budget  for  education, 
training  and  youth)  involving  education  and  training  institutions,  business  and  labour 

13  Standard Eurobarometer, autumn 2017 
14  In the current programming period, the international dimension of Erasmus+ has also been reinforced (1.68 Bn€ for 

7 years) through funds allocated via external cooperation instruments (IPA, DCI, ENI, PI) and EDF. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
market players, youth and sport organisations, public bodies, civil society organisations 
across Europe and in other parts of the world15.  

Key Action 3 of the programme provides support to  the EU level framework  of policy 
cooperation (ca. 5% of the budget for education, training and youth), thereby contributing 
to  the  development  of  new  policies  triggering  modernisation  and  reforms,  at  EU  and 
system level, in the fields of education, training youth and sport.    

The programme develops awareness about the European Union through the Jean Monnet 
activities (2% of the Erasmus+ budget), designed to promote excellence in teaching and 
research in the field of European Union studies worldwide. 

Erasmus+  also  promotes  the  European  dimension  of  Sport  (2%  of  the  total  Erasmus+ 
budget), aimed to increase the level of participation and to develop innovative practices 
in  sport  and  physical  activity.  Sport  is  recognised  as  an  economic  driver  for  jobs  and 
growth  and  an  important  source  of  non-formal  learning,  including  for  disadvantaged 
groups. 

Erasmus+  has  developed  a  successful  and  almost  unique  "indirect  management"  model 
whereby around 85% of the budget is implemented by National Agencies established in 
each  of  the  Erasmus+  Programme  Countries16.  The  remaining  15%  of  the  programme 
budget  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  (direct  management),  mainly  through  its 
Education and Audio-Visual Executive Agency (see section 4. Management modes). The 
programme makes a large use of simplified cost-options (lump sums, scales of unit costs) 
covering almost all grant-actions of the programme. 

The programme fully absorbs its budget appropriations (ca. €2.25 billion in average per 
year) regularly delivers its targets, supporting ca 725 000 mobility activities, reaching out 
to nearly 80 000 organisations and funding more than 20 000 projects across its different 
fields of action every year17.  

The  programme  has  a  demonstrated  impact  upon  individual  learners  -  young  people, 
pupils,  students,  trainees,  VET  learners  and  apprentices,  as  well  as  practitioners  and 
professionals from education, training, adult learning, youth and sport organisations. It 
also has an impact upon organisations participating and systems that support them. 
The programme delivers on more than one level i.e. producing positive spill-over effects, 
for example individual staff mobility having impact on sending organisations. 

The baseline scenario consists of maintaining the status quo of the current programme 
as  described  above.  Some  efficiency  gains  could  be  introduced  but  without  significant 
evolutions. This scenario represents the minimum critical mass investment in the field of 
education, training, youth and sport at EU level to continue to have a positive outcome. 
Areas such as sport, adult education and Jean Monnet, where findings of the Erasmus+ 
mid-term evaluation indicated scope for improvement, will be reviewed to provide more 
targeted support to a streamlined set of priorities responding to beneficiaries needs.    

15  Notably enlargement, neighbouring and development cooperation countries 
16  The term used to define these countries is subject to change in the future programme. In Erasmus+ programme, a 
'programme  country'  means  a  Member  State  or  a  third  country  which  is  party  to  an  agreement  with  the  Union 
allowing for its participation in the Programme and which fulfils all the obligations laid down in this Regulation in 
relation to Member States i.e. EU Member States, EFTA/EEA countries, FYROM and Turkey 

17  Erasmus+ Annual Activity Report 2016 

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmusplus/sites/erasmusplus2/files/erasmus_annual_report_2016.pdf 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
This  baseline  scenario  would  also  take  into  account  the  withdrawal  of  the  United 
Kingdom from the European Union on 30 March 2019. 

While keeping stability and continuity with respect to the current programme, this impact 
assessment  proposes  a  number  of  improvements  (see  section  3.1  Improvements 
proposed  for  the  post  2020  Erasmus  programme)  that  would  allow  the  programme  to 
better address the challenges outlined in the section below.  

2.1.2 Future Erasmus: main challenges  

In  the  light  of  the  findings  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  and  of  the  recent  policy 
developments (see section 1.1. Scope and context), the following challenges need to be 
addressed in the future programme:  

A) Closing the knowledge, skills and competences gap 
In a fast-changing world – with rapid demographic, societal and technological changes - 
there  is  a  clear  need  to  provide  individuals  with  the  right  set  of  knowledge,  skills  and 
competences,  including  language  learning,  in  a  lifelong  learning  perspective,  to  make 
them  more  resilient  and  sustain  current  standards  of  living,  support  high  rates  of 
employment and foster social cohesion18. Moreover, evidence shows that investments in 
digital skills - as well as in those fields that are strategic for smart economic and social 
development (such as climate change, clean energy, STE(A)Ms19, artificial intelligence, 
robotics,  data  analysis,  design,  etc.)  -  are  determining  factors  for  Europe's  sustainable 
growth  and  cohesion.  In  today's  highly  competitive  global  environment,  the  challenges 
outlined  above  must  also  be  seen  in  their  international  context.  International  activities 
within Erasmus would benefit from more intensity, volume and scope, allowing them to 
increase their potential to support excellence and competitiveness. 

B) Making Erasmus more inclusive (inclusion gap) 
In general terms, social exclusion - driven by family, social, and physical environment 
that  can  be  conducive  of  discrimination  and  vulnerabilities  -  hinders  access  to  quality 
education and the chances to successfully complete education and training. 
Social  exclusion  is  at  the  same  time  the  result  and  the  cause  for  education  poverty,  a 
vicious  circle  perpetuated  from  one  generation  to  the  next.  Learners  with  fewer 
opportunities and institutions from underperforming EU regions remain over-represented 
among the low achievers on basic skills (PISA results show that the risk of becoming a 
low-achiever  is  four  times  higher  for  pupils  from  a  weak  socio-economic  background 
than from a strong one) show high rates of early schools leaving and insufficient higher 
education attainment and in general score low on other social indicators. First and second 
generation  migrant  children  in  schools  are  under-performing,  partly  as  a  result  of 
inadequate support in the language of schooling. 
Constraints  are  particularly  high  for  a  segment  of  the  population  which  is  at  risk  of 
exclusion  due  to  a  number  of  causes:  educational  difficulties20,  economic,  social21  or 
geographical22  obstacles,  cultural  differences  and  migrant  background23,  disabilities  or 
health problems. 

18  European Commission (2017) Reflection Paper on the Social Dimension of Europe, 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-social-dimension-europe_en.pdf  

19  Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics 
20  early school-leavers; low qualified adults; young people with poor school performance 
21  people facing discrimination because of gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc.; people 

with limited social skills; young and/or single parents; orphans 

22  people from remote or rural areas; people living in small islands or in peripheral regions 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The lack of learning opportunities starts already at early age. Learning and development 
gaps24 among children from disadvantaged backgrounds are observed, leading to higher 
risks  of  school  failure  or  early  school  leaving  and  consequently  lowering  success 
prospects  later  on  in  life.  Early  childhood  education  constitutes  a  key  educational  step 
that  can  deliver  positive  outcomes  for  society  as  early  years  are  critical  for  shaping 
attitudes and behaviours of civic participation.  
Young  people  are  among  the  most  vulnerable  groups  when  it  comes  to  the  risk  of 
poverty  and  exclusion.  Those  already  in  difficulty  lack  sufficient  support  to  avoid 
marginalisation. Re-motivating people and re-engaging them in their learning pathways 
requires  extra  efforts:  exchanges  but  also  cooperation  with  relevant  organisations  and 
support  to  education  and  training  staff  and  youth  workers,  who  act  as  a  bridge  with 
society, can be part of the solution, along with focus on learning outcomes. 
The situation is similar for the adults with disadvantaged socio-economic background25 
that have the highest risk to stay inactive or to take up any kind of education or training.  
Persistent  and  growing  social  divisions  also  affect  higher  education:  the  dominant 
pattern  of  current  participation  in  higher  education  is  not  as  inclusive  and  diverse  as  it 
could  be:  people  with  fewer  opportunities  are  under-represented  and  less  likely  to 
complete higher education; migrant groups have difficulties due to language barrier and 
obstacles in the recognition of qualifications. 

In  line  with  the  challenges  outlined  above,  and  while  acknowledging  the  limits  of  the 
programme's intervention logic and scope, the inclusiveness dimension of the multi-faced 
Erasmus programme reflects the complexity of the sector and encompasses: 

  on  one  hand,  the  support  for  people  with  fewer  opportunities26  and 

disadvantaged socio-economic background,  

  while on the other hand a more inclusive programme also means simplifying the 

access to the programme and broadening the societal participation. 

At  programme  level,  current  Erasmus  mobility  activities  have  proven  to  be  valuable 
experiences  for  people  to  gaining  the  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  needed  for 
personal, educational, professional development, as well as civic engagement and social 
inclusion. However, only 12% of young people in the EU (aged 16-30) have travelled to 
another  country  for  learning  or  for  work,  while  a  large  majority  (61%)  of  young 
Europeans  do  not  perceive  mobility  as  an  attractive  option.  The  current  programme  is 
unable to meet the high demand: only a minority of young people can currently benefit 
from an Erasmus experience - less than 4% of young people living in Europe today. The 
success rates of applications for several actions of the programme are significantly low 
and almost all sectors of the programme are not able to reach their full potential due to 
budget limitations. The current programme offers only limited mobility possibilities for 
school  pupils,  which  is  the  most  inclusive  level  of  education  in  which  all  students, 
independently  of  social  background,  participate.  Equally  important,  the  programme  is 
still  insufficiently  accessible  for  newcomers  with  little  or  no  experience,  or  for 

23  immigrants or refugees or descendants from immigrant or refugee families; people belonging to a national or ethnic 

minority; people with linguistic adaptation and cultural inclusion difficulties 

24  The  current  EU  benchmark  set  by  the  Education  and  Training  2020  Strategy  calls  for  at  least  95  %  of  children 
between  4  years  old  and  the  age  for  starting  compulsory  primary  education  to  participate  in  early  childhood 
education. This goal has been virtually met in the majority of EU Member States; however, younger children and 
children with disadvantaged background still participate at a much lower rate. 

25  Non-native people and young people in rural areas show higher early school leaving rates (19.7 % among foreign-
born, compared to 10.7% in EU) and have limited access to education and training allowing them to avoid social 
exclusion. 

26  People  with  fewer  opportunities  is  understood  in  the  sense  of  persons  facing  certain  obstacles  that  prevent  them 
from having effective access to opportunities under the Programme for economic, social, cultural, geographical or 
health reasons or for reasons such as disability and educational difficulties. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
organisations  with  smaller  capacity,  but  also  for  new  type  of  organisations  such  as 
regions, rural or deprived areas, or people with disabilities. 

C) Limited participation in democratic life and sense of European identity  
Although 70% of Europeans feel they are citizens of the EU today, with the percentage 
even higher among the younger generations, there is a widespread lack of awareness and 
understanding of the EU's basic functioning, objectives, 'raison d’être', as well as of the 
EU's  added  value  for  its  citizens.  This  can  lead  to  misinformation  and  can  hinder  the 
development  of  informed  opinions  on  EU  actions.  In  this  regard  it  is  also  important  to 
recognise the impact of adults (whether parents, teachers, trainers, media personalities or 
politicians)  on  the  views  and  attitudes  of  the  younger  generations:  the  programme  will 
also  need  to  target  these  significant  ‘influencer’  groups  in  order  to  encourage  them  to 
better  understand  and  share  European  values;  here,  the  progress  made  on  inter-
generational learning by earlier programmes can play a significant role.  
There is a need to bring the EU to the school. Almost nine in ten young people in the EU 
believe that there should be stronger school education about rights and responsibilities as 
an EU citizen27. Schools have  a key role to  play in  the development of civic education 
and  knowledge28.  When  looking  at  young  Europeans  understanding  of  the  EU,  beyond 
basic  facts,  their  knowledge  of  more  advanced  matters  is  low29.  At  the  same  time,  the 
coverage  of  teaching  about  the  EU  in  national  curricula  is  very  fragmented  and  the 
citizenship dimension is mostly missing30. 
There is also a need for bringing Europe together - East and West, North and South - to 
strengthen awareness of European identity in all its diversity and reinforce the sense of 
being  part  of  a  cultural  community.  Moreover,  many  citizens  are  reluctant  to,  or  face 
difficulties,  in  actively  engaging  and  participating  in  their  communities  or  in  the  EU's 
political  and  social  life  (e.g.  only  28%  of  the  18-24  years  old  voted  during  2014 
European Parliament elections).  
Language  learning,  including  the  language  of  the  neighbouring  country,  supports  the 
creation  of  European  identity,  the  interest  in  exchange  and  cooperation  across  borders 
and  the  mutual  understanding  of  people  at  all  ages31.  By  promoting  transnational 
mobility and by providing participants with tools (notably the Online Linguistic Support) 
and funding to learn any of the official EU languages, the programme will contribute to 
the ambitious goal of promoting the learning of at least two foreign languages. 
In general, there is a need to empower all people to become more active citizens willing 
and  capable  to  participate  fully  in  society.  This  requires  renewed  efforts  from  an  early 
age  across  all  educational  levels  and  sectors.  There  is  a  need  to  foster  youth  work 
practices and better  exploit  synergies  between formal and non-formal learning  to  allow 
young people experience participation and democratic values in practice.  
However,  opportunities  for  young  people  and  people  with  fewer  opportunities  to  be 
involved in policy development and participate in democratic decision-making processes 
are  currently  limited.  This  is  also  the  case  for  the  development  and  use  of  innovative 

27  TNS for the European Commission (2017) European Youth Eurobarometer 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1fa75943-a978-11e7-837e-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

28  Blasko, Zs., Costa, P., Vera-Toscano, E. Civic attitudes and behavioural intentions among 14- year-olds. How can 

education make a difference towards a more democratic and cohesive Europe?  

29  For example just one third of students aged 14 (35%) correctly know who votes to elect members of the European 
Parliament; IEA (2010) ICCS 2009 European Report Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-
secondary students in 24 European countries 
http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICCS_2009_European_Report.pdf  
30  Learning Europe at School Study https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/83be95a3-b77f-

4195-bd08-ad92c24c3a3c  

31  Commission Communication on Boosting jobs and cohesion in EU border regions, COM (2017)534 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
youth work and adult learning methods and practices to raise levels of civic participation 
in society.  

D) Limited opportunities for and access to cooperation between organisations from 
different countries 
Institutions  and  organisations  active  in  formal  and  non-formal  education  play  a 
fundamental  role  in  equipping  individuals  with  forward-looking  knowledge,  skills  and 
competences  needed  to  absorb  the  technological  and  economic  mutations  and  to 
adequately  fulfil  the  potential  for  innovation,  creativity  and  entrepreneurship,  in 
particular  within  the  digital  economy32.  Transnational  or  international  cooperation  is  a 
catalyst  for  innovative  or  value-added  ways  to  support  learners  in  their  personal, 
educational  and  professional  development,  while  it  also  facilitates  circulation  of  ideas 
and  the  transmission  of  practices  and  expertise,  thus  contributing  to  high  quality 
education.  

The  intensity  and  capacity  of  cooperation  activities  spawned  by  Erasmus,  both  at 
European  and  international  level,  remain  insufficient,  especially  among  small  scale  or 
grass-root  organisations.  The  degree  of  cooperation  is  not  equally  intense  i)  across 
sectors  e.g.  schools,  adult  learning  or  youth  associations  are  not  cooperating  as 
extensively  as  they  could  outside  their  country,  ii)  nor  across  countries  and  regions. 
This situation hampers institutional reforms and the modernisation of education, training 
and  youth  systems  at  national  and  at  European  level  (e.g.  implementing  the  Bologna 
reforms  for  qualifications  recognition),  but  also  limits  the  development  of  a  positive 
attitude towards the EU. 

The cooperation activities undertaken within Erasmus have led to the development of the 
organisations'  international  outlook,  attractiveness  and  visibility  at  global  level,  in 
particular  in  the  higher  education  sector.  Obstacles  to  transnational  and  international 
cooperation act as a brake on the transmission of innovation, knowledge and excellence. 
Therefore, amplified efforts and a long-term vision for education and training institutions 
are  still  needed  to  enable  the  next  generation  of  creative  Europeans  to  solve  the  big 
societal challenges, as well as to empower education providers to act as real drivers for 
educational and research innovation, generating benefits for the European economy and 
its citizens. 

Equally  important,  insufficient  European  cooperation  also  hinders  the  convergence 
towards open and inclusive European societies: e.g. current migration waves increase the 
need for actions in the field of education, training, youth and sport to facilitate migrants' 
integration  in  society.  For  example,  first  and  second  generation  migrant  children  in 
schools are under-performing also due to language barriers. 
Further  efforts  are  needed  to  equip  stakeholders  in  the  front  line  -  such  as  schools  and 
grassroots  organisations  that  work  directly  with  disadvantaged  learners  -  with  the  right 
tools to face these challenges, thus enhancing educational equity and equal opportunities, 
and building more cohesive societies.   

There  is  also  a  need  to  support  further  the  functioning  of  the  European  framework  for 
policy cooperation, enabling Member States to exchange, experiment and mutually learn 
from  their  respective  policies  and  practices.  In  addition,  the  exploitation  of  innovative 
processes and methods arising from Erasmus+ projects results remains limited and is not 
always properly scaled-up in national policies. 

32  COM(2017) 247 final, "A renewed EU agenda for higher education" 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
international  (non-EU)  mobility  and 

E)  Insufficient  scope  and  volume  of 
cooperation 
Although considered as a positive novelty of the programme and as a proven instrument 
to  support  the  achievement  of  EU  internal  and  external  policies  such  as  Enlargement, 
Neighbourhood,  Cooperation  and  Industrialised  Countries  or  Development  policies,  the 
international  (non-EU)  mobility  opportunities  offered  under  Erasmus  are  currently 
limited, both in  scope (only available for higher education and youth,  but  not  for areas 
like  VET  and  sport)  and  in  volume.  There  is  also  a  need  to  intensify  international 
cooperation with Industrialised and Emerging Countries to support European institutions 
and  organisations  to  face  the  challenges  of  a  globalised  world.  EU  cooperation  with 
partner  countries  contributes  to  human  development  and  engagement  of  young  people 
which is core to building more resilient societies to enhance trust between cultures and 
improve the image of the EU abroad. 

2.1.3 Cross-cutting issues  

F) Simplification 
One  of  the  challenges  of  the  future  programme  is  to  strike  the  right  balance  between 
simplification and administrative requirements, i.e. between the need to: 
-  ensure  the  programme's  accessibility  to  the  widest  possible  range  of  stakeholders, 
avoiding  that  administrative  tasks  are  unnecessarily  complicated  and/or  take 
excessive time of educators and project managers, thus negatively impacting on the 
inclusiveness  and  the  quality  of  the  activities  funded  under  the  programme  and  its 
image among the target groups while; 

-  ensuring  a  qualitative  and  transparent  selection  of  projects,  a  correct  grant-
management  cycle  with  minimised  financial  risks  for  the  Union,  a  qualitative 
standard of the activities financed to safeguard the interests of the individuals taking 
part in them and ensure the reputation of the programme, a proportionate collection 
of  outputs  and  results  that  would  allow  the  Commission  to  be  accountable  on 
programme's performance. 

Another  challenge  in  terms  of  efficiency  and  simplification  is  to  lower  the  level  of 
complexity  in  the  implementation  of  the  decentralised  higher  education  international 
actions  of  the  programme.  Currently,  some  parts  of  these  actions  are  funded  from  four 
different  EU  external  cooperation  instruments33  financed  under  external  cooperation 
Heading 4 of the EU budget and from the European Development Fund.  

