Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes : Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (Strand 3).
Date: 2023-07-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services
Subjects: EU programme, European Solidarity Corps, coronavirus disease, cultural cooperation, education policy, equal treatment, human rights, student mobility, vocational training, voluntary work

Early 
implementation 
of four 
2021-2027 
EU programmes 
Erasmus +, Creative 
Europe, European 
Solidarity Corps, 
and Citizens, 
Equality, Rights and 
Values (Strand 3) 

STUDY 

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Author: Izabela Bacian and Katharina Eisele 
Ex-Post Evaluation Unit 
PE 747.442 – July 2023 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation 
of four 2021-2027 EU 
programmes: Erasmus 
+, Creative Europe, 
European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, 
Equality, Rights and 
Values (Strand 3) 

European implementation assessment  

Ahead of  their forthcoming mid-term evaluation, this study provides an 
initial evaluation of the implementation of the Erasmus +, Creative Europe, 
European  Solidarity  Corps,  and  Citizens,  Equality,  Rights  and  Values 
Strand 3  funding  programmes  since  their  launch  in  late  2021.  The 
evaluation  focuses  primarily  on  their  relevance,  coherence  and 
effectiveness, with a view to identifying challenges and shortcomings, but 
also to highlight good practices and potential for future development. The 
research shows that despite the impact of events such as the COVID-19 
health crisis and the geopolitical situation, these programmes have been 
successfully launched and have demonstrated a high level of flexibility and 
resilience in a fast changing environment.  

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

 
 
 
 
 
AUTHORS 

1. The introduction has been drawn up by Izabela Bacian and Dr Katharina Eisele from the Ex-post Evaluation 
Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and Foresight, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary 
Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. 

To contact the authors, please email: EPRS-ExPostEvaluation@ep.europa.eu. 

2. The evaluation study: 'The early implementation of the 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative 
Europe, European Solidarity Corps and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3', which is an integral part 
of this European implementation assessment, has been written by Dr Sabine Zillmer, Bozhidar Ivanov, Dr Silke 
N. Haarich, Sandra Spule (Spatial Foresight), Nikolett Szolnoki, Malin Carlberg, Ilana Zejerman (VVA Brussels), 
Roland  Gaugitsch  (ÖIR)  and  Sylvia  Amann  (inforelais)  –  with  management support  by  ÖIR  (Dr  Erich 
Dallhammer, Helene Gorny) and  language  editing  by  Sanja  Brkanovic  –  at  the  request of  the  Ex-post 
Evaluation Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and Foresight, within the Directorate-General for 
Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament.  

ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSIBLE 

Izabela Bacian  and  Dr  Katharina  Eisele, Ex-post  Evaluation  Unit,  Directorate for Impact Assessment and 
Foresight, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the 
European Parliament. 

To contact the publisher, please e-mail EPRS-ExPostEvaluation@ep.europa.eu. 

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS 

Original: EN 

Manuscript completed in July 2023.  

DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT 

This  document is prepared for, and  addressed to,  the Members and staff of the European Parliament as 
background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole 
responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official 
position of the Parliament. 

Reproduction  and  translation  for  non-commercial  purposes  are  authorised,  provided  the  source  is 
acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. 

Brussels © European Union, 2023. 

PE 747.442 
ISBN: 978-92-848-0845-8 
DOI: 10.2861/425911 
CAT: QA-03-23-260-EN-N 

eprs@ep.europa.eu  
http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet) 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) 
http://epthinktank.eu (blog)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (Strand 3) 

Acknowledgements 

EPRS would like to express its gratitude to all the experts involved in this research project. 

I 

 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table of contents 

1. Introduction_________________________________________________________________ 1 

1.1. Erasmus+  ________________________________________________________________ 1 

1.2. Creative Europe  ___________________________________________________________ 3 

1.3. European Solidarity Corps  ___________________________________________________ 4 

1.4. Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values  ___________________________________________ 5 

2. Methodology of the evaluation study_____________________________________________ 7 

2.1. Analytical framework _______________________________________________________ 7 

2.2. Selection of Member States and actions  ________________________________________ 7 

3. Selected key findings of the evaluation study  ______________________________________ 9 

4. Evaluation study – Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative 
Europe, European Solidarity Corps and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3  _______ 11 

II 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (Strand 3) 

1. Introduction 

With two years of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) having passed, the European 
Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) has started to assess the implementation 
of the EU funding programmes within its remit.  

By  means  of  own-initiative  implementation  reports,  the  CULT  committee  examines  the 
implementation of the following 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus+, Creative Europe, and the 
European Solidarity Corps. In addition, the CULT committee examines those parts of the Citizens, 
Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme for which it has shared competences, in particular 
Strand 3 of the programme 'Citizens' engagement and participation'. The implementation reports 
seek to critically assess implementation of these MFF programmes in the wake of the COVID-19 
pandemic to identify first successes and shortcomings. The objective is to have their findings feed 
into the forthcoming European Commission mid-term evaluation of these programmes. 

To support the work of the CULT committee on its implementation reports, the Ex-post Evaluation 
Unit  of  the  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service  (EPRS)  has  prepared  this  European 
implementation assessment (EIA). It includes an evaluation study carried out by a consortium led by 
ÖIR in partnership with Spatial Foresight and VVA Brussels between February 2023 and June 2023. 
The evaluation study covers the first 2.5 years of implementation of the four funding programmes. 
It seeks to inform the CULT committee on challenges and shortcomings, but also to highlight good 
practices and potential for further development. 

This  introduction provides a short overview of  the  programmes' main objectives, Parliament's 
respective positions, a  brief description of  the methodology used in  the evaluation study, and 
selected key findings. For further details reference is made to the evaluation study itself. 

1.1. Erasmus+ 

The Erasmus+ programme promotes various opportunities for young people, such as students, 
pupils and apprentices, to study, train and work abroad, as well as opportunities for adult learners 
and  teaching  staff.  The  current  programme  supports  various  initiatives  such  as  European 
universities 1, centres of vocational excellence 2, DiscoverEU3 and the European student card4. 

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

The Parliament has strongly advocated for better inclusion5 of individuals with fewer opportunities 
or with special needs in the Erasmus+ programme. Therefore, Article 15 of the current Erasmus+ 

1 See for more information the website.  

2 See for more information the website. 
3 See for more information the website. 
4 See for more information the website. 
5 Implementation of inclusion measures within Erasmus+  2014-2020 (2021/2009(INI).  

1 

 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Regulation 6 required the Commission to develop a framework of inclusion measures accompanied 
by implementation guidance 7 by 29 November 2021. On this basis, national agencies will develop 
inclusion action plans as part of their work programmes. 

The 2021-2027 Erasmus + programme is implemented along three main key actions: 

  Learning mobility (key action 1) 
  Cooperation among organisations and institutions (key action 2) 
  Support for policy development and cooperation (key action 3).  

In addition, Jean Monnet actions support teaching, learning, research and debates on European 
integration. 

In July 2022, the European Commission launched8 a final evaluation of the 2014-2020  Erasmus+ 
programme9 along with an interim evaluation of the current 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme. The 
Commission is expected to publish the outcome of its public consultation, which forms an integral 
part of the evaluation process, in the second quarter of 2023. The Commission aims to publish the 
evaluation by December 2024. 

In line with the Commission's Better Regulation principles 10, the interim evaluation will assess the 
overall effectiveness and performance of the programme, including new initiatives and the delivery 
of inclusion and simplification measures. More specifically, the evaluation will assess among other 
issues: i) inclusion and diversity measures; ii) the contribution of the programme to mainstreaming 
climate  actions; ii)  simplifications such as  the  lump-sum approach in  cooperation projects; iii) 
participation of outermost regions and overseas countries or territories in the programme; and iii) 
the progress of institutions involved in Jean Monnet actions towards the programme objectives. In 
addition, the evaluation will draw on lessons learned in the context of unforeseen events, such as 
the COVID-19 pandemic or Russia's war on Ukraine. 

Parliament has repeatedly underscored 11 the programme's success, which has made Erasmus+ an 
EU  flagship policy.  Parliament also reiterated the 'extremely positive impact of Erasmus+' in its 
resolution 12 on the future of Erasmus+ of 14 September 2017. Along with better inclusion of people 
with  fewer opportunities, priorities for Parliament have included lifelong  learning and  mobility 
(including  the  removal of  barriers  to  mobility,  such  as  the  lack  of  automatic recognition  of 

6 Regulation  (EU)  2021/817 of the European  Parliament and  of  the Council  of 20 May  2021 establishing  Erasmus+:  the 
Union  Programme  for education  and  training, youth  and  sport  and  repealing Regulation (EU)  No 1288/2013 (Text with 
EEA relevance). 
7   Implementation guidelines - Erasmus+  and European Solidarity Corps Inclusion and Diversity Strategy, September 2023. 
8  See call for evidence. 
9  EPRS  conducted  a  European  implementation  assessment  in  2016,  see  A.  Zygierewicz,  The  Erasmus+  Programme 
(Regulation EU No. 1288/2013), EPRS, European Parliament, 2016. A European Parliament Policy Department study focused 
specifically  on  decentralised  implementation of  the programme:  I. Ferencz  et al.,  Research  for  the CULT  Committee  - 
Erasmus+:  decentralised  implementation  -  first  experiences,  Policy  Department  B:  Structural  and  Cohesion  Policies, 
European  Parliament, 2016. 
10 Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox, 3 November 2021. 

11  European  Parliament  resolution of  2 February  2017 on  the  implementation of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1288/2013 of the    
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  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 
(2015/2327(INI)). 
12 European  Parliament resolution of 14 September 2017 on the future of the Erasmus+  programme (2017/2740(RSP)). 

2 

 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (Strand 3) 

international qualifications and financial barriers), and complementarity with priorities of the EU 
youth strategy and other EU-funded programmes.13 

1.2. Creative Europe 

The Creative Europe programme pursues two main objectives. It aims to safeguard, develop and 
increase  the 
promote  European  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity  and  heritage,  and  to 
competitiveness and economic potential of the cultural and creative sectors, in particular the audio-
visual  sector.  The  current  Creative  Europe  programme 14 for  2021-2027  includes  new  actions 
targeting specific creative sectors (music, architecture, and cultural heritage), a mobility scheme for 
artists and professionals and also action in support of media pluralism. It includes incentives to 
ensure diversity and inclusivity in the creative industries and introduces sustainability criteria in their 
practices. 