G) Coherence 
Maintaining the coherence between the various EU programmes is a major challenge for 
the  future  Multiannual  Financial  Framework.  Other  mobility  schemes  exist  under  the 
remit of different policy areas. Those mobility schemes with a strong learning dimension 
would benefit from additional coherence. The future Erasmus programme could be used 
as  a  vehicle  for 
implementation.  This  solution  would  offer 
mainstreamed  support  for  these  schemes  and  a  streamlined  implementation  of  mobility 
formats  (single-rule  book)  for  beneficiaries  and  participants  (e.g.  digital  traineeship 
mobility),  enhanced  implementation  coherence,  further  simplification  and  efficiency 
gains, as well as flexibility for the programme to adapt to new emerging priorities. 

their  streamlined 

33  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance  (IPA);  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  (ENI);  Development 

Cooperation Instrument (DCI); Partnership Instrument for cooperation with third countries (PI) 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
H) Synergies  
There  is  a  need  to  better  exploit  the  significant  potential  for  complementarities  and 
synergies  between  Erasmus  and  other  EU  funding  instruments.  In  particular,  synergies 
between  Erasmus  and  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF),  the 
Research  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme  (Horizon  Europe),  etc.,  remain 
untapped under the current programming period. 
Notably due to the differences in the respective intervention logics, management modes 
and the architecture of the instruments concerned, synergies have effectively taken place 
only in very limited cases. Yet, since Erasmus and the ESIF both support the qualitative 
development of lifelong learning, education, training and youth systems in the EU, there 
is a great potential and a real need to better exploit the high level of complementarities 
between Erasmus and the structural funds. For the future MFF period, the challenge is to 
reinforce these synergies and accompany them with appropriate delivery mechanisms to 
ensure their concrete implementation.  
Regarding the next Research and Innovation Framework Programme (Horizon Europe), 
new  synergies  between  Horizon  Europe  and  Erasmus  could  be  developed  to  foster 
opportunities to support the development of the knowledge triangle – education, research 
and  business  –  to  nurture  the  creation  of  European-scale  innovation  ecosystems  and  to 
support innovative practices and deliverables in forward-looking sectors. Erasmus could 
play  an  instrumental  role  in  helping  mainstreaming  certain  innovative  developments 
piloted  by  the  European  Institute  of  Technology  (EIT)  and  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie 
Actions (MSCA).  
At  the  same  time,  there  is  a  need  to  establish  a  framework  for  cooperation  and 
coordinated  implementation  of  Erasmus  and  other  EU  programmes,  for  instance  the 
European Solidarity Corps which has common governance and delivery mechanisms, 

20 

 
 
 
Table 3. Challenges tree and the findings of the mid-terms evaluation and stakeholders' consultation  

21 

 
 
2.2.  Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF 

2.2.1 General objective 

The general objective of the Programme  is to support the educational, professional and 
personal  development  of  people  in  education,  training,  youth  and  sport,  in  Europe  and 
beyond,  thereby  contributing  to  sustainable  growth,  jobs  and  social  cohesion  and  to 
strengthening European identity. As such, the Programme shall be a key instrument for 
building  a  European  education  area,  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  European 
strategic  cooperation  in  the  field  of  education  and  training,  with  its  underlying  sectoral 
agendas,  advancing  youth  policy  cooperation  under  the  EU  Youth  Strategy  2019-2027 
and developing the European dimension in sport. 

2.2.2. Specific objectives  

To achieve the general objective described above the following specific objectives will 
be pursued: 

  Promote  learning  mobility  of  individuals,  as  well  as  cooperation,  inclusion, 
excellence, creativity and innovation at the level of organisations and policies in 
the field of education and training; 

  Promote  non-formal  learning  mobility  and  active  participation  among  young 
people, as well as cooperation, inclusion, creativity and innovation at the level of 
organisations and policies in the field of youth; 

  Promote  learning  mobility  of  sport  coaches  and  staff,  as  well  as  cooperation, 
inclusion,  creativity  and  innovation  at  the  level  of  sport  organisations  and  sport 
policies.  

2.2.3. Operational objectives 
The specific objectives will be pursued through the following operational objectives.   

Key Action 1 – Learning mobility:  

  Support learning mobility opportunities within Europe and beyond   
  Support youth participation activities 
  Support DiscoverEU activities 
  Support mobility of sports coaches and staff 
  Provide language learning opportunities 

Key Action 2 - Cooperation among organisations and institutions:  

  Foster  excellence  and  innovation,  including  through  the  establishment  of 

networks of organisations and institutions, at various levels 

  Ensure better outreach to local level 
  Promote cooperation and exchanges of practices, including through  digital tools 

within Europe and beyond  

Key Action 3 - Support to policy development and cooperation: 

  Support the preparation and  implementation of the European policy cooperation 

frameworks  

  Support  bodies,  Union  tools  and  measures  that  foster  quality,  transparency  and 

recognition of competences, skills and qualifications 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Foster  dialogue  and  cooperation  with  key  stakeholders,  including  EU-wide 

networks, European NGO's, and international organisations. 

  Support  bodies  and  activities  that  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  the  (post 

2020) Erasmus Programme  

  Raise awareness about European policy outcomes and priorities, as well as on the 

(post 2020) Erasmus programme 

The objectives shall also be pursued through Jean Monnet Actions 

  Support a Jean Monnet action in the field of higher education; 
  Support a Jean Monnet action in other fields of education and training; 
  Support institutions pursuing an aim of European interest 34. 

3.  PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES 

The  optimal  scenario  proposed  in  this  Impact  Assessment  is  characterised  by 
improvements implemented without affecting the general stability of the programme (in 
terms  of  structure  and  scope),  building  up  on  Erasmus  current  actions,  and  ensuring 
continuity  with  the  current  programme.  This  approach  is  a  vehicle  to  increasing  its 
impact.  

Stability and continuity with the current programme is maintained in terms of structure, 
in  line  with  the  views  expressed  by  Member  States  and  stakeholders-  evolution  not 
revolution for Erasmus post 2020.  

The draft legislative proposal will be structured around three chapters, as follows: 

Education and Training* 

Youth 

Sport 

Key Action 1 (mobility) 

Key Action 1 (mobility) 

Key Action 1 (mobility) 

Key Action 2 (cooperation) 

Key Action 2 (cooperation) 

Key Action 2 (cooperation) 

Key Action 3 (policy) 

Key Action 3 (policy) 

Key Action 3 (policy) 

Jean Monnet  
* covering higher education, school education, vocational education and training, adult education 

In  terms  of  scope,  the  programme  will  continue  to  cover  all  education  and  training 
sectors - schools, vocational education and training, higher education and adult learning - 
youth  and  sport,  but  in  a  more  streamlined  manner  with  better  focused  and  aligned 
priorities. In addition, the programme could be enlarged to cater for the new priority 

34  -the European University Institute of Florence; including the School of Transnational Governance 

-the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin campuses); 
-the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), Maastricht; 
-the Academy of European Law, Trier; 
-the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, Odense; 
-the International Centre for European Training (CIFE), Nice; 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
areas.  The  improvements  proposed  will  be  integrated  in  the  current  programme 
architecture and will use the existing delivery mechanisms.  

To  maintain  a  sufficient  level  of  performance  and  impact  for  the three  key  actions, the 
programme will need to preserve a critical mass for the intervention to be meaningful at 
EU level. 

3.1. 

Improvements proposed for the post 2020 Erasmus programme 

In line with the mid-term recommendations and stakeholders opinions, the approach for 
the future programme post 2020 will be twofold: 

3.1.1.  Maintain  stability,  with  enhanced  focus  of  the  existing  actions,  clarity  of  the 
objectives and increased efficiency – the actions will be streamlined and reorganised to 
correct their deficiencies and enhance their efficiency and added value. This rationale is 
linked to a pertinence analysis based on the renewed support from the Member States and 
stakeholders, on the political relevance of these actions, as well as on the call to maintain 
stability for the programme actions and architecture. 

For  smaller  scale  actions  -  such  as  Jean  Monnet  and  Sport,  an  analysis  has  been 
undertaken to assess their financial impact in light of their added value and relevance for 
the stakeholders, in particular, the role of sport as a catalyser for social inclusion and the 
role of Jean Monnet for raising awareness on EU integration in Europe and world-wide. 
Maintaining support for these actions under the Erasmus programme remains relevant as 
there are clear benefits for participating organisations, in particular the small scale grass-
root ones.  

Consequently,  it  is  proposed  to  mitigate  the  shortcomings  identified  by  the  mid-term 
through scaling up and better focus of these actions: 

  For  Sport,  it  will  be  ensured  at  strategic  programming  level  that  no  overlaps 
occur  with  actions  under  the  youth  strand,  and  that  the  sport  actions  reach  a 
sufficient  critical  mass  and  scale.  Efficiency  gains  will  be  achieved  by  a  new 
format  for  the  sport  actions,  reinforcing  synergies  and  avoiding  overlaps  –  i.e. 
sport actions embedded under key actions 1, 2 and 3. 

  Similar  scrutiny  has  been  undertaken  for  Jean  Monnet  actions.  The  analysis  - 
corroborated  with  the  mid-term  findings  and  the  stakeholders'  consultations  – 
pointed  towards  the  need  to:  a)  purely  discontinue  certain  actions  that  have 
proven  inefficient  and  that  are  not  bringing  sufficient  added  value  (as  detailed 
here after), and b) maintain a limited number of actions in the programme with 
improved design and focused target groups. 

  For  the  Adults  sector,  the  mid-term  evaluation  noted  that  there  is  potential  to 
increase  the  EU  added  value  by  better  targeted  actions.  The  evaluation  also 
underlined "that the impact on the adult learning sector, which currently targets a 
wide  population,  is  diluted  due  to  the  fragmented  and  diverse  nature  of  the 
sector". Along these lines, further simplification measures are proposed, while the 
target  group  for  the  mobility  actions  that  is  proposed  to  be  maintained  in  the 
future  programme  has  been  refocused  to  only  cover  group  mobility  for  adults 
with low basic skills, as it has been found highly cost efficient. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of efficiency, the mid-term evaluation found that Erasmus mobility actions are 
clearly  cost-effective,  especially  learners'  mobility  (with  an  average  cost  for  the  EU  of 
15€ per day/learner35). Furthermore, the programme will continue its efforts to improve 
its  overall  efficiency.  For  example,  economies  of  scale  could  be  achieved  through 
enhanced  simplification  resulting  in  reduced  management  costs  for  the  participating 
organisations  and  thus  efficiency  gains  at  stable  or  regressive  fixed  costs  for 
implementing the programme. 

3.1.2. Discontinuing certain underperforming actions, in line with the lack of efficiency 
delineated by the evaluation: 

- The Student Loan Guarantee Facility introduced within Erasmus, was deemed by the 
mid-term  evaluation  and  by  the  stakeholders'  opinions  to  have  been  unsuccessful  in 
attracting  financial  intermediaries  in  sufficient  numbers,  in  particular  for  the  incoming 
student  segment,  and  to  be  insufficiently  tailored  to  address  the  needs  of  the 
disadvantaged.  
As  a  consequence,  since  it  has  not  lived  up  to  volume  expectations,  the  Master  Loan 
Guarantee Facility would be discontinued under the future Erasmus. 

- Jean Monnet support for associations to carry out statutory activities of associations 
dealing with EU studies and EU issues – these actions will be phased out on the grounds 
of efficiency, in line with the mid-term evaluation. 
Discontinuing certain actions will liberate resources within the budget envelope and will 
allow better focus on activities that have proven their added value. 

3.1.3. A limited set of new measures are proposed in line with the broader ambition for 
the new programme (further detailed under the following section):  
- European Universities 
- Centres of vocational excellence. 

Within  this  context, in  line with  the  mid-term evaluation findings and the  stakeholders' 
views, Erasmus aims to maintain its current architecture and activities that have proven 
their  added  value  and  make  the  best  use  of  current  infrastructure  and  delivery 
mechanisms.  For  the  purposes  of  this  Impact  Assessment,  the  following  possible 
rationalised and improved actions have been outlined: 

1)  Forward-looking  knowledge,  skills  and  competence  development,  new  alliances 
with the relevant stakeholders  
OECD  studies  indicate  that  "relatively  small  improvements  in  the  skills  of  a  nation’s 
labour force can have very large impacts on future well-being36." Therefore, maintaining 
high-quality  public  investment  to  boost  knowledge-intensive  and  sustainable  growth  in 
Europe, making the link between the cognitive skills and the economic growth, is key in 
reaching this goal and in ensuring a more equal income distribution. The next Erasmus 
programme  is  expected  to  benefit  individuals  through  its  knowledge,  competences  and 
skills building support, thus making people more dynamic and allowing them to get more 
personal return on education through improved access to fair and better jobs and living 

35  Source: Staff Working Document of Erasmus+ Mid-term Evaluation, Section 5.4 'Efficiency and simplification', 

page 63 

36  "The Long-Run Economic Impact of Improving Pisa Outcomes" 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
conditions. A better educated society  contributes to economic growth  and  advances the 
innovative capacity, referred to as the social return to education.  
President Juncker has made "the case for the economic value of every Euro invested in 
education and training, youth and sport", for tapping the potential of private investment 
through  strategic  partnerships  and  for  unlocking  the  potential  of  education  and  training 
for the EU competitiveness. 

Mobility  and  cooperation  with  a  forward-looking  dimension.  Within  the  next 
programme,  certain  existing  actions  would  be  partially  steered  towards  activities  that 
foster the development of competences in forward looking fields or disciplines - such as 
STE(A)Ms,  digital  skills,  climate  change,  environmental  protection,  sustainable 
development,  clean  energy,  artificial  intelligence,  robotics,  data  analysis,  design,  etc. 
which have a high potential to address the skills shortage and stimulate excellence.  
Impact: This measure would aim to increase the volume of students that find interest in 
these  fields37,  with  an  expected  long-term  impact  on  Europe's  knowledge,  research, 
innovation  and  entrepreneurial  capacity  and  on  its  social  sustainability.  The  measure  is 
expected to stimulate brain gain in forward looking fields, attracting excellent students to 
EU  universities  or  sending  EU  top  students  abroad.  These  exchanges  would  also 
reinforce  the  links  between  education  and  the  private  sector  within  the  knowledge 
triangle. 
EU  added  value:  raising  the  profile  of  these  fields  of  study  and  stimulating  Europe's 
expertise  in  these  areas  is  strategic  in  order  to  strengthen  EU  competitiveness  and 
innovation  capacity  in  key  sectors  of  the  future.  The  transnational  and  international 
dimension  of  the  supported  activities  would  nurture  talents  and  develop  connections  in 
sectors that require a high degree of internationalisation. This measure would contribute 
to enlarged volume of skilled professionals, whom have benefited from an international 
experience and have acquired the technical as well as the associated transversal skills in 
demand for these specific sectors. 

Relevance with main challenges and priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
*Implemented  as  a  priority  in  existing  actions  under  Key  Action  1  (mobility)  and  Key 
Action 2 (e.g. partnerships for innovation and international partnerships) 

A) C) F) 
Low*  
Low 

European  Universities.  A  more  ambitious  level  of  cooperation  and  integration  within 
networks  of  European  Universities  would  aim  to  support  the  development  of  a  shared, 
integrated,  long  term  strategic  vision  for  education,  research  and  innovation,  offering 
joint/integrated  programmes  and  degrees  with  embedded  mobility  windows  to  amplify 
transnational  mobility  within  a  number  of  higher  education  institutions  from  different 
countries, allowing European universities to seamlessly cooperate across borders. These 
European  Universities  would  act  as  drivers  of  educational  innovation  and  cross-
disciplinary  cooperation,  promoting  exchanges  between  research  teams  and  academic 
staff  and  bringing  a  new  generation  of  creative  Europeans  together,  able  to  cooperate 
seamlessly across borders and across disciplines, using different languages, in particular 
on  forward-looking  study  fields  that  address  important  societal  challenges  and  skills 
shortages that Europe faces. In terms of relevance, the consulted stakeholders see a great 
need  and  potential  for  this  type  of  cooperation  platforms  that  will  allow  for  better 

37  Currently, ICT for example represents only 4% of Erasmus+ beneficiaries in the higher education sector 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
integration  of  the  studies  Europe-wide,  in  order  to  be  more  responsive  to  the  modern 
societal  challenges.  Furthermore,  this  activity  is  coherent  and  is  contributing  to  the 
broader  EU  level  policy  objective  of  building  a  European  Education  Area  by  2025.  A 
relatively  limited  number38  of  European  Universities  are  projected  for  the  seven  years 
duration of the programme. To preserve effectiveness, it is proposed that the networks be 
embedded in the centralised management mode. 
Impact: European Universities would act as a real game changer in Europe by opening up 
study  programmes  with  embedded  mobility  at  Bachelor,  Master  and  Doctoral  levels; 
creating new joint curricula based on forward looking-skills and cross-disciplinary/multi-
disciplinary approaches; and fostering the creation of multidisciplinary and competitive 
education and research teams where students, lecturers, researchers and local ecosystems 
co-create/co-share knowledge and innovation. 
EU  added  value:  The  expected  impact  is  to  shape  the  next  generation  of  creative  and 
innovative  European  citizens  and  help  establish  a  true  European  mind-set.  These 
networks would attract students, researchers, businesses and investment and enhance the 
performance  and  competitive  advantage  of  European  higher  education  institutions  thus 
contributing  to  building  the  European  Education  Area.  European  Universities  would 
drive  educational  and  research  innovation  at  European  level  by  making  best  use  of 
innovative pedagogical instruments and digital technologies.    

A) C) D) E)  

Relevance with main challenges 
and priorities:  
Medium/High*  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
High 
Impact on EU budget 
*Implemented as a new action under Key Action 2, in synergy with other actions of Key 
Action  1  and  Key  Action  2,  as  well  as  with  the  successor  programme  of  Horizon2020 
and Structural Funds.   

Centres of vocational excellence 
This  initiative  will  support  the  development  of  trans-national  platforms  of  centres  of 
vocational  excellence  closely  integrated  in  local  and  regional  strategies  for  growth, 
innovation  and  competitiveness,  while  supporting  overall  structural  changes  and 
economic  policies  in  the  EU.  The  Centres  would  strive  to  develop  high  quality  VET 
curricula  and  qualifications  focused  on  meeting  current  and  emerging  sectoral  skills 
needs and would offer transnational joint VET programmes / qualifications with a strong 
element of work-based learning, digital content and mobility experience. They would act 
as  drivers  of  excellence  and  innovation  in  VET,  promoting  a  proactive  role  of  VET  in 
economic development and innovation strategies. 
Impact: Centres of vocational excellence would act as catalyst of substantial innovation 
in  the  way  VET  provision  is  developed  and  provided  through  the  design  of  joint  VET 
curricula which respond to EU-wide sectoral developments with a strong focus on digital 
training  content.  The  Centres  would  be  established  partnerships  with  innovation 
ecosystems within regions in which they will operate.  
EU added value: The Centres will create synergies in addressing emerging sectoral skills 
needs,  need  for  mobility  and  reforms  in  VET  supporting  excellence  and  innovation 
(including the digital training content). The networks would address the missing element 
of a proactive role of VET in innovation systems.  

38  European Council Conclusions 14 December 2017 "strengthening strategic partnerships across the EU between 
higher education institutions and encouraging the emergence by 2024 of some twenty 'European Universities" 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
A) D) E)  

Relevance with main challenges 
and priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
*Implemented as a new action under Key Action 2, in synergy with other actions of Key 
Action 1, as well as with Structural Funds.   