The Creative Europe programme is divided along three strands: 

  the culture strand, which supports a wide range of cultural and creative sectors; 
  the  MEDIA  strand, which  supports the  creation  and  promotion of,  access  to  and 

dissemination of European audiovisual works; and 

  the  cross-sectoral strand, which  seeks to  reinforce collaboration between different 

cultural and creative sectors when addressing common challenges. 

In  May 2023,  the  Commission launched 15 a final  evaluation of  the 2014-2020  Creative Europe 
programme16 along with an  interim evaluation of  the current programme. The Commission is 
expected to publish the outcome of its public consultation in the third quarter of 2023 as an integral 
part of the evaluation process. The findings of the evaluation should be available by December 2024. 
The  evaluation will  assess the  programme along the  five  criteria  under the  Better Regulation 
principles. With respect to the features of the current programme, the evaluation will examine the 
effect of horizontal priorities such as greening and diversity and their contribution to wider policy 
priorities (e.g. the Green Deal, EU equality agenda and EU digital decade). 

Parliament  has  always  recognised 17 the  importance of  Europe's cultural  sector.  It  has  called 
repeatedly asked for greater financial means to match the policy's ambitions, the Creative Europe 
programme's geographical scope, and the sector's economic importance. 18 It has specifically asked 
for help to boost the programme's recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, which has left many 
music and cultural locations closed. 19 

13 European  Parliament, Erasmus  programme for education, training, youth and sport 2021–2027, Legislative Observatory 
(OEIL).  See also EPRS  briefing,  D. Chircop,  Erasmus  2021-2027: The Union  programme  for education, training,  youth and 
sport, EPRS,  European  Parliament, 2021. 
14   Regulation  (EU)  2021/818 of the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 May  2021 establishing  the Creative 
Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) and repealing Regulation (EU)  No 1295/2013 (Text with EEA relevance). 
15  See call for evidence. 

16  See also A. Zygierewicz, Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020), EPRS, European  Parliament, 2018. 
17  European  Parliament  resolution  of  2  March  2017 on  the  implementation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1295/2013 of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) 
and repealing Decisions  No 1718/2006/EC, No 1855/2006/EC and No 1041/2009/EC (2015/2328(INI)). 
18 M. Pasikowska-Schnass,  Creative Europe programme  2021-2027, EPRS, European Parliament, 2021. 

19  See in  this regard  the European  Parliament  Policy Department  study:  M.  Damaso  et al.,  The  Situation  of  Artists and 
Cultural Workers and the post-COVID-19  Cultural Recovery in the European  Union, Research for CULT  Committee - Policy 
Department B: Structural and Cohesion  Policies, European Parliament, 2021. 

3 

 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

MEPs succeeded in securing a substantial increase in the funding for the current programme (its 
budget almost doubled, when compared to the 2014-2020 period, to €2.5 billion in current prices 
in the EU's cultural and creative sectors). Parliament also secured greater focus on inclusion, on 
support for the contemporary and live music sectors (among those hit hardest by the pandemic), 
and  higher  co-financing  rates for  small-scale  projects.  Another European Parliament priority, 
reflected in  the  current programme,  concerns the promotion  of female talent and support for 
women's artistic and professional careers.20 

1.3. European Solidarity Corps 

The  European Solidarity Corps programme in  its  current form was  established in two  phases. 
Starting in December 2016, it initially operated within the context of eight different EU programmes 
which offered volunteering, traineeship or job opportunities. In 2018, the EU co-legislator allocated 
a dedicated budget to the programme for a period of 2 years. The current European Solidarity Corps 
programme21 has been merged with the EU Aid Volunteers 22 initiative (2014-2020), whose main 
objective had been to provide humanitarian aid and enhance the capacity of communities in third 
countries.  The  current  European  Solidarity  Corps  therefore  has  two  distinct  legal  bases, 
Articles 165(4)  and  166  (4)  of  the  Treaty on  the  Functioning of  the  European Union (TFEU)  – 
education, training, youth and sport – and Article 214 TFEU –humanitarian aid. 

The programme offers young people the possibility to become involved in: 

  volunteering; 
  local  solidarity projects bringing together at least five  people  residing in  the same 

country around a common project; and 

  volunteering in humanitarian aid. 

In  October 2022,  the  Commission launched23 an interim evaluation of the current programme 
covering the 2021-2023 period. A final evaluation of the 2018-2020 programme is being conducted 
at  the same time  (including the  2014-2020  EU  Aid  Volunteers initiative). The Commission was 
expected to publish the outcome of its public consultation in the second quarter of 2023  as an 
integral part  of  the  evaluation process. The Commission plans to  publish the  findings  of  this 
evaluation by December 2024. 