Medium  
Medium 

Partnerships for innovation39 Rationalise the existing tried and tested Erasmus actions 
aimed at fostering innovation in education, training, youth and sport. This action would 
build  on  results  achieved  through  different  actions  of  the  current  Erasmus  programme, 
and notably: the Knowledge Alliances, the Sector Skills Alliances, the Forward Looking 
Cooperation  projects  and  a  segment  of  ambitious  result-oriented  Strategic  Partnerships. 
Through the angle of education, training, youth and sport, the goal would be to support 
innovation  for  economic  growth  (in  particular  the  synergies  between  higher  education, 
VET  and  business/industry)  as  well  as  to  foster  social  innovation  with  the  ambition  to 
create long-lasting changes to solve societal problems40. 
Impact:  Innovation  is  essential  for  sustainable  growth,  social  cohesion  and  economic 
development.  Stimulating  innovation  is  crucial  for  the  creation  of  modern  educational 
systems  that  provide  the  right  set  of  competences  to  future  generations  of  Europeans. 
People  today  are  increasingly  faced  with  uncertainties  about  their  future,  as  a  result  of 
rapid  technological  change,  major  sustainable  development  challenges,  demographic 
learning 
trends,  migration.  In 
environments would allow young people and adults to become resilient and learn how to 
cope in a rapidly changing world.   
EU added value: The transnational dimension of the supported activities would develop 
connections in sectors that require a high degree of internationalisation. The support of 
innovation  at  EU  level  would  also  foster  cross-fertilisation  between  countries,  helping 
Members States to progress at a similar pace in the modernisation and innovation of their 
systems and policies.  

this  context,  providing  modern  and 

innovative 

A) C) D) F)  

Relevance  with  main  challenges  and 
priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
*Implemented  as  a  new  action  under  Key  Action  2;  Rationalisation  of  existing  Key 
Action  2  and  Key  Action  3  actions;  Synergies  with  the  successor  programme  of 
Horizon2020 

Low*  
Medium 

2) "Erasmus - a reality for all": a more inclusive programme, reaching out to those 
from disadvantaged backgrounds 

The  future  programme  aims  to  reinforce  its  inclusive  dimension  by  reinforcing  and 
adapting the current tried and tested measures with a view to: 

39  [the  Erasmus  foreseen  Innovation  Partnerships  are  distinct  instrument  not  related  to  the  European  Innovation 

Partnerships funded under the European Institute of Innovation and Technology] 

40  See for example Social Innovation, a decade of change (BEPA, 2014) 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
a)  step  up  efforts  to  make  the  programme  more  inclusive  for  people  with  fewer 
opportunities, including people with disabilities and minorities 
b)  widen  the  access  to  a  larger  target  group  of  individuals  and  organisations  in 
Europe and beyond.  

This objective will be achieved by a series of measures such as: 

 

fostering  participation  of  smaller-sized  organisations,  in  particular  small  and 
community-based grassroots organisations, that work directly with disadvantaged 
learners of all ages, to reach out to "non-elite" groups of learners. The proposed 
small-scale  partnerships  aim  to  foster  capacity  building,  social  commitment  and 
entrepreneurial  spirit,  benefiting  local  communities.  These  partnerships  are  also 
expected  to  produce  improved  methods  and  practices  that  enable  active 
involvement  of  young  people  and  allow  to  better  targeting  of  disadvantaged 
groups.  

  adapting  the  level  of  financial  support  for  the  mobility  of  individuals  to  fit  the 
needs of people with fewer opportunities, in line with the living and subsistence 
costs  of  the  host  country.  Providing  increased  financial  support  for  individual 
mobility will have the effect of broadening the segment of participants covered by 
the programme and allow for mobility to become a regular pattern in every person 
education and training pathway.  

  blended and virtual mobility and learning, making full use of digital innovations, 
will enable the programme to reach out to larger target groups using a limited set 
of resources, for example non-mobile students, thus increasing the integration of 
disadvantaged  and  vulnerable  groups  in  education  and  training,  youth  and  sport 
activities 

  boosting  school,  VET  and  youth  mobility  to  extend  opportunities,  widen  the 
learning  dimension 

programme's  accessibility,  and  reinforce 
stimulating up- and re-skilling. 
introducing more flexible learning mobility formats - such as short term, group or 
virtual mobility – which would be more relevant to the needs and possibilities of 
certain target groups;  

lifelong 

the 

 

  supporting  learning  mobility  of  low-skilled  adults,  often  from  disadvantaged 

backgrounds. 

Erasmus  actions  have  inspired  new  ways  of  working  with  people  with  fewer 
opportunities,  across  sectors,  with  significant  spill  over  effects  even  where  the  main 
objective of the activities is not to target these groups (i.e. impacts beyond results)41. 
The  main  improvements  that  could  be  proposed  under  the  next  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework period are described below. 

Mobility of school pupils. Supporting short and long term individual/group mobility of 
pupils (general primary and secondary education) during their key formative years enable 
school  pupils  from  different  countries  to  have  a  first-hand  transnational  European 
learning experience, to develop their understanding of the diversity of European cultures 
and languages, and to acquire social, civic and intercultural competences. In line with the 
mid-term  evaluation  findings  that  outlined  difficulties  regarding  the  access  to  pupils' 
mobility  via  the  cooperation  projects  under  the  current  programme  (key  action  2),  it  is 

41  During  the  Erasmus+  mid-term  evaluation,  this  type  of  impact  was  reported  by  44%  of  practitioner  respondents, 

although only 19% stated that the activity they took part focused on integration of disadvantaged groups. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
proposed to transfer  existing mobility of school pupils under the mobility  strand  of the 
programme (key action 1) to further simplify the access. Projects will be approved based 
on  schools'  needs  analysis,  a  plan  for  development  of  European  cooperation  and 
presentation of the quality assurance mechanisms for the proposed activities. 
Impact: this initiative would de facto extend mobility opportunities for young people in 
Europe  and  widen  the  access  to  the  programme  to  people  from  different  backgrounds, 
including with fewer opportunities, with a direct impact on reaching critical mass for the 
programme  and  boosting  the  inclusion  dimension  of  the  programme.  In  addition,  the 
initiative would enable an enhanced contribution of the programme to the development 
of knowledge, skills and competences for young people, promote language leaning from 
an early age, as well as foster European awareness and sense of belonging to the EU.   

EU  added  value:  The  transnational  dimension  of  this  action  would  bring  a  clear  EU 
added value, considering that there are no other national or European schemes that offer a 
comparable scale of activities, also in terms of geographical scope.  

A) B) F)  

Relevance  with  main  challenges  and 
priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
*Implemented  as  a  new  action  under  Key  Action  1,  largely  based  on  existing  mobility 
formats.  Phase  out  of  mobility  under  Key  Action  2  to  ensure  better  coherence  and 
simplification. 

Medium/Low*  
High 

Boost  VET  learners'  mobility.  Increase  the  number  of  short  and  long  term 
individual/group mobility opportunities offered to VET learners and apprentices.  
VET  tends  to  host  the  higher  share  of  students  in  situations  of  disadvantage  e.g.  more 
young  people  at  risk  of  early  school  leaving  tend  to  be  concentrated  in  VET  than  in 
general  education42.  Therefore,  increasing  the  number  of  mobility  activities  in  VET 
should  result  in  diversifying  the  profiles  of  participants,  while  attracting  more  VET 
learners with fewer opportunities.  
Impact: this initiative would de facto extend mobility opportunities for young people in 
Europe and widen the access to the programme with a direct impact on reaching critical 
mass  for  the  programme.  In  addition,  the  initiative  would  enable  an  enhanced 
contribution of the programme to the development of knowledge, skills and competences 
for  young  people,  including  the  learning  of  languages,  as  well  as  foster  European 
awareness and sense of belonging to the EU. 
EU added value: The transnational and international dimension of this action would bring 
a clear EU added value, considering that there are no other national or European schemes 
that offer a comparable scale of activities, also in terms of geographical scope.  

Relevance with main challenges and priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
*Reinforcement of an existing action under Key Action 1. 

A) B)  
Low*  
High 

42  See for example Cedefop (2016) Leaving education early: putting vocational education and training centre stage. 

Volume I: investigating causes and extent 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Boost  and  diversify  youth  mobility.  Increase  the  number  of  mobility  and  activities 
offered to young people and youth workers to acquire competences, develop awareness 
of values and discover Europe through non-formal learning activities and promote quality 
and innovation in youth work. New formats and the virtual dimension of mobility will be 
explored to reach a wider and more diverse audience and make them enthusiastic to learn 
about,  experience  and  discover  Europe,  its  people  and  cultures,    This  would  entail 
supporting large-scale activities (building on European Youth Together) involving young 
people  from  different  countries  from  different  parts  of  Europe  –  East/West  – 
North/South, enabling young Europeans to engage in networks to learn about each other's 
countries and cultures, see diversity as an enrichment and discover a sense of belonging 
to the EU. 

Reinforce youth participation 
Support a series of measures that aim to foster youth participation in democratic life, in 
line  with  the  EU  Youth  Strategy.  Enlarge  further  the  outreach  of  the  Structured 
Dialogue43 beyond youth organisations active in EU matters, including at the local level 
and  embrace  a  more  diverse  audience,  in  particular  young  people  with  fewer 
opportunities. In addition to the appreciated EU Youth conferences and meetings, the EU 
Youth Dialogue will embrace new and alternative forms of participation, including 
online campaigns, consultations via digital platforms connected to the European Youth 
Portal. The programme will also encourage the use of innovative and alternative forms of 
democratic  participation  and  debate  about  the  EU  for  example  based  on  the  toolkit 
developed under the 'New Narrative for Europe', initiatives aimed at promoting dialogue 
with  policy  makers,  as  well  as  'learning  to  participate'  activities,  for  example  through 
youth work, youth parliaments or simulations, actions around civic education and media 
literacy. 
Impact:  these  two  initiatives  above  would  de  facto  extend  mobility  opportunities  for 
young  people  in  Europe  and  widen  the  access  to  the  programme  including  to  young 
people from disadvantaged backgrounds, with a direct impact on reaching critical mass 
for the programme. In addition, the initiative would enable an enhanced contribution of 
the  programme  to  the  development  of  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  for  young 
people,  promote  language  leaning  as  well  as  foster  European  awareness  and  sense  of 
belonging  to  the  EU.  As  shown  by  the  mid-term  evaluation,  Youth  sector  actions  have 
high performance and impact in terms of social inclusion, especially in learning to learn, 
developing cultural awareness and building self-confidence. 
EU added value: The transnational and international dimension of this action would bring 
a clear EU added value, considering that there are no other national or European schemes 
that  offer  a  comparable  scale  of  activities,  also  in  terms  of  geographical  scope.  For  in-
country  activities,  the  European  added  value  would  be  determined  by  the  fact  that 
supported activities would be clearly linked to European policy priorities in the field of 
youth (e.g. EU Youth Dialogue).  

Relevance  with  main  challenges  and 
priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 

A) B) C) 

Medium/Low*  
High 

43  Structured dialogue is the consultative process for youth under the 2010-2018 Youth Strategy. Through the support 
of Erasmus and the predecessor Youth in Action programme, it has reached over 200,000 young people since 2010. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
*Reinforcement  of  an  existing  action  under  Key  Action  1.  Decentralised  actions 
promoting dialogue between young people and decision-makers moved from Key Action 
3 to Key Action 1. New youth participation activities and activities to experience Europe 
developed under Key Action 1. 

Maximise the relevance of adult learning actions. 
Learning is a must for all nowadays. Adults should engage in various learning activities 
throughout their life-cycle, irrespective of their previous levels of education and training. 
Current efforts deployed by the Member States in the adult education and training sector 
reached heterogeneous critical mass levels and operating scale to face the challenges of a 
continuously transforming labour market. There is a need for the education and training 
provisions  at  European  level  to  better  address  the  adults  sector,  through  innovative 
approaches for cooperation and methods of teaching and learning. 
The  current  context  indicates  a  need  for  addressing  the  learning  needs  of  the  whole 
population,  with  a  specific  focus  on  inclusion  of  low-skilled  people.  The  goal  for  the 
future programme would be to strengthen links to the EU policy priorities in the field of 
adult  learning  by  supporting  actions  that  focus  on  upskilling  low-skilled  and  poorly 
educated adults, as well as actions that foster active citizenship, democratic participation, 
and  a  sense  of  European  identity.  Low  level  of  basic  skills  for  adults  hinder  personal, 
social  and  professional  fulfilment,  while  reducing  personal  independence  and  self-
confidence, ability to deal with changes, as well as participation in a democratic society. 
Current migration waves increase the need for basic skills learning to facilitate migrants' 
integration in society. 
For the Adults sector, the mid-term evaluation noted that there is potential to increase the 
EU added value by better targeted actions. The number of priorities under the Strategic 
Partnerships under Key Action 2 could be radically reduced – e.g. from currently 12 to 
up to 2 or 3 - to further enhance simplification and clarity of the actions and to facilitate 
access to the programme. 
In addition, the group mobility of adult learners, as one element of a larger pedagogical 
project,  would  continue  to  be  supported  –  framed  within  the  context  of  Key  Action  2 
cooperation partnerships - as it has been found very cost efficient and its relevance was 
outlined  during  the  stakeholders'  consultations.  Continue  supporting  group  mobility  of 
adult  learners,  while  focussing  only  on  the  low-skilled,  with  a  limited  number  of 
priorities, will allow to reinforce both the inclusive dimension of the programme and to 
focus better the use of to maximise EU-funding impact on the Adult sector. 

Impact:   This  initiative  would  de  facto  create  mobility  opportunities  for  a  specific 
spectrum of adults in Europe and widen the access to the programme to more people with 
fewer  opportunities.  It  would  also  improve  the  acquisition  of  basic  skills  (literacy, 
numeracy  and  digital  skills)  for  people  with  fewer  opportunities,  thus  extending  the 
inclusiveness of the programme. It would support activities promoting active citizenship 
and  common  European  values  for  the  EU  population  as  well  as  for  newly  arrived 
migrants. The initiative would enable an enhanced contribution of the programme to the 
development  of  knowledge,  skills  and  competences,  promote language learning  as well 
as foster European awareness and sense of belonging to the EU. 
EU  added  value:  The  transnational  dimension  of  this  action  would  bring  a  clear  EU 
added value, considering that there are no other national or European schemes that offer a 
comparable scale of activities, also in terms of geographical scope. Enhanced European 
cooperation  in  the  field  of  adult  education  supports  the  convergence  towards  open  and 
inclusive European societies. 

32 

 
 
 
  
 
Relevance with main challenges and priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
* Partially implemented under existing Key Action 1 actions, and partially implemented 
as a new horizontal action under Key Action 1.  Phase out of mobility under Key Action 
2 to ensure better coherence and simplification.   

A) B) C) F) 
Medium*  
High  

Maximise the relevance of sport actions.   
This  measure  would  also  extend  mobility  opportunities  in  the  field  of  sport  for 
transnational/international  training  courses,  contact-making  events,  study  visits,  job 
shadowing,  observation  periods,  etc.  The  target  group  would  be  staff  of  sport 
organisations  namely  coaches,  managers,  instructors,  dual  careers  providers,  etc.  Sport 
staff members have a key role in sport and by leading and guiding participants have an 
impact  on  participants'  knowledge,  skills,  health,  wellbeing  and  attitudes.  They  have  a 
unique  position  in  advancing  social  inclusion  and  gender  equality,  teaching  respect  for 
EU common values, diversity and promoting physical activity in all social groups. With a 
view  to  refocussing  the  actions  in  the  field  of  sport,  activities  that  promote  non-formal 
learning  through  sport  or  outdoor  activities  which  are  currently  financed  under  the 
Erasmus  youth  strand,  in  the  future  would  be  supported,  where  relevant,  under  the 
Erasmus sport actions. 

Relevance with main challenges and priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
* Implemented under Key Action 1 

A) C) F) 
Medium*  
Medium 

Support digital opportunities and increased virtual cooperation.  
Increased blended mobility and virtual exchanges: making full use of digital innovation 
to  increase  the  number  of  opportunities  for  virtual  learning  (i.e.  virtual  exchanges  or  
distance  courses)  or  blended  mobility  (i.e.  activities  combining  physical  and  virtual 
mobility) with the aim to improve learning outcomes of participating individuals, as well 
as to reach out, in particular, to disadvantaged and non-mobile participants offering them 
access to the programme in cases where physical mobility is not an option. In addition, 
the proposed actions will contribute to addressing advanced digital skills development. 
Increased  virtual  cooperation:  the  new  programme  would  also  aim  to  provide  a  regular 
framework for increased virtual cooperation activities, namely through a more systematic 
use of the e-platforms such as eTwinning, the School Education Gateway, the Electronic 
Platform  for  Adult  Learning  in  Europe  (EPALE)  and  the  European  Youth  Portal.  The 
platforms offer virtual collaboration spaces, communities of practice and on-line services 
for  teachers,  trainers,  policy  makers  and  other  practitioners  across  Europe  and  beyond. 
Continued  and  enhanced  support  is  proposed  for  those  existing  on-line  tools  that  have 
proven  their  effectiveness  and  added  value.  The  on-line  tools  have  a  high  cost-
effectiveness ratio as their running costs are relatively limited whereas their capacity to 
reach to a significant number of people is very high.  
Impact:  In  addition  to  widening  the  access  to  the  opportunities  provided  by  the 
programme,  the  initiative  is  expected  to  have  positive  effects  on  the  development  of 
digital skills and enhance the use of digital resources. The initiative would foster digital 
literacy by increasing the use of innovative learning and teaching pedagogies, enabling a 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
sufficient master of all dimensions of digital competence44 - including media literacy and 
critical thinking - needed to use technology in a confident and secure way. The initiative 
would  enable  learners,  teachers  and  researchers  to  re-train  and  to  acquire  cutting  edge 
professional  knowledge  and  use  new  technologies,  aiming  to  facilitate  innovative  and 
open-minded process of learning and teaching.  
EU  added  value:  Support  at  European  level  for  the  development  of  digital  skills  and 
competence and the use of digital technologies and services in providing forward looking, 
inclusive and quality education is essential. Digital technologies would extend the field of 
opportunities  for  school  pupils'  mobility,  contribute  to  integration  of  people  with  fewer 
opportunities  in  education  and  training,  youth  and  sport  activities;  reaching  out  to  non-
mobile  students;  and  increase  intercultural  awareness  and  tolerance.  Furthermore, 
advanced digital skills would enable the growth of digital economy in Europe. 
Relevance with main challenges and priorities:  

A) B) D) 

Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 

Low*  
Low 

Small-scale  partnerships.  The  future  Erasmus  would  implement  an  action  that  is 
specifically designed to widen the access of the programme to small-scale actors, grass-
root  organisations  and  newcomers  that  are  typically  hard  to  reach.  The  administrative 
criteria and requirements would be lowered, compared to traditional cooperation projects  
thus  reducing  the  entry  barriers  to  the  programme  for  organisations  with  lower 
organisational  capacity.  This  action  would  also  support  flexible  formats  –  both  with 
transnational  and  national  character  but  with  a  European  dimension  –  allowing 
organisations to have more means to reach out to people with fewer opportunities.  
Impact: In addition to widening the access to the programme, the initiative is expected to 
raise its inclusive dimension.  
EU added value: This action would be a first-time experience for many organisations and 
participants  to  access  EU  funds  and  gain  knowledge  on  planning,  project-life-cycle 
management,  use  of  seed-funds  to  develop  their  own  ideas.  At  grant  request  level, 
applicants would have to justify the EU added value of their initiatives. For example, this 
EU added value could consist in the transnational character of the proposed activities, on 
a  specific  European  thematic  or  policy  priority  which  the  project  would  contribute  to 
implement.       
Relevance with main challenges and priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
*Implemented as a new action with small-size grants under Key Action 2.   

A) B) C) D) F) 
Medium*  
Medium/low 

3) Promoting awareness and learning on EU matters 

Maximise the relevance of Jean Monnet Actions 
The  proposal  to  maintain  a  certain  number  of  existing  Jean  Monnet  actions  for  the 
programming period post 2020 is anchored in their proven added value.  In line with the 
mid-term  findings,  their  relevance  will  be  further  enhanced  by  the  proposed  specific 
objective  under  the  new  programme  i.e.  Foster  knowledge  and  awareness  about  the 
European  Union,  in  line  with  the  stakeholders'  and  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament calls for enhanced support for learning and teaching about EU matters. 

44  European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcomp 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
There  is  a  need  to  raise  the  knowledge  and  awareness  of  the  next  generations  of 
Europeans much earlier in life. Building on the opportunities offered to other education 
and  training  institutions  under  the  current  three  Erasmus  Key  Actions,  the  future 
programme  would  develop  a  strategic  framework  to  promote  teaching,  learning  and 
debating  on  EU  subjects  in  other  sectors  of  education  and  training,  thus  strengthening 
knowledge about the EU and promoting European awareness.  
The  proposed  action  would  only  target  the  so-called  'multipliers'  such  as  teachers, 
trainers  or  other  educational  staff.  Outreach  towards  new  target  groups  other  than 
academia would also ensure a more democratic and inclusive grasp for the programme.  

in 

level 

training 

transnational  governance,  understood 

In addition, the cooperation with Jean Monnet designated institutions could be reinforced 
in  strategic  areas  such  as  inclusive  education  and  promotion  of  EU  awareness.  The 
possibility  of  Jean  Monnet  institutions  providing  scholarships  to  students  with  fewer 
opportunities, through the financial support of the programme, should be explored.  
Moreover, the Transnational School of Governance, hosted by the European Institute of 
Florence, could become an international reference and a hub in the research, teaching and 
in  a  broad  and 
high 
multidisciplinary  sense.  The  School,  in  cooperation  with  a  broad  European  network  of 
top-ranked  institutions,  would  work  with  international  teams  of  academics  and 
researchers offering  masters, executive trainings and fellowship programmes  as  well as 
other opportunities to develop knowledge and competences in transnational governance. 
Impact:  reinforced  strategic  cooperation  with  institutions  pursuing  an  EU  interest; 
enhanced  role  of  education  and  training  institutions  to  act  as  a  vehicle  to  transmit 
knowledge  about  European  matters  and  sense  of  belonging  to  the  EU;  support  the 
learning  of 
training 
institutions,  as  well  as  between  the  latter  and  specialised  civil  society  organisations; 
reinforced  citizenship  dimension  in  learning  and  teaching  and  awareness-raising  about 
EU matters.  
EU added value: In the case of in-country activities (e.g. the Jean Monnet-type activities 
targeting  education  and training institutions), the EU added value would be brought by 
the fact that the treated subjects are EU-related.    
Relevance with main challenges and priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
*  Introducing  new  Jean  Monnet  activity  for  schools  and  other  education  and  training 
institutions. Maximising impact of operating grants for Jean Monnet institutions.  

languages;  strengthened  cooperation  among  education  and 

A) C) 
Medium*  
Medium 

Erasmus alumni network. Further develop (to cover all sectors45) the network of former 
Erasmus participants who will act as ambassadors and raise awareness about the benefits 
of  the  programme.  Erasmus  alumni  are  the  best  advocates  for  the  programme  -  the 
conviction with which they can speak about the programme and their experience offer a 
remarkable awareness raising tool. The benefits of the network go beyond the awareness 
raising – the alumni could contribute to the inclusiveness objectives and social dimension 
of  the  programme  by  coaching  and  offering  peer  learning  to  young  people  with  fewer 
opportunities  (e.g.  conferences,  workshops  in  universities,  schools  and  VET  centres 
about why going  abroad helped their  career/ personal development).  Peer examples are 
one of the most influential methods to diversify participation in programmes or activities.   

45  The currently existing Erasmus+ alumni network is limited to beneficiaries of higher education mobility 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Impact: engage with local communities and further diffused key messages on the EU and 
the  E+  programme  at  local  level  (e.g.  schools,  associations,  VET  institutions,  youth 
organisations).  Expanded  alumni  network  contributes  to  promoting  a  more  diverse  and 
inclusive  programme  and  therefore  could  contribute  to  raise  its  attractiveness  for  other 
target groups.  It would also foster learning about the EU through voluntary engagement 
of alumni in cooperation activities with local schools. 
EU  added  value:  In  the  case  of  in-country  activities  the  EU  added  value  would  be 
brought by the fact that the treated subjects are EU-related and Erasmus-related.    
Relevance  with  main  challenges  and 
priorities:  
Low*  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
Low 
*Introducing a partially new activity under Key Action 3 
4) Ambitious international dimension 

B) C) 

Boost the international dimension of Erasmus.  
For  the  future  programming  period,  the  programme  would  aim  to  be  a  more  balanced 
instrument for implementing both the EU's external action policy as well as its internal 
policy  objectives.  In  this  regard,  the  international  dimension  of  the  future  programme 
would  both  aim  at:  i)  increasing  opportunities  for  mobility  and  cooperation  for 
individuals  and  organisations  from  less  developed  countries  of  the  world  -  supporting 
capacity-building in  partner countries, skills' development, people-to-people exchanges; 
while at the same time ii) offering a greater number of opportunities for cooperation and 
mobility  with  developed  and  emerging  countries  to  allow  young  Europeans  and  the 
European  education  systems  to  better  face  the  challenges  of  today's  and  tomorrow's 
world  (global  and  digital  economy,  innovation,  new  sets  of  skills  and  competences 
required, etc.), thus contributing to EU growth and competitiveness..     
Moreover, the international dimension of Erasmus could be extended in scope - beyond 
higher education and youth - to types of activities such as mobility of VET learners and 
staff, as well as international cooperation projects in the fields of VET and sport. These 
types  of  activities  would  be  particularly  relevant  in  those  partner  countries  where  the 
share of population enrolled in higher education is low. In the case of sport, the opening 
of  the  programme  to  partner  countries  could  help  tackle  in  a  more  effective  way  a 
number of traditional  sport  policy fields  such  as good governance, social  inclusion and 
fight against doping46. Sport creates a stronger  sense  of belonging  to  society among its 
vulnerable members and encourages active citizenship and positive social attitudes. It can 
be used to help preventing radicalisation, combat social exclusion or increase solidarity 
between generations, as well as contribute to gender equality. Cooperation between EU 
and non EU countries can effectively enhance international relations at people's level and 
positively influence societal changes such as reconciliation in post conflict areas. 
Impact: this would de facto extend international mobility and cooperation opportunities 
and widen the access to the programme; this would also enable an enhanced contribution 
of  the  programme  to  the  development  of  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  both  in 
programme and in partner countries; it would increase the reach out to people with more 

46  European  Commission  study  Sport  Diplomacy:  Identifying  good  practices  has  highlighted  particular  areas  where 
the skills, knowledge and expertise of Member States’ sport federations and NGOs could been applied successfully 
in  countries  outside  of  the  EU,  including  work  with  disadvantaged  young  people  disability,  gender,  health  and 
refugees;  evidence  shows  the  positive  impact  international  sport  projects  have  on  the  relationships  between  the 
countries involved. 

36 

 
 
                                                            
disadvantaged backgrounds and raise its inclusive dimension as well as foster awareness 
about EU values among partner countries. 
EU  added  value:  the  international  dimension  would  bring  a  clear  EU  added  value, 
considering that there are no other national or European schemes that offer a comparable 
scale of activities, also in terms of geographical scope. 

A) B) C) D) F)  

Relevance  with  main  challenges  and 
priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
*Reinforcement and extension in scope of existing actions under Key Action 1; Partially 
revised  action  (international  partnerships)  under  Key  Action  2;  Degree  of  complexity 
depends on the possibility to introduce simplification measures (see below).   

Low/High*  
High 

5) Simplification, coherence and synergies 

Increased simplification  
In  line  with  the  mid-term  evaluation  findings  and  the  stakeholders'  views,  efforts  to 
increase  simplification  and  make  the  access  easier  will  be  multiplied.  Building  on  the 
currently implemented measures, simplification will take place at two levels:  

a)  Decreased  administrative  burden  for  all  at  implementation  level:  reduced  and 
simplified award criteria, subsequently reducing the length of application forms and 
reports;  reduced  reporting  and  information  obligations,  improved  on-line  tools  more 
inter-operable  and  user-friendly  making  full  use  of  the  digital  progress,  simplified 
procedures  for  small-scale  actors,  better  standardising  the  implementation  of  the 
programme across National Agencies. 
The rules and delivery mechanisms for the implementation of international actions will 
be simplified and streamlined to reduce administrative burden, while remaining coherent 
with the external action and Erasmus policy objectives.  

b) Simplification of actions by design: this will entail simpler rules and procedures for 
certain  actions  in  order  to  allow  easier  access  for  small  scale  actors  with  limited 
operational capacity and newcomers to the programme - such as schools, adult learning 
and  youth  organisations  -  thus  broadening  the  access  to  the  programme.  Such 
simplification by design will cover inter alia the Small Scale Partnerships; the mobility of 
school  pupils  will  be  moved  under  Key  Action  1,  bringing  a  radical  simplification  for 
several  thousand  schools  participating  in  the  programme;  streamlining  the  formats  of 
existing  actions  and  using  them  in  all  the  sectors  of  the  programme,  thus  achieving 
economies of scale and simplification. 

Coherence 
During the next programming period, the programme will strive to ensure coherence both 
internally,  for  example  by  reducing  the  identified  overlaps  between  actions,  but  also 
externally,  by  seeking  for  synergies  and  complementarities  with  other  EU  spending 
programmes. 
In  line  with  the  mid-term  evaluation  recommendations,  the  programme  will  be 
rationalised to avoid overlaps between types of projects funded for instance under Sport 
and  Youth,  through  merging  some  of  the  current  actions  which  may  have  produced 
similar results i.e. bringing forward looking cooperation projects together with part of the 
most ambitious Strategic Partnerships, or bringing knowledge and sector skills alliances 
37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
together for a better complementarity within the knowledge triangle (education, research 
and business). 

Synergies (More details about possible synergies between the different instruments are 
described in Annex 4 of this Impact Assessment).  
Develop  effective  synergies  between  Erasmus  and  other  future  EU  programmes  and 
instruments could entail:  
-  The use of European Investment and Structural Funds (ESIF) to scale-up successful 
Erasmus  projects  and  vice  versa,  the  use  of  Erasmus  to  support  the  scaling  up  of 
innovation and transnational cooperation actions developed under ESIF, in line with 
Erasmus eligibility rules;  

-  Pooling resources to invest in the European Universities through Erasmus, ESIF and 

the Research and Innovation framework programme (Horizon Europe) funds;  

-  Topping-up  funds  -  from  ESIF  -  to  provide  additional  support  to  specific  target 
groups  carrying  out  Erasmus  mobility  and  in  view  of  achieving  the  objectives  of 
actions supported respectively by Erasmus and ESIF; 
Implementing  ESIF  projects  via  Erasmus  National  Agencies,  if  appropriate  to  their 
scope and structure and in line with ESIF eligibility rules; 

- 

-  Using Horizon Europe funds to scale-up innovative Erasmus projects.  
-  Develop synergies with the Rights and Values programme with regard to citizenship 

issues.  

-  Develop synergies with the Creative Europe programme with regard to art, culture 

and creativity issues.  

-  Reinforce coherence with the EU External Action Programme  
-  Reinforce coherence with InvestEU Fund. 

As a concrete tool to enhance the implementation of synergies, it is proposed to integrate 
other mobility schemes with a strong learning dimension under Erasmus, thereby using 
the  Erasmus  programme  infrastructure  and  delivery  mechanisms  as  a  "vehicle",  and 
following  the  Erasmus  intervention  logic.  This  Erasmus  "vehicle"  option  for  other 
mobility  schemes  will  be  offered  through  Key  Action  3  as  a  centralised  action,  for  its 
limited critical mass (at least in its initial phase), as well as its cross-sectoral component. 
Some of the envisaged schemes such as the Digital Opportunities, will be fully integrated 
in the programme, whereas other schemes, such as the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 
or  mobility  of  farmers  and  rural  actors,  could  be  implemented  as  a  new  action  while 
applying  rules,  criteria  and  procedures  that  are  common  or  similar  to  existing  Erasmus 
actions.    The  concrete  operational  modalities  are  to  be  decided  during  the  strategic 
programming  phase,  while  the  exploratory  discussions  during  the  impact  assessment 
phase allowed for macro level agreement on avenues for further cooperation, increasing 
the  coherence  of  the  EU  funding  programmes  under  the  next  Multiannual  Financial 
Programme. 
In addition, to facilitate the concrete implementation of synergies, the Erasmus National 
Agencies  could  act  as  "incubators"  and  facilitators  of  Erasmus  projects  which  could 
potentially  be  scaled-up  through  other  EU  instruments.  The  accompanying  measures 
carried  out  by  National  Agencies  would  be  aimed  to  provide  guidance  and  support  to 
Erasmus beneficiaries to develop those characteristics that would enable their project to 
meet  the  qualitative  and  administrative  requirements  to  apply  for  grants  under  the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  managed  at  national  and  regional  level,  as 
well  as  to  the  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation,  and  the  financial 
instruments relating to justice and citizenship, health and culture. 
Relevance  with  main  challenges  and 

B) F) D) 

38 

 
 
 
 
priorities:  
Impact on Erasmus structure 
Impact on EU budget 
*Other  EU  mobility  schemes  are  integrated  in  a  streamlined  architecture,  with  standardised  formats  of 
activities and common rules.   

Low*  
Low 

39 

 
 
3.2. 

Summary  

The table below summarizes the relevance of the proposed improvements against the challenges identified in section 2.1.2 of this Impact Assessment. It also 
provides an assessment of the investments needed to implement each improvement in a meaningful way (Impact on budget), as well as the impact on the degree 
of complexity of the current programme architecture 

Table 4 - Overview of proposed improvements, relevance, costs, complexity of implementation   

Challenges 

Improvements 

A) Closing 
the 
knowledge, 
skills and 
competences 
gap 

B) 
Making 
Erasmus 
more 
inclusive 
(inclusion 
gap) 

C) Limited 
participation 
in democratic 
life and sense 
of European 
identity 

D) Limited 
opportunities 
for and access 
to cooperation 
between 
organisations 
from different 
countries 

E) 
Insufficient 
scope and 
volume of 
international 
mobility and 
cooperation 

F) 
Simplification, 
Coherence, 
Synergies 

Overall 
relevance 

Impact on 
Budget 

Impact on 
programme 
architecture 

1. Forward-
looking 
knowledge, 
skills and 
competence 
development, 
new alliances 
with the 
relevant 
stakeholders 
backgrounds 

Mobility and 
cooperation in 
forward-
looking fields 

European 
Universities 

Centres of 
vocational 
excellence 

Innovation 
Partnerships 

2. "Erasmus a 
reality for all": 
a more 
inclusive 

Mobility of 
school pupils 
Boost VET 
learners' 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

low 

low 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

high 

medium 

++ 

medium 

medium 

+ 

++ 

+ 

medium 

low 

+++ 

++ 

high 

high 

low 

low 

+ 

+ 

+ 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
programme 
reaching to 
those from 
disadvantaged 
backgrounds 

3) Promoting 
awareness and 
learning on EU 
matters 

4) Ambitious 
international 
dimension 

mobility 

Boost and 
diversify youth 
mobility / 
reinforce 
youth 
participation 
Maximise 
adult learning 
actions 

Maximise 
relevance of 
sport actions 
Support digital 
opportunities 
and increased 
virtual 
cooperation 
Small scale 
partnerships 
Maximise 
relevance of 
Jean Monnet 
actions 
Erasmus 
alumni 
network 
Boost the 
international 
dimension of 
Erasmus 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

high 

medium 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+++ 

+ 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

+ 

high 

medium 

medium 

medium 

+++ 

low 

low 

++ 

++ 

+ 

medium 

medium 

medium 

medium 

low 

low 

++ 

+++ 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 

high 

medium 

3.3. 

Improvements according to budget scenarios 

The Table 5 below provides an indicative priority ranking based on the possible budget scenarios. The improvements falling in the green quadrants could be 
implemented  in  the  context  of  a  baseline  scenario  with  a  moderate  budgetary  increase,  while  the  yellow  quadrants  show  the  improvements  that  could  be 
implemented only on the condition of a high increase of the overall budget for the programme under the next Multiannual Financial Framework period. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT 

5 

14 

2 

1.  Mobility and cooperation in forward-looking 
fields 
2.  European Universities 

3.  Centres of vocational excellence 

10 

4.  Innovation Partnerships 

5.  Mobility of school pupils 

6.  Boost VET learners' mobility 

6 

3 

11 

1 

7 

8 

12 

9 

4 

13 

7.  Boost and diversify youth mobility / reinforce 
youth participation 

8.  Maximise the relevance of adult learning 
actions 
9.  Maximise the relevance of sport actions 

10.  Support digital opportunities and increased 
virtual cooperation 

11.  Small scale partnerships 

12. Maximise the relevance of Jean Monnet activities 

13.  Erasmus alumni network 

14.  Boost the international dimension of Erasmus 

Ease of implementation 

h
g
H

i

i

m
u
d
e
M

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
u
S

e
c
n
a
v
e
e
R

l

High 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Impact on Budget 

Low 

Medium 

High 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5 above condenses the cost intensity and the relevance with respect to the policy 
objectives of the different new measures proposed. Various combinations of the proposed 
measures could be envisaged, depending on the final envelope, but also depending on the 
level  of  intensity  and  scope  to  be  achieved  in  agreement  with  the  priorities  fixed  at 
political level. The current graphic presentation does reflect the priority ranking arising 
from the policy context delineated in the first section of the present Impact Assessment, 
as well as the key messages from the mid-term evaluation and the various stakeholders' 
consultations. 

In  any  scenario,  the  set  of  improvements  will  be  constructed  around  a  stable  structure 
based  on  the  three  key-actions  architecture  of  the  current  Erasmus  programme.  The 
repartition per key action and the intensity of the funded actions could: 
remain stable with a similar envelope, with improvements in terms of efficiency 
i. 
and  simplification,  allowing  for  the  programme  to  work  effectively  in  an  equivalent 
manner as compared to the 2014-2020 programming period; or  
ii. 
should  the  programme's  envelope  be  increased,  the  scope  and  volume  of  the 
various  actions  could  be  increased  and  the  identified  activities  (including  the  cost 
intensive  ones)  could  be  implemented  to  a  full  extent,  with  broad  EU  scope  and added 
value.  

3.4. Conclusions   

The pivotal role of education in shaping the future of Europe has been put very high in 
the European political agenda. The Commission intends to pursue the goals described in 
section 1.1 'Political context', by building on the positive results achieved by the current 
Erasmus programme and its predecessors over the past 30 years.  
Stability  and  continuity  will  be  ensured,  in  line  with  the  Member  States  and 
stakeholders' requirements for 'evolution not revolution' for Erasmus post 2020 in terms 
of  programme's  architecture  and  delivery  mechanisms,  integrated  nature  of  the 
programme.  The  programme  will  have  clearer  intervention  logic,  fewer  and  better 
focused  priorities,  while  the  programme's  scope  will  be  enlarged  to  cater  for  a  limited 
number of new priority areas. 