The evaluation will assess the overall effectiveness and performance of the programme, as well as 
the delivery of its inclusion measures aimed at facilitating access to the programme of people with 
fewer  opportunities. More  specifically,  the  European Solidarity  Corps  Regulation included  in 
Article 16  a  requirement for  the  Commission to  develop  a  framework of  inclusion  measures 
accompanied by implementation guidance by 9 December 2021. As for the Erasmus+ programme, 
the national agencies were to develop national inclusion plans to facilitate the access of people with 
fewer opportunities to the programme.  

For the current programme, Parliament negotiated several changes. These included (along with the 
inclusion measures highlighted above) a requirement that the Corps provide for volunteering 
opportunities but not traineeships or work placements; that all participants and vulnerable groups 

20 Legislative Observatory  of  the European  Parliament (OEIL),  procedure file 2018/0190(COD); see European  Parliament 
press release, MEPs approve  the EU's  new culture programme, 19 May 2021. 
21 Regulation  (EU)  2021/888 of  the European  Parliament and  of  the Council  of  20 May  2021 establishing  the European 
Solidarity Corps  Programme and  repealing Regulations (EU)  2018/1475 and (EU) No 375/2014 (Text with EEA relevance). 
22 Alina Dobreva with Philipp Wegner, EU Aid Volunteers initiative, EPRS, European  Parliament, 2016. 
23 See call for evidence. 

4 

 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (Strand 3) 

should benefit from enhanced safety and protection measures; that there should be a higher age 
limit for participants in the humanitarian strand (35 years) and that there should be a waiver of the 
age limit on experts and coaches. 24  

In  2017,  the European Parliament had  asked 25 the Commission to define  the objectives of  the 
European Solidarity Corps and to provide a  legislative framework. Parliament insisted that the 
European Solidarity Corps needed its own funding and should form part of a broader strategy on 
volunteering and youth employment policies in the Member States. Parliament also called for a clear 
distinction  between  the  volunteering  and  employment  strands.  The  European  Parliament 
resolution recommended proper coordination in  the  implementation and  monitoring of  the 
initiative. 26 

1.4. Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values 

The general objective of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme27 is to protect 
and promote the rights and values enshrined in the EU treaties, the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights and applicable international human rights conventions. The current 2021-2027 programme 
brings  together two existing  funding programmes, the  Rights, Equality and  Citizenship  (REC) 
programme and Europe for Citizens (EfC) programme. 

The CERV programme pursues the following objectives along four strands: 

  to protect and promote Union values (Strand 1); 
  to promote rights, non-discrimination and equality, including gender equality, and to 
advance  gender  mainstreaming  and  the  mainstreaming  of  non-discrimination 
(Strand 2); 

  to promote citizens' engagement and participation in the democratic life of the Union 
and exchanges between citizens of different Member States, and to raise awareness of 
their common European history (Strand 3); 

  to fight violence, including gender-based violence (Strand 4). 

Under Strand 3 on 'Citizens' engagement and participation', the programme focuses on: 

  (1) supporting projects aimed at remembering defining moments in modern European 
history, such as the coming to power of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, including 
the causes and consequences thereof, and projects aimed at raising awareness among 
European citizens  of  their  common  history, culture,  cultural  heritage and  values, 
thereby enhancing their understanding of the Union, of its origins, purpose, diversity 
and achievements and of the importance of mutual understanding and tolerance; 
  (2)  promoting  citizens'  and  representative  associations'  participation  in  and 
contribution to the democratic and civic life  of the Union by enabling them to make 
known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action; 

24 Legislative Observatory  of  the European  Parliament (OEIL),  procedure file 2018/0230(COD); see D.  Chircop,  European 
Solidarity Corps  2021-2027, EPRS, European  Parliament, 2021. 
25 European  Parliament resolution of 6 April 2017 on the European  Solidarity Corps  (2017/2629(RSP)). 
26 See D. Chircop,  European Solidarity Corps  2021-2027, EPRS, European Parliament, 2021 ; see also S. Broek et al., Research 
for CULT  Committee - European  Solidarity Corps and  volunteering, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion  Policies, 
European  Parliament, 2017. 
27  Regulation (EU)  2021/692 of  the  European  Parliament and  of  the Council  of  28 April 2021 establishing  the Citizens, 
Equality,  Rights and  Values  Programme and  repealing Regulation (EU)  No 1381/2013 of the European  Parliament and  of 
the Council and Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014. 

5 

 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

  (3) promoting exchanges between citizens of different countries, in particular through 
town-twinning and networks of towns, so as to afford them practical experience of the 
richness and diversity of the common heritage of the Union and to make them aware 
that such richness and diversity constitute a solid foundation for a common future. 

The Commission is planning to launch soon the final evaluation of the REC programme and of the 
EfC  programme,  as well  as the interim evaluation of  the 2021-2027  CERV programme.28 A first 
evaluation 29 of the REC programme was already finalised in March 2022. This evaluation concluded 
among other things that the  programme had proven its EU  added value and its  crucial role in 
developing a European area of equality and rights.  