Improved streamlined actions and a limited number of new actions are proposed to 
be  introduced  in  the  new  programme,  enshrined  in  the  existing  architecture  and  using 
current  instruments,  taking  into  consideration  the  main  lessons  from  the  mid-term 
evaluation  and  the  stakeholders'  consultations,  in  line  with  the  recent  EU  policy 
developments and objectives. The proposed actions were clustered for the purposes of the 
present Impact Assessment around five focus areas:  

  Forward-looking  knowledge,  skills  and  competence  development,  new  alliances 

with the relevant stakeholders 

  Erasmus a reality for all: a more inclusive programme, reaching out to those from 

disadvantaged backgrounds 

  Promoting awareness and learning on EU matters 
  Ambitious international dimension 
  Simplification, coherence and synergies 

The  clustering  presented  for  the  purposes  of  the  impact  assessment  corresponds  to  the 
major  challenges  and  policy  objectives  outlined,  nevertheless  the  programme's  scope  is 
broader that the list of actions presented. The Staff Working Document (SWD) 'Main 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
actions 
implementing  the  Erasmus  Programme  for  the  period  2021-2027' 
accompanying  the  future  legislative  proposal  further  details  all  the  programme  actions 
covered - some of these actions are already covered by the current programme, thus they 
were  not  detailed  in  the  impact  assessment  where  only  the  main  novelties  are  being 
outlined.  The  above  mentioned  SWD  also  describes  in  general  terms  the  format  of  the 
activities and the key actors implementing and benefiting from these actions.  

An  indicative  proposal  for  the  structure  of  the  programme  in  the  perspective  of  a 
scenario  of  a  "strengthened,  more  inclusive  and  extended  Erasmus"  -  covering  all  the 
above mentioned focus areas - is presented here below (table 6) as it is proposed within 
the  legislative  proposal.  Table  6  offers  an  idea  of  the  projects,  beneficiaries  and 
participants  which  are  needed  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  programme  achieves  a 
reasonable  impact.  This  table  offers  an  indication  of  the  actions  and  measures  to  be 
implemented,  as  well  as  on  their  possible  delivery  mechanisms.  The  scope  and  key 
features of these actions are further described in the above mentioned SWD. 

The  legislative  proposal  establishing  the  programme  should  foresee  a  certain  level  of 
flexibility  to  adapt  to  new  priorities  and  needs  emerging  in  the  course  of  the 
programming  period  e.g.  a  specific  action  regarding  an  on-going  crisis  –  as  it  was  the 
case for the migration crisis – or an emerging political priority. The delivery mechanisms 
also need to maintain a certain degree of flexibility (for example, in case of new actions, 
which could be tested at centralised level in the first years and subsequently decentralised 
when they reach a level of maturity) to enable the coherent implementation of the MFF 
funding programmes and allow for synergies and complementarities for certain specific 
actions. 

A set of risks have been associated to the delivery of the programme; the most significant 
would cover (not in order): 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

insufficient critical mass of the funded actions; insufficient EU level impact;  
insufficient take-up and low responsiveness across the target population; lack of 
cooperation appetite among involved actors;  
insufficient quality of the outputs; insufficient scale-up through dissemination and 
exploitation of the successful projects results; insufficient capacity to multiply the 
effects of existing actions;  
lack  of  convergence  and  synergies  between  the  EU  and  other  funding 
programmes;  insufficient  willingness  from  the  involved  actors  to  cooperate; 
overlaps  with  activities  under  other  programmes;  administrative,  legal  and 
financial  barriers  to  achieve  synergies  (e.g.  divergent  programming    timing, 
different evaluation criteria) 
the demand exceeds the financial envelope of the programme; low success rates 
insufficient  operational  capacity  of  implementing  bodies;  high  administrative 
burden;  
insufficient  involvement  of  hard-to-reach  groups  (e.g.  disengaged  people  or  at 
risk of marginalisation); insufficient reach at local level & geographical coverage 

The risk management and mitigation strategies will be developed at programming level. 
A  certain  degree  of  flexibility  at  the  level  of  the  programme  and  of  the  delivery 
mechanisms will allow to respond and to adapt the programme in order to minimise risks 
and maximise returns.  
Programme  monitoring  (as  presented  in  section  5  i.e.  continuous  monitoring  and 
programme  evaluation)  will  provide  the  data  and  the  necessary  robust  assessment  to 
44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
determine  the  performance  of  the  implemented  actions.  Regular  implementation 
assessment,  coupled  with  the  necessary  programme  flexibility,  will  allow  to  timely 
identify the risks and to adapt the programme when necessary, while maintaining overall 
stability.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6 - Programme indicative structure for the scenario "Strengthened, more inclusive and extended Erasmus"  

Actions 

Already implemented under 
current Erasmus  
(Yes, No, Partially) 

                                                Key Action 1 - Learning mobility  

Mobility of higher education students and staff  

Mobility of VET learners and staff  
Mobility of school pupils and staff  

Mobility of adult education staff  

Language learning opportunities, including those supporting mobility activities 
Mobility of young people and youth workers 
Mobility of sport coaches and staff 
Youth participation in projects 

                                              Key Action 2 - Cooperation among organisations and institutions 

Partnerships for cooperation,  including small-scale partnerships 
Partnerships for excellence: European Universities, Centres for vocational excellence, 
Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees 
Partnerships for innovation: Alliances, Forward-looking projects 
On-line platforms and tools for virtual cooperation (eTwinning; School Education 
Gateway; Youth Portal /Youthwork Development Centre; EPALE; Higher education 
HUB, including support services for eTwinning and EPALE Electronic Platform for 
Adult Learning in Europe.) 
Non-for-profit European sport events  

                                            Key Action 3 – Support to policy development and cooperation 

EU presidency events, conferences and high-level meetings 
Peer learning, peer review, country-specific expertise, expert groups and academic 

46 

Y 

Y 
P 

P  

P 
Y 
N 
N 

Y 

P 

P 

Y 

Y 

Y 
Y 

Managed by 

NAs 

NAs 
NAs 

NAs; EACEA 

EACEA 
NAs 
NAs 
NAs 

NAs; EACEA* 

NAs; EACEA 

EACEA 

COM; EACEA; SALTO 

EACEA 

COM 
COM 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
networks 

Policy experimentation 

Specific actions to implement priorities of the European policy agenda  

Studies and surveys (including PISA, TALIS, PIAAC) 
Eurydice, Youth Wiki, ET Monitor 
Processes of recognition of studies, qualifications and diplomas (including Bologna) 
Europass and Youthpass 
EQF, ECVET, EQAVET, Euroguidance, ENIC-NARIC, EQAR 
Agreements with OECD, CoE and other international organisations 
EU Youth Dialogue 

Civil society dialogue (operating grants) and support to the European Youth Forum 

Policy dialogue events and conferences 
TCAs (training and cooperation activities) 
SALTO Resource Centres 
Incubators and seals of excellence (synergies with other instruments) 
Mobility of individuals in other policy areas  
Eurodesk network 
Alumni networks, ambassadors, Europeers, role models 
Youth Week, VET Skills Week, Erasmus Days, ETY Forum 
Dissemination activities (conferences, seminars, events, campaigns) 
Jean Monnet activities for universities and other education and training institutions 

Jean Monnet activities for other education and training institutions 

Designated institutions (bodies receiving operating grants under the current Jean 
Monnet, transnational school of governance) and 

* Cooperation partnerships in the sport field

47 

Y 

P 

Y 
Y 
P 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 

N 

Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
Y 
P 
Y 
Y 
P 

Y 

Y 

EACEA 

COM, EACEA 

COM 
COM, EACEA 
COM 
COM 
EACEA; COM; NAs 
COM 
EACEA 

EACEA 

COM; EACEA 
NAs 
NAs 
NAs 
NAs; EACEA 
COM; EACEA 
EACEA; COM; NAs 
COM, NAs 
COM, EACEA 
EACEA 

EACEA 

COM; EACEA 

 
 
 
4.  DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING 

Regarding  the  delivery  mechanisms  –  the  instruments  (mainly  grants)  and  the 
management  modes  -  direct  by  the  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive 
Agency and indirect by the National Agencies - will be preserved as no structural change 
is  needed  in  the  programme's  modus  operandi  according  to  the  mid-term  evaluation, 
which  found  them  fit  for  purpose  "with  a  good  overall  coordination  and  no  major 
inefficiencies  identified".  The  use  of  the  current  programme  infrastructure  will  ensure 
efficient  and  effective  implementation  focused  on  delivery  and  performance,  safeguard 
proven  efficiency  gains,  while  the  administrative  burden  will  be  decreased  compared  to 
the levels in the current programme.  

4.1.  Management modes  

To ensure efficient and effective implementation, the programme should make maximum 
use of existing tried and tested management arrangements already in place: i.e. existing 
structures - the Commission, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency 
and  the  National  Agencies.  The  proposed  continued  combination  of  programme 
management  modes  is  based  on  the  positive  experience  of  the  implementation  of 
Erasmus,  as  evaluated  at  mid-term.  It  builds  on  the  existing  structures  of  previous 
programmes,  in  compliance  with  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  proportionality  and 
efficiency.  The  preservation  of  tested  modalities  will  allow  focusing  on  delivery  and 
performance  while  minimising  administrative  burden  (such  as  what  was  experienced 
during  the  transition  from  the  2007-2013  to  the  2014-2020  program  generation).  The 
general  principle  would  be  maintained:    no  direct  support  will  be  given  to  individual 
beneficiaries;  all  support  will  continue 
through  participating 
organisations,  which  will  distribute  it  to  individual  learners  or  practitioners.  This 
approach  ensures  the  cooperation  between  the  home  and  host  organisations  as  a 
precondition for the quality of mobility. Overall the costs of management for the EU of 
the current programme are reasonable (6% of the Erasmus administrative and operational 
budget)47.  This  is  particularly  clear  when  compared  to  smaller  national  actions,  which 
appear more costly (on average, 14% of their respective budget).   

to  be  channelled 

4.1.1. Indirect management  
Erasmus  has  developed  a  unique  model  whereby  around  85%  of  the  budget  is 
implemented  by  designated  National  Agencies  established  in  each  of  the  EU  Member 
States  and  third  countries  associated  to  the  programme  countries  participating  to 
Erasmus,  to  promote  the  decentralised  actions  of  the  programme.  The  decentralised 
actions account for the highest volume of Erasmus (73% in 2015). National Agencies are 
equipped  to  manage  a  large  volume  of  actions  of  relatively  low  amounts  that  require 
proximity to the beneficiaries, adapts to the diversity of national education, training and 
youth  systems,  and  aligns  with  national  priorities.  The  mid-term  evaluation  reported 
highly  positive  feedback  regarding  the  implementation  by  the  NAs,  and  outlined  the 
system's efficiency. The NAs model has a proven record of sound financial management, 
high budget absorption with a high level of assurance (low error rate).  

47  This  includes  the  operating  grant  for  National  Agencies  as  well  as  the  administrative  expenditure  of  the 

Commission and EACEA. 

48 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                            
4.1.2. Direct management for centralised actions at European level, managed by:  

a)  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  (EACEA)  which  will  still 
account for a small share of the total budget (22% in 2015) for specific actions that 1) do 
not  have  acritical  mass  of  budget  to  be  decentralised,  2)  require  a  European-wide  or 
World-wide  intervention,  3)  are  still  embryonic  at  conceptual  level  and  need  a  "pilot" 
phase  of  before  being  decentralised,  or  4)  require  competition  based  on  excellence  at 
European level. The management cost by the Executive Agency (around 10%) is twice as 
lower than the management cost by the Commission (around 20%) due to the difference 
in nature of activities funded. 
b)  European  Commission  (EC),  which  will  continue  only  to  manage  directly  a  few 
support actions or actions supporting the implementation of the European frameworks for 
policy cooperation (5% of the total budget in 2015). The Commission will also bear the 
overall  responsibility  for  the  supervision  (see  section  below)  and  coordination  of  the 
agencies in charge of implementing the Programme. 

4.1.3. Control Systems 
A  solid  control  system  is  in  place  to  control  the  use  of  Union  funds  for  the  actions 
managed by National Agencies and EACEA.  
Legality and regularity of the transactions (the unintentional errors) 
Executive Agencies and all entrusted entities are always responsible for the primary level 
of controls in order to  ensure the protection of the Union’s financial interest, while the 
Commission is responsible for supervisory controls. Such system will be extended to the 
post2020  programme.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  apply  the  control  measures 
required  for  executive  agencies  in  accordance  with  the  Financial  Regulation  and  the 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  58/2003  on  executive  agencies.  While  National  Agencies 
will be in charge of primary controls of beneficiaries, their system of internal control and 
compliance will continue to be monitored and supervised by the Member States/National 
Authorities  and  audited  by  an  Independent  Audit  Body.  To  ensure  coherence  and 
reliability  of  controls  at  country  level,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  issue  yearly 
control guidance. 
Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities  
Each year the Commission will continue to review all reporting from National Agencies 
on possible fraud or irregularities. These cases are mainly followed up at national level 
where the National Agencies have direct access to means of legal redress and referral of 
fraud  cases.    As  concluded  in  the  mid-term  evaluation,  given  the  fact  that  the  scale  of 
fraud  within  the  programme  is  extremely  limited  and  is  largely  restricted  to  cases  of 
multiple  project  application  submissions  or  project  leaders  failing  to  honour  their 
obligations, the measures in place are considered both appropriate and proportionate.  
The  Commission  services  will  continue  contributing  to  OLAF  investigations.  Financial 
prejudice to the EU budget resulting from fraud established in final OLAF case reports 
concerning  programmes  with  similar  funding  rules  and  stakeholders  is  low.  Cases  are 
referred to OLAF and to IDOC as appropriate. 

5.  HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

5.1.  Monitoring arrangements of the future programme  

In  line  with  the  mid-term  evaluation  findings,  the  next  Erasmus  programme  aims  to 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
improve the monitoring system with regard to: 

  clarity and relevance of output indicators, as well as of the quality of the data   
 
  proportionality between the related burden on beneficiaries and the actual use of 

robustness of the self-reported results indicators 

the data for monitoring and dissemination purposes 

  balance of monitoring efforts according to types of action,  
  user-friendliness and further inter-operability of IT tools48. 

The future Erasmus monitoring and evaluation framework will follow an approach based 
on two main building blocks: 
  continuous  monitoring,  for  purposes  of  management,  reporting  and  accountability, 
communication,  visibility  and  exploitation  of results.  Monitoring activities  will  aim 
to  assess  the  progress  towards  achieving  the  output  and  results  targets  of  the 
programme, and to track the performance indicators in the short, medium and longer-
term based on predefined targets and benchmarks; 

  complementary  independant  evaluations  and  studies/surveys  to  identify  long-term 

impact of the programme. 

Continuous monitoring49 should be based on the following approaches: 
  a set of key performance indicators will be defined in the legislative proposal  
  a set of specific indicators will further detail and elaborate the legal basis indicators; 
these  specific  indicators  will  be  fully  aligned  with  the  intervention  logic,  and  will 
measure  all  the  inherent  dimensions  and  cumulative  effects  of  the  programme's 
objectives   

 

  a  set  of  comprehensive  data  plans  will  be  developed  in  order  to  detail  the  specific 
data needs, the data sources  as  well as  the measurement  modalities (e.g. frequency, 
size of samples, target audience, etc.) for each indicator  
regular assessment of qualitative results will be pursued through the means of online 
surveys  with  closed  questions,  addressed  to  various  target  groups  (participants  in 
mobility,  project  coordinators  and  representatives  of  beneficiary  organisations, 
decision-makers, etc.) 
the  timing  of  the  surveys  will  be  flexible,  allowing  to  capture  the  impact  post 
Erasmus participation  

 

 

  continuous  collection  of  information  on  progress  in  relation  to  the  quantitative 
outputs will be collected and exploited on ongoing basis via the dedicated IT systems, 
such as the Mobility Tool.  
the  administrative  burden  generated  by  the  reporting  obligations  will  be  reduced 
while  maintaining  the  by  several  measures:  a)  the  simplification  of  certain  award 
criteria  will  reduce  reporting  efforts;  b)  100%  monitoring  will  be  maintained  for 
certain  actions  such  as  for  individual  mobility;  for  other  actions,  the  monitoring 
sample will be reduced and made more proportionate; c) the current survey settings 
will  be  analysed  to  rationalise  the  data  collection  needs  and  remove  what  is  not 
considered essential. 

The  above  mentioned  data  plans  per  indicator  will  delineate  the  scope  and  content,  as 
well as the timing and the tools used for the measurement. For example, the inclusiveness 
dimension could be measured by analysing the diversified participation in the programme 

48  As a legacy of the past, several IT tools co-exist within Erasmus supporting various monitoring functions, such as 

control and detection of irregularities, accountability and transparency, as well as programme management. 

49  Main statistical data will be reported in the publicly available Erasmus Annual Report. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(e.g.  people  with  fewer  opportunities,  staff  or  organisations  working  with  people  with 
diadvantages);  tackling  social  inclusion  through  Erasmus  funded  activities  (e.g.  spcific 
topics  relevant  for  social  inclusion;  social  inclusion  as  a  programme  result  e.g.  wider 
access to the programme; staff or organisations that use strategies to tackle disadvantage 
following an Erasmus experience, etc.).  

The  IT  tools  currently  in  place  as  well  as  the  reporting  obligations  of  the  beneficiaries 
provide  a  wealth  of  information  and  data  (e.g.  large  volume  of  self-reported  feedback 
collected  through  systematic  beneficiary  surveys)  and  certain  are  planned  to  be 
maintained  for  the  future  programme.  In  line  with  the  mid-term  conclusions  as  well  as 
following-up  on  the  implementation  experience,  some  indicators  need  to  be  fine-tuned: 
less  data  could  be  collected  from  participants,  while  being  better  used.  Therefore,  the 
cumulative  mass  of  data  collected  on  outputs  could  also  be  reduced  and  made  more 
proportionate  to  the  benefit  of  a  more  strategic  assessment  of  the  results  for  the 
beneficiaries, coupled with an analysis supporting decision making. The concrete details 
will be established during the programming phase.  

5.2. 

Formal evaluation framework of the future programme 

The more complex and ambitious and long-term impact indicators will be measured only 
few times over the programming cycle, either in the context of the formal mid-term and 
ex-post evaluation exercises of the future programme, or through dedicated independent 
studies  and  surveys  to  be  undertaken  by  external  experts.  Some  surveys  (e.g.  the 
European  Graduate  Tracking  survey)  could  be  used  to  measure  the  causal  impact  of 
certain Erasmus actions. In order to develop further an adequate and detailed evaluation 
design measuring the effects of the programme, ad hoc evaluations (e.g case studies, ex-
post  evaluations,  etc)  would  be  foreseen.  Those  evaluations  will  be  developed  with  the 
relevant data collection at the appropriate level of granularity. 

For  the  next  programming  period,  most  of  the  current  evaluation  provisions  will  be 
maintained,  notably 
the  evaluation  criteria  of  relevance,  coherence,  efficiency, 
effectiveness (related to qualitative results and expected impact) and EU added value.  
One  of  the  possibilities  explored  would  be  to  merge  subsequent  evaluation  steps  –  i.e. 
mid-term evaluation of post 2020 Erasmus and the ex-post evaluation of Erasmus 2014-
2020.  The  mid-term  evaluation  -  based  on  a  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  state  of 
implementation  of the programme as  well as  of the results of the ex-post evaluation of 
the programme 2014-2020 - would allow to account for the impact of the improvements 
introduced  and  to  provide  coordinated  recommendations  for  the  continuation  of  the 
programme.  

Member  States  would  contribute  to  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  process  through 
National  Reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  programme  in  their  country.  When 
providing guidance on how to carry out National Reports, the Commission will underline 
the  opportunity  for  Member  States  to  merge  Erasmus  data  with  national  administrative 
data sources covering information relevant for Erasmus actions.  

The mid-term evaluation identified scope for the simplification of the future monitoring 
and evaluation arrangements, namely the proportionality issues. The data collection and 
monitoring  obligations  were  critically  reviewed  during  the  evaluation  exercise  and 
considered  to  add  unnecessary  burden  on  the  beneficiaries  of  the  programme  and  the 
implementation bodies. These findings will be taken duly into account when defining the 
proportional modalities of data collection (number and frequency of surveys, samples of 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
respondents,  amount  and  level  of  complexity  of  data  collected,  etc.),  while  preserving 
accountability and critical mass required.  