In 2017, the European Parliament recommended 30 that it be placed on an equal footing with the 
Council as regards the EfC programme. For the current CERV programme, Parliament has indeed 
participated as a co-legislator under the ordinary legislative procedure with the Council. In 2019, 
Parliament called 31  for substantial funding for  the programme and for  specific  funding for  civil 
society organisations that promote fundamental values and democracy.32 The financial envelope for 
the implementation of the programme for the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2027 
was set at €641 705 000 in current prices. 33 

28 On  the Europe  for Citizens'  Programme,  see I.  Jefferies, Europe  for Citizens:  New  Programme  Implementation – First 
Experiences Study,  Policy Department B:  Structural and Cohesion  Policies, European  Parliament, 2016; see also  K. Eisele, 
Europe for Citizens Programme 2014-2020: European Implementation Assessment,  EPRS,  European Parliament, 2016.  
29  Report from  the European  Commission  assessing  the implementation  and  achievements  of  the 2014 – 2020 rights, 
equality and  citizenship programme (COM (2022) 118), 22 March 2023. 
30 European  Parliament  resolution of  2 March  2017 on  the implementation  of  Council  Regulation (EU)  No  390/2014 of 
14 April 2014 establishing the ʻEurope  for Citizensʼ programme for the period 2014-2020 (2015/2329(INI)). 
31 European  Parliament legislative resolution of 17 April 2019 on the proposal  for a regulation of the European Parliament 
and of the Council establishing the Rights and Values programme  (COM (2018)0383 – C8-0234/2018 – 2018/0207(COD)). 
32 See R. Shreeves, Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme,  EPRS,  European  Parliament, 2021.  
33 Legislative Observatory of the European  Parliament (OEIL),  procedure file 2018/0207(COD).   

6 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (Strand 3) 

2. Methodology of the evaluation study  

2.1. Analytical framework  

The methodology of the evaluation study builds on a triangulation of methods: 

  an analysis of  the quantitative programme  data, as available and as  harmonised as 

possible;  

  an analysis of the programme documents at EU level; 
  an EU level analysis complemented with examples from Member States; 
  semi-structured interviews or focus groups at EU and especially at Member State level. 

The evaluation study covered the implementation of the four programmes between 2021 and 2023. 
The evaluation focused on the programme design and activities that could be assessed at this 
early stage, such as annual work programmes, calls for proposals and the initially selected projects. 
The evaluation study comprises separate evaluations for each of the four programmes, as well as a 
cross-analysis leading to the overarching findings and recommendations. 

The secondary and primary data on the implementation of the programmes have been analysed 
against a standard set of criteria for ex-post evaluation in line with Better Regulation principles. The 
analysis has focused on three out of the five  evaluation criteria (dimensions) namely relevance, 
coherence  and  effectiveness.  In  view  of  the  early stage of  implementation, in particular the 
effectiveness assessments could only provide tentative insights.  

As regards the criteria of relevance, the experts examined whether the design of the programmes 
and their early practical implementation at EU and national level (based on a sample of Member 
States) matched current EU and national needs, especially in  the context of five overarching EU 
challenges (the digital and green transitions, the COVID-19 pandemic, Russian's war on Ukraine, and 
the need of the EU to act more autonomously in strategic policy areas).  

Regarding the  criteria  of  coherence,  the  experts  have  examined  whether  the  design  of  the 
programmes and their early practical implementation at EU and national level (based on a sample 
of Member States) were coherent with wider EU priorities. This concerns notably the priorities34 of 
the European Commission for 2019 to 2024 and other EU policies and funding instruments of direct 
relevance to the programmes. 

Concerning  the  criteria  of  effectiveness,  the  experts  examined  whether  the  early  practical 
implementation of the programmes at both EU and national level (based on a sample of Member 
States) had been effective and conducive to the achievement of the programmes' objectives. The 
experts have assessed the following: i) the adequate and timely set-up of implementation structures 
and processes ii) the timeliness and effective launch of calls, ii) the reaction to calls, iv) the selection 
of proposals in line with the objectives of the programmes, and v) specific challenges and success 
stories of the early implementation of each programme. 

2.2. Selection of Member States and actions 

In view of the wide variety of practices or types of action implemented by the four programmes, the 
early  evaluation  concentrated  on  the  assessment  of  selected  practices,  especially  for  the 
Member State level analysis. 

34 See European Commission  priorities for 2019-2024. 

7 

 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

For each programme, two to three actions were analysed covering a sample of Member States. The 
Member State selection aimed at geographic coverage across the EU territory for each programme, 
as well as at striking a balance of covering Member States across the four analysed programmes. For 
each programme, additional selection criteria were applied to achieve an adequate variation per 
programme. Further details on the selection are provided in the annexes to the evaluation study. 

Table 1 – Member State selection and actions  
Erasmus + programme 

Member States 

Strands and actions 

Belgium 
Bulgaria  
Spain 
Lithuania 

Key action 1: Mobility of higher education students and staff 

Key action 2: Cooperation among organisations and institutions 

Small-scale partnerships in vocational education and training 

Creative Europe programme 

Member States 

Strands and actions 

Estonia  
Croatia 
Austria 
Sweden  

Culture strand 

European cooperation projects medium scale 

Media strand  

Innovative tools and business models 

Cross-sectoral strand 

Rapid response mechanism 

European Solidarity Corps programme 

Member States 

Strands and actions 

Germany 
France 
Italy 
Poland 

Community development 

Digital skills and competences 

Strand 3 CERV programme 

Member States 

Strands and actions 

Ireland  
Latvia 
Hungary 
Romania 

Citizens' participation 

European remembrance 

Town-twinning and networks of towns 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (Strand 3) 

3. Selected key findings of the evaluation study 

The evaluation study examined the early implementation of selected features of the four spending 
programmes. Some of its key findings are summarised below. 

The launch of the Erasmus + programme has been successful despite the impact of the COVID-19 
pandemic in particular on the mobility of participants. Sixty per cent of mobility activities continued 
while for most other cases virtual alternatives were introduced. When necessary, funds were shifted 
from mobility (key action 1) to partnerships (key action 2). Following the onset of the war in Ukraine, 
funding was frontloaded from the dedicated 2027 budget to partnerships supporting displaced 
Ukrainian learners and staff in the EU. Both the direct and the indirect management mechanisms 
were considered as effective in  supporting the fulfilment of  the objectives analysed. Successful 
elements  such  as  the  introduction of  simplified  procedures  and  lump-sum  approaches was 
welcomed by the beneficiaries; however, the complexity of administrative procedures, inefficient 
data entry tools and high inflation have affected the implementation of the programme. 

The  early implementation of the Creative  Europe  programme  has been  effective despite the 
cultural and creative sectors having been strongly affected by the closure of many cultural and 
creative activities in the pandemic period. The frontloading of a third of the programme's budget 
and  higher  co-financing  rates specifically  in  the  first  2  years  of  implementation allowed  the 
programme activities to continue. While the fully centralised management of the programme did 
not allow specific national challenges to be addressed, a wide range of topics under Creative Europe 
are of direct relevance to national cultural development. For instance, the evaluation has shown 
inter alia that the programme has successfully mainstreamed green agenda objectives throughout 
its activities thus showcasing a good practice example of a 'green funding programme'. Challenges 
have included heavy administrative frameworks and limited capacity of Creative Europe Desks in 
supporting applicants and beneficiaries. Stakeholders also noted challenges relating to the uptake 
and participation of smaller organisations in the programme. 

Although a  more recent  programme, the  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme  has  been 
welcomed by  stakeholders as a  valuable tool in  helping  young people develop their skills and 
transition from school to work. While the launch of the programme has been challenging owing to 
the pandemic, the health crisis led  to a diverse offer of  volunteering projects where volunteers 
supported elderly people with food or medical supplies. Moreover, the programme was flexible 
enough in helping displaced Ukrainian applicants within the EU to participate in the programme 
without any administrative restrictions. Specific projects also allowed volunteering at train stations 
to provide information and food supplies to people seeking refuge. Implementation challenges 
have included issues with the IT tools, budgetary constraints and insufficient awareness of processes 
among national authorities and organisations. 

The early implementation of the CERV programme can be deemed as effective with a few caveats. 
Owing to its late adoption in 2021, most of the projects are at the beginning of implementation and 
conclusions  cannot  yet  be  drawn  on  outputs,  results  and  impacts.  While  the  programme 
requirements were  generally complied  with  and  earmarked resources were spent,  small-scale 
organisations considered that the  application process was  in  need  of  significant  review.  This 
concerned issues such as the application portal, changes in reporting, financial requirements and 
weak communication and promotion of the programme. Strand 3 of CERV and its focus on citizens' 
engagement and remembrance has however gained increased momentum and relevance in the 
current context. Projects have already taken into account the post-pandemic recovery and the 
challenges brought by Russia's war on Ukraine. 

9 

 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

The cross-programme analysis finds that because the programmes focus on different elements, 
none of them addresses all five of the overarching EU challenges listed above equally. This relevance 
assessment  should,  however,  be  treated  with  caution  seeing  that  some  references  of  the 
programmes to the challenges are generic rather than specific. The evaluation study also finds that 
all four programmes show a high degree of coherence with all six European Commission priorities, 
although coherence within the priorities varies strongly in terms of the specific policies subsumed 
within  the  six  priorities. Having  the  longest  track  record,  only  the  Erasmus+ programme is 
commonly considered  as  a  mechanism to  implement  wider  EU  policy  objectives.  The  study 
concludes that the programmes' launches were overall effective, except for Strand 3 of the CERV 
programme. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 
2021-2027 EU programmes: 
Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European 
Solidarity Corps, and Citizens, 
Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Final research paper 

This paper presents an evaluation of the Erasmus+, Creative Europe and the 
European Solidarity  Corps  programmes and  Strand  3  of  the  Citizens, 
Equality,  Rights and  Values  Programme (CERV)  at  their  early  stage  of 
implementation.  The  evaluation  focuses  on  these  four  programmes' 
relevance, external coherence and effectiveness during the first 2 to 3 years 
of implementation. The combined findings from the individual programme 
assessments offer some cross-cutting findings and lessons for the future 
implementation of these programmes. 