52 

 
 
5.3.  Legal basis indicators  

Indicator 

What to measure  

How to measure 

When to measure 

 Number of individuals taking part in mobility activities under 
Erasmus+ 

[Number of learners (Higher education students, VET learners, School 
pupils, young  people, adult learners) by the end of the programme 
Number of staff and participants in lifelong learning activities by the 
end of the programme]  

High-quality learning 
mobility for people from 
diverse backgrounds 

Number of people with fewer opportunities taking part in learning 
mobility activities under Erasmus+ 

Share of participants that consider to have had benefits from their 
participation in Erasmus+ learning mobility (competences, EU 
awareness, citizenship) 

1. Through IT systems (application 
forms, report forms, other tools) 

1. Data collected systematically. Yearly 
monitoring of the indicator. 

1. Through IT systems (application 
forms, report forms, other tools) 

2. Ad hoc survey  

1. Surveys among participants in 
mobility activities  

1. Data collected systematically. Yearly 
monitoring of the indicator. 

2. Deeper assessment of the inclusion 
dimension in the context of mid-term and final 
evaluation 
1. Participants fill in a survey at the end of 
her/his experience. Yearly monitoring of the 
indicator. 

2. Longitudinal study in the context 
of mid-term and final evaluation 

2. In the context of the mid-term and final 
evaluation exercises.   

Number of organisations and institutions supported by the programme 
under key action 1 (learning mobility) and key action 2 (cooperation)  

1. Through IT systems (application 
forms, report forms, other tools) 

1. Data collected systematically. Yearly 
monitoring of the indicator. 

Europeanisation and 
Internationalisation of 
organisations and 
institutions  

Number of newcomer organisations and institutions supported by the 
programme under key action 1 (learning mobility) and key action 2 
(cooperation)   

Share of organisations and institutions supported by the programme 
who have developed high quality practices as a result of their 
participation in Erasmus+ 

1. Through IT systems (application 
forms, report forms, other tools) 

1. Data collected systematically. Yearly 
monitoring of the indicator. 

1. Surveys among beneficiaries of 
cooperation projects 

1. Beneficiaries fill in a survey at final report 
stage. Yearly monitoring of the indicator. 

2. Study in the context of mid-term 
and final evaluation 

2. In the context of the mid-term and final 
evaluation exercises.   

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

LEAD DG(S), DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

  DG  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture  (DG  EAC)  is  the  lead  DG  for  the 

Erasmus post 2020 initiative. 

ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The reflections for this Impact Assessment have been steered by DG Education, Youth, Sport 
and Culture since February 2017.  
The  Impact  Assessment  has  been  under  the  scrutiny  of  an  inter-service  steering  group 
(ISSG) comprising  representatives of  SJ,  SG,  DGs  BUDG,  JUST,  HOME,  NEAR,  REGIO, 
AGRI, CNECT, DIGIT, DEVCO, ECHO, EMPL, EPSC, GROW, JRC.  
The ISSG on the upcoming MFF proposals in the area of learning mobility has been chaired 
by the SG. 

The ISSG reviewed the draft Impact Assessment Staff Working Document as well as the next 
generation Erasmus+ programme Legal Basis. 

ISSG meetings took place on: 

  28 February 2018  (Kick-off –  Inception Impact Assessment), 
  19 March 2018 (Draft Impact Assessment)  
  17 April 2018 (Draft Legal Basis). 

DG EAC informed the ISSG on the Regulatory Scrutiny Board's positive opinion as received 
on 13 April 2018. 

 CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD 

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board,  responsible  for  the  independent  quality  control  of  this 
Impact assessment, was consulted two times for the purposes of the preparation of the Impact 
Assessment as follows: 

a) Informal upstream meeting  
An informal upstream meeting was held on 30 January 2018 with RSB representatives and the 
participation  of  SG,  DG  BUDG  and  the  JRC.  During  this  discussion  Board  members  and 
representatives  of  the  horizontal  Services  provided  early  feedback  and  advice  on  the  basis 
of the  Inception  Impact  Assessment  Board  members'  feedback  did  not  prejudge  in  any  way 
the subsequent formal deliberations of the RSB. 

b) Meeting on the Impact Assessment  
The  Board  was  consulted  on  21  March  and  met  on  11  April  2018.  The  Board  provided  a 
positive opinion with reservations on 13 April 2018.   
Clear  and  useful  comments  were  provided  by  the  Board  aiming  to  reinforce  the  Erasmus 
programme  proposal.  The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  acknowledged  in  its  positive  opinion 
with  reservations  the  efforts  to  document  the  findings  from  the  mid-term  evaluation  and  to 
outline the challenges for the next period. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As  a  follow-up,  all  Board's  comments  have  been  duly  addressed  in  the  revised  IA.  The 
following  changes  have  been  made  to  this  Staff  Working  Document,  in  response  to  the 
Board’s main considerations.   
Regulatory Scrutiny Board's 
recommendations 

Changes to the IA Staff Working Document 

report  does  not  provide 
(1)  The 
the 
justification 
sufficient 
continuation  and  possible  extension  of 
activities  with  acknowledged  limited 
relevance  or  EU  value  added  (Jean 
Monnet, sport and adult learning). 

for 

(2) The report lacks a balanced analysis 
of  effectiveness  and  relevance  of  new 
initiatives  (e.g.  European  University 
Networks).  

It does not justify the re-introduction of 
measures  that  were  discontinued  in  the 
past  on  performance  grounds  (e.g. 
individual mobility of school pupils and 
adults). 

Several  sections  of  the  impact  assessment,  notably 
section  3,  have  been  complemented  and  revised  to 
outline  more  clearly  the  rationale,  efficiency  gains 
and added value for the proposed improved actions. 
Accounting  for  the  weaknesses  pointed  out  in  the 
Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation has been reinforced, 
clarified  and  made  more  visible,  notably  for  the 
Jean  Monnet,  sport  and  adult  learning  actions 
(sections 1.3.1 and 3.1). 
Additional  clarity  has  been  brought  on  the  various 
means  pursuing  further  simplification,  both  in  the 
implementation methods i.e. reduced administrative 
burden,  but  also  in  the  design  of  the  proposed 
actions.  Two 
time  horizons  are  envisaged: 
improvements  already  implemented  during  the 
current  programme,  and  continued  efforts  for  the 
post 2020 period (section 3, point 5). 
European  Universities  -  In  terms  of  relevance,  the 
consulted  stakeholders  see  a  great  need  and 
potential for this type of cooperation platforms that 
will  allow  for  better  integration  of  the  studies 
Europe-wide, in order to be more responsive to the 
modern  societal  challenges.  Furthermore, 
this 
activity  is  coherent  and  is  contributing  to  the 
broader  EU  level  policy  objective  of  building  a 
European  Education  Area  by  2025.  A  relatively 
limited  number  of  networks  are  projected  for  the 
the  programme.  To 
seven  years  duration  of 
preserve  effectiveness,  it  is  proposed  for  the 
networks  to  be  embedded  through  centralised 
management mode. 

findings 

The  proposed  actions  regarding  school  pupils' 
mobility have been clarified under section 3. Pupils' 
mobility  is  currently  possible  under  the  on-going 
Erasmus programme, embedded in the cooperation 
projects  in  key  action  2.  In  line  with  the  mid-term 
evaluation 
that  outlined  difficulties 
regarding  the  access  to  pupils'  mobility  via  these 
cooperation  projects,  it  is  proposed  to  transfer  this 
action under the mobility strand of the programme 
(key action 1) to further simplify the access. 
A  set  of  risks  has  been  identified  along  with  their 
mitigation means (section 3.4). 
The prioritisation of the proposed actions has been 
reinforced. Several of the improved actions that are 

55 

 
 
(3) The potential synergies with other 
future EU programmes and instruments 
are not sufficiently elaborated. 

proposed  will  be  very  cost-efficient  (for  example 
virtual  and  blended  mobility),  while  certain 
solutions  addressing  mid-term  evaluation  findings 
will  not  require  additional  financial  efforts.  They 
majority of the proposed actions entail a streamline 
and  rationalisation  of  their  scope,  target  audience 
and  delivery  mechanisms  to  make  them  more 
effective and increase their impact. 

as 

such 

schemes 

learning  dimension  under  Erasmus 

An  extended  description,  as  well  as  concrete 
examples  of  potential  synergies  with  other  EU 
funding  programmes  has  been  included  under 
section 3 and under Annex IV. 
The  integration  of  other  mobility  schemes  with  a 
strong 
is 
envisaged  as  a  concrete  tool  to  enhance  the 
implementation  of  synergies  (section  3,  point  5 
have  been  updated  accordingly).  It  is  proposed  to 
use  the  Erasmus  programme  infrastructure  and 
delivery mechanisms as a "vehicle", and following 
the  Erasmus  intervention  logic.  Certain  of  the 
envisaged 
the  Digital 
Opportunities,  will  be  fully  integrated  in  the 
programme,  whereas  other  schemes,  such  as  the 
Erasmus  for  Young  Entrepreneurs,  could  be 
implemented  as  a  new  action  although  applying 
rules,  criteria  and  procedures  that  are  common  or 
similar to existing Erasmus actions.  
The  concept  of  inclusion  has  been  clarified  with 
respect to education and training in general, as well 
as  its  implications  specifically  for  the  Erasmus 
programme  under  section  2.1.2,  point  B)  and 
section  3,  point  2.  The  inclusion  dimension  of  the 
programme  is  deemed  to  step  up  efforts  to  target 
people with fewer opportunities and disadvantaged 
socio-economic  background,  as  well  to  simplify 
and  widen  the  access  to  a  larger  target  group  of 
individuals and organisation in Europe and beyond. 
The  pursuit  of  more  inclusion  will  by  no  means 
hamper 
the 
programme.  The  proposed  measures  will  be  a 
continuation  of  the  efforts  undertaken  under  the 
current  programming  period.  In  addition, 
the 
inclusive  component  of  the  programme  is  catered 
for  by  specific  measures,  with  sufficient  scale  and 
defined  target  groups,  as  reflected  in  the  specific 
objectives.  The  social  inclusion  dimension  and 
subsequent actions will not be 'in competition' with 
the other objectives of the programme, but they will 
be complementary to it. 

the  effectiveness  and  focus  for 

56 

 
 
 
 
EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The  data  sources  from  which  the  evidence  was  drawn  for  the  purposes  of  this  Impact 
Assessment covered  

 
 

the Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes mid-term evaluation50  
the input received following the Open Public Consultation in the area of Values and 
Mobility51  

  A series of Position Papers and National Reports received from various stakeholders 
(see  details  regarding  the  stakeholders'  consultation  activities  in  Annex  2  of  the 
present Impact Assessment)  

  External  consultant  expertise.  The  external  evaluator  (ICF)  contracted  for  the 
Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes mid-term evaluation52 has provided, within 
the  framework  of  the  same  contract,  since  November  2017,  inputs  for  the  Impact 
Assessment of the Erasmus+ programme post 2020, under the steer of DG Education, 
Youth, Sport and Culture. 

A  detailed  description  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  activities  is  provided  in  Annex  2.

50  Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents.evaluations_en  
51  OPC Values and Mobility https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-eu-funds-area-values-and-

mobility_en   

52  ICF Consulting Services Ltd under specific contract – EAC-2016-0219 implementing Framework contract EAC/22/2013 

57 

 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Stakeholder consultation synopsis report 

This  impact  assessment  builds  on  direct  consultation  activities  with  various  stakeholder 
groups who have a stake in the successor of Erasmus programme post 2020.  
In line with the European Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines, this annex:  

  offers  an  overview  of  the  consultation  of  stakeholders  and  interested  parties, 

presenting the main steps and findings 

  This  report  supports  the  assessment  of  the  robustness  of  the  evidence  base  used  for 

this impact assessment.  

The  two  open  public  consultations  (OPCs)  that  served  the  purposes  of  this  Impact 
Assessment were carried out primarily in two contexts: 

1.  The  Open  Public  Consultation  within  the  framework  of  the  Erasmus+  and  its 
predecessor programmes mid-term evaluation (open from 28 February to 31 May 
2017) 

2.  The  Open  Public  Consultation  in  the  area  of  Values  and  Mobility53,  conducted 

for 8 weeks (open from 10 January to 09 March 2018). 

Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation consultation activities 

The  mid-term  evaluation  consultations  focused  primarily  on  past  performance  of  the 
programme. In addition, it included a separate forward-looking component aiming to identify 
areas for improvement and future priorities. The consultation activities on Erasmus + carried 
out within the framework of the mid-term evaluation covered:  

  open public consultation54 The Open Public Consultation covered objectives for the future 
Erasmus  programme,  importance  of  types  of  actions,  views  on  the  share  of  funding  per 
sector and improvement of effectiveness and efficiency of the programme. A number of 
1788 valid responses were received. 

  direct  consultations  with  various  stakeholder  groups  involved  in  the  implementation  of 
the  Erasmus+  and  predecessor  programmes,  as  detailed  within  the  Annex  II  of  the 
SWD(2018)40final55.  The  Erasmus+  mid-term  evaluation  consultation  activities  covered 
primarily:  

  24 position papers from relevant stakeholders were received regarding retrospective and 

forward looking opinions about the programme 

  National authorities' reports offering views on future evolution of the programme 
  Surveys of beneficiary and non-beneficiary staff, as well as the survey of socio-economic 

actors, provided insights on the barriers to participation in the programme 

  Interviews  with  decision  makers  (who  were  not  direct  programme  beneficiaries)  in  15 
selected countries as well as 59 stakeholders at EU level covered future thematic priorities 

53  Open Public Consultation on EU funds in the area of values and mobility https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-

consultation-eu-funds-area-values-and-mobility_en  

54  Open Public Consultation Mid-term evaluation Erasmus+ and its predecessors programmes 

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/consultations/erasmus-plus-mid-term-evaluation-2017_en  

55  SWD Erasmus+ Mid-term Evaluation  https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/erasmus-plus/eval/swd-e-plus-mte.pdf  

58 

 
 
 
     
                                                            
All  the  mentioned  consultation  activities  have  been  duly  documented  in  the  mid-term 
evaluation published reports that are publicly available. 

Consulted stakeholders  - The range of stakeholder  input  informing  this impact assessment 
was broad, encompassing non-beneficiaries as well as direct and indirect beneficiaries of the 
programmes  at  the  individual  (learners  and  practitioners),  organisation  and  system  level 
covering: 

-  key stakeholders active in education and training, youth and sport with different levels 
of  knowledge  and  experience  with  Erasmus+  and/or  predecessor  programmes: 
addressed through the two Open Public Consultations 

-  all current programme target groups, both for Key Action 1 (mobility) and Key Action 
2  (organisational  cooperation):  addressed  though  the  surveys  of  beneficiary  learners 
and staff and related control groups  
socio-economic actors (i.e. companies, public authorities, civic organisations, sectoral 
bodies, etc.): addressed through the socio-economic actors survey 

- 

-  project  assessors  (i.e.  experts  contracted  by  the  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture 
Executive  Agency  and/or  the  National  Agencies  to  assess  project  applications  and 
reports): addressed through the experts survey 

-  National  Agencies  and  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  staff 

members: addressed through the programme agencies survey 

-  Selected  EU  and  national  level56  key  informants  involved  with  programme(s) 
implementation  (EU  level)  or  benefitting  from  it  and/or  its  predecessors:  key 
stakeholders/  key  stakeholder  organisations  representatives,  European  Commission 
officials (EC and agencies (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency and 
European  Training  Foundation),  ministries’  representatives.  Those  were  addressed 
through the Key informant interviews (KIIs) 

-  Selected  national  level57  informants  benefitting  from  the  programme(s)  in  the  three 
fields  above  comprising:  beneficiary  organisations’  leadership,  practitioners  and 
learners,  targeted  funded  project  leaders,  other  key  stakeholders  (where  applicable). 
Those were addressed through the case studies. 

 Profile of mid-term evaluation OPC respondents: 

-  47% represent organisations: i.e. 57% in higher education, 21% in school education, 
19% in vocational education and training, 14% in adult education, 13% in youth and 
3% in sport – 7% other – multiple choice question) 

-  53% respond in private capacity: i.e. 59% practitioners in one of the sectors – higher 
education staff, school staff and a variety of other profiles, 19% learners, 12% other. 

Open Public Consultation on EU funds in the area of values and mobility 

In  view  of  the  preparation  by  the  European  Commission  of  the  next  generation  of  EU 
spending  programmes  post  2020,  an  open  public  consultation  has  been  launched  by  the 
European Commission as of 10 January running up until 09 March 2018.  The objective was 
to  collect the views of all interested parties on current  programmes' performance  and future 
challenges for Europe, as well on how to make the most of every euro of the EU budget.  

56  Focusing on 15 Programme countries: BG, CY, CZ, DK, ES, FR, DE, HU, IE, IT, LV, PL, SE, TR, UK 
57  Focusing on 15 Programme countries: BG, CY, CZ, DK, ES, FR, DE, HU, IE, IT, LV, PL, SE, TR, UK 

59 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  open  consultation  was  focused  on  a  cluster  of  EU  funding  programmes;  the  present 
analysis  only  covers  the  Erasmus  relevant  replies  and  does  not  offer  a  comprehensive 
overview  of  results  for  all  programmes.  A  consolidated  synopsis  report  for  each  of  the 
clusters,  including  for  the  one  on  values  and  mobility  will  be  published  by  the 
Commission.[reference] 

Summary of the received replies: 

-  Out  of  the  total  1839  replies  received,  a  total  of  1,127  responses  were  considered  of 
training,  youth  work  or 

relevance  for  Erasmus  (i.e.  mobility,  education  and 
volunteering).   
In  addition  to  the  online  questionnaire,  the  public  consultation  also  offered  respondents 
the  possibility  to  upload  position  papers.  In  total,  over  200  position  papers  were 
submitted, out of which around 80 were of relevance for Erasmus programme.  

- 

Profile of Public Consultation values and mobility respondents 

-  42% respondents were individuals  
-  58%  represented  organisations:  38%  non-governmental  organisations,  platforms  or 
networks, 18% research and academia, 11% regional or local authority, private enterprises 
6%. 

As an individual in your personal capacity

In your professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation

Churches and religious communities

International or national public authority

Non-governmental organisation, platform or network

Other

Private enterprise

Professional consultancy, law firm, self-employed consultant

Regional or local authority (public or mixed)

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other consultations 

DG  EAC  has  conducted  extended  consultation  of  stakeholders  in  various  fora  such  as  the 
Erasmus  Programme  Committee,  the  Erasmus  National  Agencies  were  consulted  during  the 
bi-annual  meetings  with the Commission, but  also the conclusions of the European Council 
Education  Committee,  as  well  as  of  the  European  Parliament  Committee  on  Culture  and 
Education. 

Conclusions 

Overall,  the  mix  of  consultation  activities  described  above  enabled  to  effectively  address  a 
relevant  breadth  of  stakeholders.  As  a  result,  insights  were  gained  from  a  range  of  relevant 
key  players  on  different  yet  complementary  dimensions  towards  the  future  programming 
period. 

The  number  of  responses  received  and  processed  has  been  sufficiently  significant  to  ensure 
the robustness of the analysis. Overall the number of respondents per sector is proportionate 
to  the  participation  and  the  size  of  these  sectors  within  the  programme  e.g.  the  share  of 
respondents from higher education is higher than those from other sectors, while the share of 
respondents in adult education and sport is comparatively relatively low. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of stakeholders consulted 
General public including key stakeholders 
active in education and training, youth and 
sport 

Consultation approach/ topics 
Consulted as part of the Open Public Consultation on EU funds in the area of values and mobility  
Main topics covered were importance of challenges future programmes could be addressing, effectiveness of current 
programmes to tackle these challenges, barriers to programme effectiveness and steps to improve existing 
programmes.  