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AUTHOR(S) 

This paper has been written by Dr Sabine Zillmer, Bozhidar Ivanov, Dr Silke N. Haarich, Sandra Spule (Spatial 
Foresight), Nikolett Szolnoki, Malin Carlberg, Ilana Zejerman (VVA Brussels), Roland Gaugitsch (ÖIR) and Sylvia 
Amann (inforelais) – with management support by ÖIR (Dr Erich Dallhammer, Helene Gorny) and language 
editing by  Sanja  Brkanovic – at  the request of the Ex-post Evaluation  Unit  of the Directorate for Impact 
Assessment and Foresight, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the 
Secretariat of the European Parliament. 

ADMINISTRATOR (S) RESPONSIBLE 

Izabela Bacian  and  Dr  Katharina  Eisele, Ex-post  Evaluation  Unit,  Directorate for Impact Assessment and 
Foresight, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the 
European Parliament. 

To contact the publisher, please e-mail EPRS-ExPostEvaluation@ep.europa.eu.  

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS 

Original: EN 

Manuscript completed in July 2023.  

DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT 

This  document is prepared for, and  addressed to,  the Members and staff of the European Parliament as 
background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole 
responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official 
position of the Parliament. 

Reproduction  and  translation  for  non-commercial  purposes  are  authorised,  provided  the  source  is 
acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. 

Brussels © European Union, 2023. 

PE: 747.442 
ISBN: 978-92-848-0845-8 
DOI: 10.2861/425911 
CAT: QA-03-23-260-EN-N 

eprs@ep.europa.eu  
http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet)  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) 
http://epthinktank.eu (blog) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Executive summary 

The European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) has launched own-initiative 
reports for ‘Erasmus+’, ‘Creative Europe’ and the ‘European Solidarity Corps’ programmes and 
Strand 3 of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (CERV). The present evaluation study 
supports  the  CULT  Committee  through  delivering  the  evidence  available  on  the  early 
implementation of the four EU funding programmes. The evaluation considers the activities of the 
four programmes between 2021  and 2023  and assesses the status of  their implementation by 
focusing on the design and implementation activities that can be assessed in this early stage. This 
includes the three evaluation dimensions relevance, external coherence and early implementation 
effectiveness. Due  to of  the  early stage of  the  programmes’ implementation, the effectiveness 
assessments in particular can only provide initial insights. 

Based on guiding evaluation questions, evaluation  findings were elaborated for each of the four 
programmes and  supplemented by  a  cross-analysis leading  to  the  overarching findings  and 
recommendations. Taking into account the status of information available at this early stage of the 
programmes’ implementation and  the  purpose of  the  evaluation, a  theory-based evaluation 
approach is used. For each of the three evaluation dimensions a triangulation of methods is applied 
to answer the evaluation questions focusing at the EU-wide level. 

The  relevance  assessment concentrates  on five  EU  challenges,  namely digital  transition,  green 
transition, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian aggression on Ukraine and the need of the EU to act 
more autonomously in strategic policy areas, as e.g., economic policies, defence and defending 
democratic values (EU strategic autonomy). The coherence assessment complements this with a 
focus  on  the  European  Commission  policy  priorities  2019-2024  tackling  these  challenges.  By 
investigating selected types of  action of each  programme  and examples from certain Member 
States, additional in-depth insights provide illustrative examples contributing to the findings at EU 
level. Quantitative mapping of early implementation data complements the assessment. 

Erasmus+ programme 

Early implementation of the Erasmus+ programme  suggests that its flexibility successfully responds 
to EU challenges. Although related to all five EU challenges, its relevance for the green and digital 
transitions is somewhat stronger than for the other challenges. It can be observed that the Erasmus+ 
programme tackles specific challenges depending on the importance for a certain Member State, 
such as demographic ageing or the internationalisation of education institutions. 

In its design and early implementation, Erasmus+ demonstrates a high degree of alignment with all 
six European Commission priorities, indicating a solid potential for delivering results supporting the 
policy  priorities.  Four  of  the  priorities are  directly  translated into  the  Erasmus+ programme. 
Coherence  with  the  other  priorities  is  achieved,  inter  alia,  through  skills  and  competence 
development and international partnerships that also reach beyond EU borders. 

The launch of the Erasmus+ 2021-2027 programme was successful, despite the challenges induced 
by the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall uptake in 2021 was effective, and the commitment matched 
the funds earmarked for this year. However, there is a very high variation in success rates for different 
key actions. The combination of centralised and decentralised management appears to be effective 
at  the  early  implementation stage. The beneficiaries appreciate the  programme’s flexibility  in 
coping  with  external  challenges  and  their  consequences.  This includes,  inter  alia,  simplified 
procedures  and  the  introduction  of  more  lump-sum  approaches.  However,  administrative 
complexity of the programme and the lack of functionality of the data entry tools, as well as the 
effects from recent inflation, negatively affect the early implementation of the programme. 

I 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Creative Europe  programme 

The Creative  Europe  programme’s strength is in encouraging artists and creatives to tell their stories 
and to develop activities beyond the ordinary. The programme addresses the five overarching EU 
challenges to different degrees. Showing a general high flexibility, it has managed to react quickly 
to changing contexts and to respond to new challenges. The strongest focus of the programme lies 
on the digital transition while the relevance of green transition has been growing. However, the 
implementation of projects related to the Russian aggression on Ukraine generated new challenges. 
Due to its fully centralised implementation approach the Creative Europe programme does not 
address specific national culture-specific challenges. 