Method  
Open Public 
Consultation  

National authorities in charge of the 
programme and key stakeholders in each of 
the countries  

Beneficiaries (learners and practitioners) of 
mobility actions and cooperation actions as 
well as control groups  

Organisations other than the primary target 
group, i.e. companies, public authorities, civil 
society (other than youth organisations) 

Assessors supporting project selection and 
those supporting evaluation of final reports  

Agencies in charge of programme 
implementation  
One respondent per sector  
Key stakeholders in education and training, 
youth and sport (EU/national level) 

Staff, learners, leadership, project leaders and 
other stakeholders if relevant  

General public including key stakeholders 
active in education and training, youth and 
sport 

Consulted as part of Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation  
National authorities provided a report covering all evaluation criteria.  
While the questions focused on past performance, suggestions for future developments were provided by many 
countries.  
A separate synthesis report was prepared as part of the mid-term evaluation.  
Consulted as part of Erasmus+  mid-term evaluation  
Main topics covered concerned the results of participation in the programme  
Staff were asked among other things about barriers to participation which informed the impact assessment 

Consulted as part of Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation  
Main topics covered concerned the results of participation in the programme as well as motivations to participate  
Barriers to participation were also addressed 
Consulted as part of Erasmus+  mid-term evaluation  
Main topics covered different features of the quality of applications and projects funded and their relevance. 
Questions were also asked about the efficiency of the application process.  
Consulted as part of Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation  
Main questions concerned efficiency of programme disbursement as well as relevance of different types of actions to 
EU and national priorities  
Consulted as part of Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation  
Main questions concerned relevance as well as system level effects.  
Consulted as part of Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation  
Main questions concerned relevance to the needs of these organisations as well as learners, effectiveness and 
efficiency 
Open Public Consultation carried out as part of Erasmus+  mid-term evaluation  
All evaluation criteria were covered as well as specific questions about the future programme focusing on types of 
actions to retain/ modify, the continued relevance of priorities and the share of funding allocation per sector.  

62 

Nbr of respondents/cases/records 
1127 respondents provided answers about at 
least one of the topics concerning Erasmus + 
(mobility, education and training, youth work or 
volunteering)   
80 Position Papers 
Each country submitted a report (34 reports). 
The evidence base for these reports varied but 
many countries organised surveys, interviews 
and focus groups 

National authority 
reports  

Beneficiary and 
control group 
surveys  

Socioeconomic 
actors survey 

Learners: 24,037   beneficiaries and 2,695 from 
control group  
Staff: 20,155 beneficiaries and 928 from control 
group  
947 valid responses  

Experts survey 

1,122 valid responses 

Programme 
agencies survey 

130 valid responses 

Key informant 
interviews 

Case studies 

59 at EU level  
131 in 15 countries  
233 respondents 
38 case studies 

Open Public 
Consultation  

1,788 valid responses  
Of which 1315 respondents answered questions 
about future programme 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION RESULTS 

A.1. Evaluation exercises 
The present Annex outlines the evaluation exercise undertaken for the Erasmus+ programmes 
on-going  for  the  current  programming  period  2014-2020  as  well  as  for  its  predecessor 
programmes as of 2007. 
On January 31st 2018, the European Commission completed the mid-term evaluation exercise 
and published: 

  A  European  Commission  Report58  (available  in  23  languages)  on  the  evaluation 
findings  and  the  ways  to  address  its  recommendations  within  the  next  programming 
period. 

  An  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document59  providing  additional  references  and 

facts. 

All information referring to mid-term evaluation is available on a dedicated website60. 

A.1.1. Relevant Consultations of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

DG EAC has consulted the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 16 October 2017 and submitted the 
Erasmus+  mid-term  evaluation  to  the  attention  of  the  Board  on  15  November  2017.  The 
Board provided a positive opinion with comments61 and acknowledged the significant efforts 
of  data  and  evidence  collection,  as  well  as  the  good  methodology  used.  The  Board's 
comments  to  improve  the  Staff  Working  Document  have  been  fully  addressed.  A  table 
outlining  the  Board's  recommendations  and  the  way  in  which  they  have  been  reflected  is 
presented  here  below  and  has  been  published  in  the  Annex  1,  section  4  of  the  Mid-term 
Evaluation Staff Working Document. 

Regulatory 
Scrutiny 
Board's 
recommendation 
(1) The 
conclusions are 
not sufficiently 
balanced and 
precise. They do 
not accurately 
reflect some of 
the programme 

Changes made to the Staff Working Document 

Both the Executive summary and the conclusions have been revised to 
outline more clearly the weaknesses pointed out by the external evaluator 
in its conclusions and across the Staff Working Document. 
Any evaluation Staff Working Document has to remain backward-
looking according to Better Regulation guidelines. For that reason, the 
recommendations are addressed in the Commission report to Council and 
Parliament, without anticipating the conclusions of a future Impact 
assessment. 

58  COM(2018) 50 final   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:50:FIN  
59  SWD(2018) 40 final 

https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/erasmus-plus/eval/swd-e-plus-mte.pdf  

60  Erasmus+ Mid-term Evaluation website 

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmusplus/resources/documents.evaluations_en  

61  Ares(2017)5629740 - 17/11/2017 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
strengths and 
weaknesses that 
the evaluation 
and its supporting 
study identified. 
They also do not 
provide enough 
guidance for 
future decisions 
about the 
programme. 
(2) The report 
does not clearly 
define the scope 
of the evaluation 
and the 
baseline/benchma
rks against which 
it assesses the 
programme. 

(3) The report 
does not 
adequately 
address 
simplification 
and efficiency 
improvement. 

The Commission can accept all 11 recommendations received from the 
external evaluator (section 9 of ICF's final report) to a smaller or larger 
extent. 
- 5 recommendations are cross-cutting (innovation; inclusiveness; 
strategic investment in the best place sectors; systemic impact of projects; 
policy prioritisation at selection stage) 
- 4 recommendations concern a specific sector (SLGF; Jean Monnet 
actions; Adult education; Sport) 
- 2 recommendations deal with process (simplification; monitoring) 

The baseline for this evaluation is the period 2007-2013 unless otherwise 
specified. This is now stated explicitly in the introduction and in the 
section about the evaluation method (4.1 and 4.2). In addition, it has been 
specified more systematically, especially across the section on 
effectiveness (5.1), where the scope of a given finding concern all 
evaluated programmes (e.g. findings from evaluation surveys of 
beneficiaries cover 10 years) or Erasmus+ only (e.g. findings from 
monitoring surveys concern by definition only the current programme). 
The choice of an intervention logic (2.2) covering the two programming 
periods has been further justified (4.1) 
To better support the claim that Erasmus+ has achieved or exceeded most 
of its targets, a new annex (5e) has been produced reporting on all 
indicators from the legal basis against targets set in DG EAC's Strategic 
Plan 
The Staff Working Document (5.1, 5.4.1, 5.4.4, 5.4.5) has been 
completed with more information about measures taken since 2014 to 
improve monitoring, efficiency and to simplify the programme 
implementation. It is also explained now why the Impact assessment 
regarding efficiency gains cannot be regarded as a reference (5.4.4). 
The Commission has not waited for the mid-term evaluation to start 
working on simplification (e.g. application forms). The level of 
complaints about the administrative burden has decreased as of 2016 after 
a steep learning curve on the new programme. 

A.1.2. Main Evaluation Outcomes 

The main evaluation outcomes have been summarized within the above mentioned European 
Commission  Report  and  also  outlined  within  Section  1.3.  Lessons  learned  from  previous 
programmes of the present Impact Assessment document.  

Overall,  the  programmes  evaluated  have  proved  to  be  highly  effective.  Erasmus+  appears 
more coherent, relevant and only partly more efficient than its predecessors.  

The recommendations mainly concern: 

  cross-cutting  issues  such  as  boosting  inclusiveness  for  more  vulnerable  groups; 
strategic  investment  in  the  sectors  with  highest  potential  performance  (schools, 
vocational  education  and  training,  youth);  better  policy  prioritisation;  enhance  the 

64 

 
 
 
innovation potential at sector level; ensure systemic impact of projects through further 
involvement of policy makers;  

  specific  areas  -  aiming  at  addressing  the  relative  weaknesses  of  the  Student  Loan 

Guarantee Facility; Jean Monnet activities; adult education; sport;  

  The  process  looking  at  possibilities  to  include  more  simplification  and  better 

monitoring of the programme. 

The  criteria  used  for  the  evaluation  were  the  programme's  effectiveness  at  individual, 
organisational and at system level; its coherence, both internally and externally. The mid-term 
evaluation also assessed the relevance of the programme.  

Source - European Commission Report and SWD 

Effectiveness 

The  current  programme  and  its  predecessors  deliver  a  unique  package  of  outcomes  in  the 
field of education, training, youth and sport.  Beneficiaries report above 90% satisfaction rates 
for  learners  and  even  higher  for  staff.  In  the  period  2007–2016,  all  programmes  reviewed 
have  supported  together  more  than  4.3 million  learners  and  880,000  practitioners  as  well  as 
940,000 organisations.  

The  evaluation  identified  a  broad range  of  results  and impacts  at  the  level  of  learners  (with 
particularly  outstanding  effects  of  mobility),  practitioners,  organisations  (in  particular  their 
internationalisation,  including  beyond  the  EU)  and  also,  to  a  certain  extent,  systems  and 
policies (fostering the recognition of learning outcomes across borders).  

At individual level 

For most individuals, including when compared with the situation of non-beneficiaries, their 
experience  abroad  has  contributed  not  only  to  their  skills'  development  and  future  career 
prospects  but  also  to  deep  changes  to  their  personal  development.  The  programme 
stimulated networking  among both  learners and staff and contributed to the development of 
openness  to  other  cultures  and  positive  attitude  towards  the  European  project.  Yet  the 
evaluation points to the need to do more to reach out to the more vulnerable in society and 
to facilitate the participation of smaller-size organisations.  

At organisational level 

The programmes reviewed have demonstrated a range of effects on organisations, particularly 
internationalisation,  within  and  outside  the  EU.  The  changes  at  organisational  level  are 
however  progressing  slowly  and  continued  participation 
for  deeper 
transformations. 

is  needed 

At system level 

In the long term, the programmes have led to a cultural shift in Europe in the way learning 
mobility  abroad  is  perceived  and  its  learning  outcomes  are  validated  and  recognised. 
The  programmes  evaluated  have  also  been  important  for  increasing  the  EU's  global 
outreach.  

The evaluation also confirmed that the programmes reviewed have had a direct impact on 
education, training, youth and sport policies where the related budget was large enough or 

65 

 
 
 
had  an  indirect  effect  by  funding  policy  cooperation  between  authorities.  The  system  level 
changes  through  critical  mass  are  much  clearer  in  the  higher  education  sector  than  in  other 
sectors which receive comparatively much less funding. 

Systemic  effectiveness  is  less  in  evidence  for  Jean  Monnet,  adult  learning  and  sport, 
where funded EU actions lack the critical mass and/or a sufficiently relevant focus.  

The evaluation underlines in particular that the impact in the adult learning sector is diluted 
due to the fragmented and diverse nature of the sector. 

The resources for mainstreaming project results are spread across too many topics at EU level 
and  are  insufficient  at  national  level.  Although  local  innovation  with  direct  impact  for 
participating organisations is achieved by the programme, this innovation doesn't go beyond 
the  state  of  the  art  developments  in  a  given  sector.  The  evidence  of  the  exploitation  of 
project  results  by  policy  makers  is  not  always  clear,  especially  when  the  latter  are  not 
engaged in the project from the beginning.  

Coherence 

The  evaluation  found  a  high  external  coherence  between  Erasmus+  and  other  relevant  EU 
policies and programmes (e.g. European  Social Fund, Horizon 2020).  Although  the level of 
synergies differs, it is notable that the evaluation detected very few overlaps.  

The internal coherence of the programme resulting from the lifelong learning coverage 
and integration of fields often kept separate at national level into a single EU programme is 
increasingly  perceived  as  facilitating  complementarities  and  international  outlook.  This 
consistent  scope  supports  the  idea  that  learning  opportunities  offered  are  equally  important 
for the development of people, be it through formal or non-formal and informal learning.  

There  is  a  strong  degree  of  cross-sectoral  cooperation  within  Erasmus+,  which  has 
increased sharply compared to predecessor programmes. The majority of cooperation projects 
in  all  sectors  include  at  least  one  organisation  which  can  be  considered  as  coming  from 
another  sector.  There  is  an  overall  consensus  that  an  integrated  programme  boosted  the 
promotion of the actions and the visibility of the different sectors. 

Coherence can still be improved in relation to sport in reducing overlaps with non-formal 
education activities.  

Relevance 

The evaluation showed that Erasmus+ is better aligned with EU policies than its predecessor 
programmes and entails sufficient flexibility to adapt to EU-level emerging needs. However, 
to maximise the programme's impact, the evaluation recommends that priorities at selection 
stage be reduced and better focused.  

The  contribution  of  Erasmus+  to  a  more  cohesive  Union  is  also  clearly  evidenced.  The 
programme  reaches  out  to  disadvantaged  people  more  than  previous  EU  programmes  or 
comparable national schemes, although more still needs to be done to reach out to the more 
vulnerable  in  society  as  outlined  above.  The  geographical  balance  has  also  improved  with 
small countries and countries from Central and Eastern Europe being better integrated than in 
the predecessor programmes. 

66 

 
 
The evaluation noted that there is potential for introducing better targeted actions to maximise 
the  relevance  of  Jean  Monnet  activities.  Teaching  and  research  on  EU  matters  is  now 
relatively  wide-spread  in  higher  education.  In  contrast,  there  is  a  need  to  strengthen  the 
understanding  of  European  integration  and  sense  of  belonging  to  Europe  amongst  the 
youngest generations.  

Efficiency 

The costs of programme management appear reasonable (6% of Erasmus+ administrative 
and  operational  budget)  and  lower  than  for  similar  programmes  at  national  level  (14%  in 
average).  The hybrid combination of different programme management modes and bodies 
is  fit  for  purpose  with  a  good  overall  coordination  and  no  major  inefficiencies  identified. 
Through decentralised actions, the programmes get close to their target audience and offer 
the  possibility  to  align  with  national  priorities.  Very  positive  feedback  was  received  on  the 
support provided by and to National Agencies. Centralised actions align more with EU level 
priorities and help to respond to urgent political priorities.  

Simplification 

Aside  the  separate  chapters  for  Jean  Monnet  and  sport,  the  integration  has  led  to  greater 
simplicity  of  programme  architecture  benefiting  beneficiaries  and  managers.  The 
integration  also  makes  programme  monitoring  more  comprehensive  and  clearer,  although 
there  is  room  for  a  smarter  collection  and  a  better  exploitation  of  data,  enhancing 
transparency and accountability.  

The procedural burden on beneficiaries (application, reporting, etc.) is the main recurrent 
issue.  Many  agree  that  Erasmus+  has  considerably  simplified  a  number  of  processes 
(simplified  grants,  digitalisation,  VET  Charter,  on-line  linguistic  support,  etc.).  However, 
procedures and  IT  management  tools  impose  a burden  on  beneficiaries which  is  not  always 
proportionate to the grant they receive.  

Applicants  for  small  strategic  partnerships  are  too  often  expected  to  meet  the  same 
requirements  as  applicants  for  large  ones.  Furthermore,  it  is  hard  to  clearly  assess  the  cost-
effectiveness of these actions considering their relatively average level of innovation. There 
is not enough differentiation made in the way of handling smaller (mainly collaborative) and 
larger  (innovative)  projects.  The  evaluation  recommends  simplifying  the  application  forms, 
reviewing  the  award  criteria  to  better  reflect  key  success  factors  for  effectiveness  and 
strengthening the review at mid-term in particular for bigger projects.    

Another challenge hampering efficiency is linked to the funding for international higher 
education, which remains managed separately for each global region in a too rigid manner. 

European added value 

30  years  after  its  beginnings  in  the  field  of  higher  education,  Erasmus+  has  become  a 
flagship  programme  of  the  EU.  The  programme  is  highly  valued  by  the  general  public  as 
well as by all stakeholders. It is consistently identified by citizens as  one of the three most 
positive results of European integration. 

Erasmus+  remains  unique.  Whereas  there  are  other  schemes  funding  comparable  actions  at 
national level, these are much smaller both in volume and scope. It is unlikely that alternative 

67 

 
 
measures  would  be  able  to  compensate  for  Erasmus+  funding,  demonstrating  its  strong 
European added value. 

For the future, without prejudice to negotiations on the next Multi Financial Framework, the 
evaluation  concludes  that  it  would  be  relevant  to  reconsider  the  overall  budget.  It  also 
suggests  modifying  the  share-out  between  the  programme  sectors,  whereby  potential 
increases could be directed to sectors showing the highest performance, but which have, until 
now,  received  relatively  less  funding.  School  education  and  vocational  education  and 
training  (VET),  where  the  impact  is  not  yet  as  widespread  as  in  higher  education,  were 
identified as having the most promising potential for an expanded participation in Erasmus 
activities  in  the  coming  years.  The  unmet  demand  and  the  potential  for  maximising 
effectiveness call for a stronger investment for the future development of the programme. 

68 

 
 
ANNEX 4: SYNERGIES WITH OTHER MFF FUNDING INSTRUMENTS  

As reminded in the MFF Communication of 02 May 2018, the in-built flexibility of the MFF 
is  of  paramount  importance.  This  Impact  Assessment  explored  potential  'avenues'  for 
implementing  the  synergies  between  the  Erasmus  and  other  EU  funding  programmes.  The 
present  Annex  provides  an  indicative  overview  of  some  important  synergies  from  the 
perspective of Erasmus, nevertheless, it does not constitute and exhaustive list. 

A.  Synergies  between  the  future  Erasmus  programme  and  the  future  European 
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) 

Significant potential for complementarities and synergies between Erasmus and the European 
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) has been identified as a number of these programmes 
support  education  and  learning  mobility  actions,  the  qualitative  development  of  education, 
training and youth systems in the EU. 
Education and cohesion policies are supported by distinct instruments, with independent modi 
operandi,  different  intervention  logics,  management  modes  and  architecture,  but  their 
interaction can generate converging effects. Therefore, synergies should be looked for where 
they are possible and bring further added value. 

A.1.Instruments within the current MFF 2014-2020 

The  legislative  architecture  for  the  cohesion  policy  comprises  an  overarching  regulation 
setting  out  common  rules  for  all  the  structural  funds.  The  main  principle  is  shared 
management  between  the  managing  authorities  in  the  Member  States  and  regions  and  the 
European Commission. 

The funds directly support investment in education and training, youth and sport activities: 

-  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through investments in infrastructure; 
-  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  -  Europe’s  main  instrument  for  supporting  jobs, 
upskilling and re-skilling people and helping them get better jobs and ensuring fairer 
job opportunities, including through mobility measures; 

-  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  development  (EAFRD)  -  Instrument  that 
support  young  farmers'  establishment,  farmers  and  foresters  mobility  schemes, 
farmers' and foresters' knowledge development and possibly (e.g. through  LEADER) 
activities related to sport, education, training, youth in rural areas. 

The current Regulations establishing ESIF62 and Erasmus+63 already provide the framework 
for  synergies  and  complementarities  between  the  instruments.  The  following  measures  are 
currently implemented:  

62  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013  laying  down 
common  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund,  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the 
European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  and  laying  down 
general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund  

63  Regulation  (EU)  No  1288/2013  of  11  December  2013  establishing  'Erasmus+':  the  Union  programme  for  education, 

training,  youth  and  sport  and  repealing  Decisions  No  1719/2006/EC,  No  1720/2006/EC  and  No  1298/2008/EC               
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R1288  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Top-up  -  In  the  past,  a  solution  to  cater  for  the  sometimes  insufficient  grant  levels 
under Erasmus  compared  to  the demand has  been  utilised by certain Member States 
by supplementing mobility funding through additional EU support, typically from the 
European  Social  Fund,  covering  additional  expenditure  to  complement  the  Erasmus 
grant, thus allowing for an increased number of learners (in particular from a socially 
disadvantaged background) to access a study period abroad. 

  Co-fund ESIF funds are used to complement Erasmus mobility funding by providing 
additional grants to mobility applicants that scored above thresholds but were rejected 
due  to  insufficient  funding  available,  based  on  the  evaluation  undertaken  by  the 
Erasmus  National  Agencies.  This  system  has  proven  to  increase  the  volume  of 
individual mobility grants. 

A.2. Main limitations 

European  countries  and  regions  currently  under-exploit  the  potential  for  synergies  thus 
limiting the cumulative impact these policies could have to overcome challenges of structural 
nature. Despite the drivers within the current regulatory framework, the fact remains that the 
occurrence  of  synergies  was  limited  and  only  in  rare  cases  effective  coordination  has  taken 
place. 
The main barriers to the synergies identified concern: 

 

 

limited  coordination,  communication  and  interaction  between  responsible  authorities 
and  implementing  structures  at  Member  State  level  of  the  different  programmes  and 
instruments,  actors  and  networks  involved  in  the  programming,  planning  and 
implementation of actions as well as in projects' selection and follow up. 
lack  of  established  and  regular 
bureaucratic burdens prevent collective efforts of operational authorities. 

information-sharing  processes  and  existing 

  complex  financial  rules  and  delivery  mechanisms  hampering  the  access  to  various 

sources of funding. 

  under-exploitation  of  successful  projects'  results  funded  with  convergent  objectives, 

thus limiting the system-level effects and impact on policy. 

A.3. Proposed measures to promote synergies in the post 2020 MFF  

For the future Multiannual Financial Framework period, education, training and youth remain 
one of the main priorities of the Cohesion Policy. The existing social  disparities at national 
and  regional  level  could  be  tackled  with  the  support  of  the  EU  instruments  investing  in  the 
field of education and training. This opportunity must be facilitated by an increased flexibility 
of  both  programmes  and  must  be  implemented  in  a  framework  of  coherent  programming, 
common prioritisation and strategic policy coordination at Member State level. 

With a view to contributing effectively to the general and specific objectives of the respective 
instruments, practical measures are proposed to concretely implement synergies in the future 
MFF period. 

Areas of possible cooperation and synergies 

At  national  level,  ESF  resources  could  be  used,  as  already  done  in  a  few  countries,  where 
appropriate,  to  either  increase  the  number  of  individual  mobility  grants  or  to  top  up 
Erasmus grants to make them more easily accessible to specific target groups. In some cases 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ESF  operational  programmes  already  enable  funding  to  reinforce  Erasmus  measures  by 
focusing  on  the  coverage  of  specific  target  groups.  This  is  not  currently  a  widespread 
approach across Member States and could be strengthened in future. Simplified Cost Options 
(either  EU  or  national  level)  would  enable  Member  States  to  easily  top-up  on  Erasmus 
measures. For example, in order to make Erasmus mobility more inclusive and accessible to 
students  coming  from  low  income  families,  Member  States  could  program  a  top-up  of 
Erasmus mobility by an additional defined amount/rate applicable to a specific country.  

ESF  could  also  provide  support  for  scaling  up  successful  Erasmus  projects.  Appropriate 
mechanisms could be recommended by the Commission to the respective national authorities 
implementing Erasmus and the ESIF to ensure an effective implementation of these processes. 
This  would  aim  to  ensure  that  Erasmus  projects  having  a  scaling-up  potential  are  jointly 
identified  by  the  relevant  authorities  in  the  Member  States  and  adapted  for  the  purpose  of 
upscaling their positive results through ESIF interventions.  

An  enhanced  coordination  between  Erasmus  National  Agencies  and  ESIF  bodies  would 
also be beneficial. National Agencies and Managing Authorities would be invited to cooperate 
at various levels in the area of programming, calls design, as well as evaluation (e.g. it could 
be  envisaged  for  Erasmus  national  agencies  to  participate  in  ESIF  programmes  monitoring 
committees) and follow-up of projects.      

Where relevant, the two respective legal bases could include provisions to this purpose, to be 
set out more in detail in implementing documents. 

In  addition,  the  network  of  Erasmus  National  Agencies  could  become  an  asset  to 
implement  the  education,  training  and  youth  activities  in  the  context  of  transnational 
cooperation  actions  under  the  ESF.  National  Agencies  have  a  sound  expertise  and  strategic 
vision in the fields of education, training and youth. They could be valuable players (as grant 
beneficiaries)  in  the  effective  implementation  of  the  transnational  cooperation  dimension  of 
the European Social Fund.  

Where relevant and with a view to enhancing the added value of the different EU instruments, 
the ERDF and the ESF could be used to provide additional support to universities which are 
partners  of  European  Universities  or  Centres  of  vocational  excellence  financed  under 
Erasmus.  ESIF  could  potentially  be  used  to  fund  preparatory,  complementary  or  directly 
related  activities  within  partner  institutions  in  order  to  build  capacity,  to  enlarge  the 
geographical coverage of the networks, to improve dissemination and scaling-up of results.  

Finally,  Managing  Authorities  and  Erasmus  National  Agencies  would  identify  measures 
carried  out  at  national  level  with  ESIF  support  that  have  a  potential  to  inspire 
transnational cooperation policy experimentation projects. 

B.  Synergies  between  the  future  Erasmus  programme  and  the  future  Research  and 
Innovation Framework Programme - Horizon Europe 

B.1 Policy context 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
The  recent  policy  agenda  defined the  synergies  between the  education  and  the  research  and 
innovation  sectors  as  a  key  area  where  synergies  should  be  further  enabled.  The 
Communication on a Renewed EU agenda for higher education64 from May 2017 pledged for 
well-designed higher education programmes and curricula that allow to better exploit research 
results into teaching and learning, and increase students' research skills. 

Along the same lines, the Communication on a Digital Education Action Plan65 from January 
2018 highlights the crucial importance of developing relevant digital skills and competences 
for  the  digital  transformation  of  our  economies  and  societies:  "Developing  high-skilled  ICT 
professionals  is  critical  for  competitiveness.  Advanced  digital  skills  are  important  for 
supporting the next generation of analysts, researchers and innovators. (…) Citizen-centred 
research and innovation focused on solving societal challenges should make more use of open 
data and collaborative digital technology tools and methods." 

Synergies  between  research  and  innovation  and  education,  notably  the  links  between  the 
European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area (ERA), have been 
a demonstrated driver and enabled progress for the academic cooperation within the Bologna 
process  regarding  joint  teaching  and  research  programmes  that  "provide  educational 
opportunities  the  competences  and  skills  required  for  European  citizenship,  innovation  and 
employment"66. 

At the European Council of 1st December 201767 regarding the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 
2020 research and innovation framework programme, EU leaders confirmed that research and 
education link is a key component underlying skills development and that "stronger links and 
coherence between European Research Area and European Higher  Education Area  [should 
be established] by exploring how the successor programmes to Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 
can  better  link  shared  objectives  and  priorities".  These  conclusions  have  been  corroborated 
by  the  Lamy  High  Level  Group  Report68  recommendations  for  the  next  generation research 
and innovation framework programme that identifies a set of necessary actions to "educate for 
the  future  and  invest in  people  who  will  make  the  change: modernise, reward  and resource 
the education and training of people for a creative and innovative Europe." 

B.2 Common features of the two programmes 

The  common  overarching  objective  of  the  actions  supported  by  both  programmes  is  to 
strengthen the  Europe's  capacity to  innovate through  the  development  of  human  capital  and 
improvement of the innovation and entrepreneurial skills and competences of individuals as 
well  as  through  the  support  to  the  modernisation  of  educational  and  training  systems  in 
Europe.  

The  two  programmes  have  common  stakeholders  and  beneficiaries  at  the  (1)  system  and 
organisation  level,  in  particular  the  higher  education  institutions,  research  centres  and 
companies as well as at the (2) individual level, i.e. students, junior researchers, learners and 

64  COM (2017) 247final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0247  
65  COM (2018) 12 final https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/digital-education-action-plan.pdf  
66  http://www.ehea.info/cid101764/ministerial-conference-yerevan-2015.html  
67  http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31888/st15320en17.pdf  
68  LAB – FAB – APP: Investing in the European  future we want'  
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=hlg 

72 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
practitioners.  The  typology  of  supported actions  in  both  programmes  varies  from  individual 
learners and practitioners mobility to various strategic partnerships.  

The educational potential of the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation and the 
innovation  potential  of  the  Erasmus  programme  do  currently  materialize  through  several 
mutually reinforcing activities: 

  The  development  and  improvement  of  innovation  and  entrepreneurial  skills  and 
competences  of  individual  learners  and  practitioners  through  transnational,  cross-
sectoral and interdisciplinary mobility 

  The  development  and  support  of  the  innovation  and  entrepreneurship  capabilities  of 
innovative  cross-cutting  higher  educational 
the  higher  education  sector  by 
programmes  and  curricula  where  sector  specific  knowledge  is  combined  with 
entrepreneurial oriented skills 

  European  Research  Area  development  is  supported  by  the  modernisation  of 
universities in their critical role of providing researchers with the environment, skills 
and competences needed to succeed in the modern knowledge economy 

to  build  capacity,  develop  new, 

  Strategic  partnerships  among  higher  educational  institutions,  research  organisations 
innovative  and 
and  businesses  aiming 
multidisciplinary approaches to teaching and learning, develop entrepreneurial skills, 
exchange  knowledge  and  stimulate  co-creation;  strengthening  the  role  of  higher 
education  institutions  and  research  organisations  in  their  local  and  regional 
environments;  supporting the transfer of latest research outputs back into education as 
input for teaching. 

B.3 Main limitations 

  While  much  teaching  in  higher  education  takes  place  in  research-performing 
institutions, research is not sufficiently exploited as an input for teaching and learning. 
  Students are often not involved in research activities, thus limiting the opportunities to 

develop their research skills. 

  Lack  of  established  and  regular 

information-sharing  processes  and  existing 

bureaucratic burdens 

  complex  financial  rules  and  delivery  mechanisms  hampering  the  access  to  various 
sources  of  funding  and  adding  administrative  burden  on  the  beneficiaries  and  the 
implementing bodies 

B.4. Synergies and Complementarities 
EU programmes on research and innovation as well as on education  and training are crucial 
for a more competitive, resilient, and future-proof Europe. Improved synergies between these 
programmes  can  provide  incentives  for  further  integration  of  education  and  research 
responding to the changing skills needs, can facilitate knowledge transfer and enable effective 
cooperation within the knowledge triangle. New or reinforced synergies could be established 
at several levels: 
1.  At  strategic  level,  enhanced  coherence  between  the  European  Research  Area  and  the 
European Higher Education Area through better alignment of shared policy objectives  
2.  At  programming  level,  enhanced  coherence  of  priorities  and  compatible  implementation 
frameworks  
3. At project level, strategic pooling of funding from several sources. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
Areas of possible cooperation and synergies 

1. Scaling-up of innovative projects   

Erasmus  projects  such  as  partnerships  for  innovation  and  policy  experimentation  projects, 
when successful, have great scaling-up potential. Appropriate mechanisms could be defined to 
ensure  that  projects  having  a  scaling-up  potential  are  jointly  identified  by  the  two 
programmes.  The  selection  and  implementation  of  these  processes  would  be  undertaken  on 
the basis of equivalent qualitative standards and criteria.  

Corresponding  mechanisms  could  be  envisaged  for  the  scaling  up  of  successful  relevant 
Horizon Europe projects.  

2. Pooling resources to invest in the European Universities 

In this scenario, Horizon Europe could be used to support universities which are partners of 
such networks financed under Erasmus. To boost the investment in the European Universities, 
Erasmus beneficiary universities would also receive funds under dedicated actions of Horizon 
Europe. The eligible investments would encompass innovation and research activities. Issues 
related  to  cumulative  funding  will  be  avoided  by  using  the  same  delivery  mechanisms  for 
different calls for proposals financed both under Erasmus and Horizon Europe.  

2.  Reinforcing  synergies  with  the  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology 
(EIT) and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) 

Actions  aiming  at  fostering  the  Europe's  innovation  capacity  and  the  innovation  in  higher 
education  and  business  should  allow  the  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology 
Community to test and share the outcome of their experimental educational activities beyond 
their  direct  beneficiaries.  Erasmus  structures  could  help  to  make  lessons  learned  and  good 
practises from the European Institute of Innovation and Technology and the Knowledge and 
Innovation Communities (KICs) activities accessible and disseminated in a targeted manner. 
The  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology  and  the  Knowledge  and  Innovation 
Communities will continue developing innovative curricula and offer students, entrepreneurs 
and  professionals  across  Europe  and  beyond  cross-cutting  programmes  where  specialist  and 
sector specific knowledge is combined with entrepreneurial and innovation oriented skills.  

The EIT also contributes to the development of entrepreneurial and innovation-oriented skills 
that  could  be  further  mainstreamed  through  Erasmus  support,  for  example,  within  the 
European  Universities.  Aiming  at  equipping  the  next  generation  of  innovators  with  the 
relevant  technical  and  transversal  skills  to  thrive  in  a  fast-changing  economic  environment, 
the  EIT’s  education  programmes  include  physical  and  cross-sectoral  mobility  of  students. 
These activities could be offered to participants already selected under Erasmus projects.  

Similarly, at the level of postgraduate training, programmes like the Marie Skłodowska-Curie 
Actions  funded  by  the  research  and  innovation  framework  programme,  would  mainstream 
new skills and competences for researchers developed within the Erasmus context, including 
transversal  skills  (e.g.  creative  mind-sets,  entrepreneurial  outlook).  Opening  up  MSCA 
projects' activities, in particular network-wide training, where relevant, to Erasmus students or 
staff  and  vice  versa,  will  concretize  synergies  between  research  and  education  programmes 
and enable transfer of research results into teaching. 

74 

 
 
 
C.  Synergies  between  the  future  Erasmus  programme  and  the  future  European 
Solidarity Corps and the Rights and Values Programme  

Regarding  the  future  Rights  and  Values  programme,  synergies  should  be  sought  with 
initiatives empowering citizens. This includes promotion and increased awareness of citizens 
about common history and enhanced democratic and civic participation at Union level.  
There  are  several  areas  of  complementarity  and  potential  synergies  between  the  objectives 
and interventions of Erasmus and of the Rights and Values programme, in particular with the 
strand aiming at creating opportunities for citizens' engagement and participation (previously 
covered by the Europe for Citizens Programme).  

At  the  same  time,  there  is  a  necessity  to  establish  a  framework  for  cooperation  and 
coordinated  implementation  of  Erasmus  and  the  European  Solidarity  Corps,  which  have 
common  governance  and  delivery  mechanisms.  Erasmus  has  a  clear  link  with  the  Corps 
through  its  implementing  bodies  (the  Erasmus  National  Agencies  and  the  EACEA)  which 
provide  a  coherent  delivery  mechanism  for  European  opportunities  in  the  areas  of 
transnational learning mobility and solidarity. 

With regards to the content of both Programmes, there are also important complementarities 
when  it  comes  to  the  target  groups  of  the  opportunities  (mainly  young  people)  and  the  key 
stakeholders. Both the Erasmus Programme and the European Solidarity Corps share strong 
links  with  beneficiaries  typically  active  in  the  area  of  non-formal  education,  such  as  local, 
regional, national and European NGOs, social enterprises and youth workers.  

D. Coherence between the future Erasmus programme and the Creative Europe 

In  November  2017  the  Commission  presented  its  Communication  on  "Strengthening 
European  Identity  through  Education  and  Culture"  to  the  Leaders'  Summit  in  Gothenburg. 
Along with Commission's vision for a European Education Area by 2025, the Communication 
also included a proposal to make Europe "a continent in which people have a strong sense of 
their identity as Europeans, of Europe's cultural heritage, its diversity and values".  

Nurturing,  valorising  and  exposing  talent,  and  celebrating  creativity  and  cultural  diversity 
foster  the  European  identity  and  reinforce  its  values,  enhance  social  cohesion  and 
inclusiveness, as well as strengthen the social fabric of the Union. 

In  the  implementation  of  Erasmus,  overall  consistency  and  complementarity  as  well  as 
synergies with the future Creative Europe programme, including its media component, will be 
reinforced.  Complementarities  are  already  a  reality  under  the  current  Erasmus  programme, 
with a considerable number of projects including a creative component in their education and 
training or cooperation mechanisms, in particular in the youth and schools sectors. 

E.  Coherence  between  the  future  Erasmus  programme  and  the  future  EU  External 
Action Programme   

Supporting  education  is  crucial  for  the  development  of  a  country  and  for  building  a  strong 
human capital base  as recognised in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development  and the 
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs).  

Access to Erasmus programme was opened for countries globally for the first time in 2014, 
with the objective of contributing to poverty reduction and inclusive growth, and to building 

75 

 
 
 
 
capacity  in  Partner  Countries.  Actions  concerned  cover  modernisation  of  curricula, 
improvement  of  teaching  and  learning  quality,  making  governance  more  transparent, 
stimulate  university-enterprise  cooperation.  Erasmus  actions  contribute  to  the  EU  external 
policy  objective  of  enhancing  widespread  understanding  and  visibility  of  the  EU  and 
promoting  its  values  and  interests  via  public  diplomacy  actions,  notably  vis-à-vis  middle-
income countries and strategic partners. 

The  international  actions  of  Erasmus  will  continue  to  contribute  primarily  to  two  major 
objectives:  
1)  the  EU  internal  policy  priorities  relating  to  excellence,  attracting  talent  and  public 
diplomacy; and  
2)  the  EU  external  projection  of  internal  policies  relating  to  solidarity,  enlargement, 
neighbourhood policy, human development, capacity building, migration, support to refugees 
and  intercultural  dialogue,  particularly  in  support  of  the  Sustainable  Development  Goal  4 
Quality Education. 

In  operational  terms,  part  of  the  international  strand  of  Erasmus  is  currently  implemented 
under  the  External  Action  Programme  (Heading  4  of  the  current  EU  budget).  This 
contribution will be maintained for the future  programming  period,  with simplified delivery 
mechanisms  and  rules  in  order  to  reduce  administrative  burden  during  implementation.  The 
concrete implementation modalities will be further developed during the programming phase, 
in close cooperation with the Member States and Partner countries. 

F. Coherence between the future Erasmus programme and the future InvestEU  

The  InvestEU  will  be  the  core  European  investment  instrument  aimed  at  addressing  market 
gaps  and  mobilising  private  financing  for  strategic  investments  within  the  EU  and  for 
supporting internal policies. It focuses on additional investments which would not be possible 
with  public  intervention  and  it  clusters  them  around  four  thematic  policy  windows:  i.e. 
sustainable infrastructures; research and innovation; social skills and human capital; small and 
medium-sized  enterprises.  InvestEU  Fund  would  also  provide  advisory  support  and 
accompanying  measures  throughout  the  investment  cycle  to  foster  the  development  of 
projects. 

The InvestEU, and in particular its window on social skills and human capital investment is of 
particular relevance to the Erasmus programme, as it will support  – through EU guarantees, 
equity investments or cheaper loans – mobilising private financing for strategic investments in 
education  and  training  for  all  levels  of  education.  Furthermore,  specifically  for  the  field  of 
higher  education,  targeted  support  might  be  provided  under  the  Fund's  research  and 
innovation  'window'.  InvestEU  will  thus  enable  the  continuation  of  the  activities  initiated 
under the Erasmus Student Loan Guarantee Facility, but will also target broader investments 
supporting the EU and Member States education and training policies (e.g. the development 
of  European  Universities).  It  will  also  support  investments  in  social  infrastructure  (e.g. 
construction, expansion or refurbishment of schools) and social services (e.g. development of 
childcare facilities or digital course material). 

76