The Creative Europe programme has the potential to further emphasise the positive transformation 
power of the cultural and creative sectors, in partnership with a wide range of EU policy areas, which 
suggests a high level of external coherence. It could become a good practice example of a ‘green 
funding programme’ through systematically addressing the ecological transition in and with the 
cultural and  creative  sectors. Nevertheless, it underplays its potential to  address wider  digital 
transformation challenges and frameworks and strategic autonomy issues, for example, related to 
international cultural relations. 

The  early implementation of the Creative Europe programme was effective  despite the  severe 
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine. A frontloading of the 
budget  and  higher  co-financing  rates  were  adequate coping  measures.  Heavy  administrative 
frameworks including the digital portal in use for Creative Europe limited the variety of applicants 
across institutions and countries. Corresponding experience of  applicants can trigger negative 
effects for the European project. A focus on medium-sized projects can be a means to enhance the 
involvement of different applicants. Furthermore, better frameworks for the Creative Europe Desks 
could contribute to increase the support of applicants and beneficiaries in their countries.  

European Solidarity Corps programme 

The European Solidarity Corps programme is highly relevant to the digital and green transitions. It has 
been able to adjust to challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian aggression 
on Ukraine. Although one of the programme’s core values is democracy, EU strategic autonomy as 
a whole is not thoroughly ingrained within the programme. 

The external coherence of the European Solidarity Corps programme varies across the European 
Commission priorities. It is the strongest for two priorities, namely ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’ 
and ‘New  push for European democracy’. Although humanitarian  aid is an  integral part of  the 
European  Solidarity  Corps  programme,  references  to  the  European  Civil  Protection  and 
Humanitarian Aid Operations are scarce. 

The programme’s launch was challenged by delays and COVID-19  pandemic impacts but is still 
considered as being effective. Expectations for the launch were not high because the programme is 
still new. Yet, already at this early stage the European Solidarity Corps programme is considered as 
a valuable tool to promote solidarity, making young people more interested in volunteering and 
helping them transition from school to work. Further promotion may help in  awareness raising 
beyond the increasing number of  interested organisations. Despite the lack of  well-established 
processes and routines, programme management is generally effective, although there is room for 
better communication channels. Improvements could also be  introduced through lowering the 
administrative burden created through the use of the required ICT tools. Additionally, it would be 
useful to adjust for budgetary constraints resulting from the recent inflation.  

II 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

CERV programme 

The  main  objectives of  the CERV  programme  are  not directly  related to  the  five  identified EU 
challenges. They are, however, relevant and/or tackled by the CERV programme either in a cross-
cutting level, at the individual CERV programme strand level and/or at the project level. Having been 
designed as a bottom-up programme, it has a certain degree of flexibility. This is illustrated by the 
responses of Strand 3 of the CERV programme to new challenges, such as its response to the COVID-
19 pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine. 

Strand 3 of the CERV programme aligns well overall with the European Commission priorities. In 
view of its strong foundation in European values, it has a high level of coherence with 'New push for 
European democracy' and 'Promoting our European way of life'. Furthermore, it incorporated many 
aspects of the digital and green transitions, while other policy priorities were considered to a lower 
degree. 

The  programme launch  has  faced  challenges  due  to  delays.  Early  implementation can  only 
cautiously be considered as effective. Apart from impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, projects 
also suffered from operational issues. Further concerns exist regarding the ICT solution used for 
applications, changes in reporting, financial requirements, some information being only available in 
English, and relatively weak communication and promotion of the programme. 

Cross-analysis  

The  cross-analysis  of  the  four  programmes  highlights  their  different  foci  regarding  the  five 
overarching EU challenges. No programme addresses all of them equally. However, the relevance 
assessment should be  considered with  caution, as  some references of  the programmes  to the 
challenges are generic rather than specific. Thus, the effective tackling of some challenges can be 
limited. The implementation approach seems to affect a programme’s ability to simultaneously 
tackle EU as well as specific national challenges. Annual work programmes enable the programmes 
to react to new challenges relatively quickly without a need for larger programme revisions.  

All four programmes show a high degree of coherence with all six European Commission priorities, 
although the  coherence within  the  priorities varies  strongly in  terms of  the  specific  policies 
subsumed under the six priorities. However, while the four programmes frequently refer to policies 
under the six priorities, this is not the case vice versa. Having the longest track record, only the 
Erasmus+ programme is commonly considered as a  mechanism to implement wider  EU  policy 
objectives. Thus, there seems to be some incoherence in  the reflection of the potential of, and 
expectations towards, the four programmes’ contributions to achieving EU policy objectives. This 
may  also  require more  systematic monitoring of  these  contributions as  well  as  tracking the 
mentioning of the policies in the programmes’ calls.  

The programmes’ launches were overall effective, except  for Strand 3  of the CERV programme. 
During  the  early implementation the shares of the  programmes’ committed volumes differed 
considerably. Success rates vary strongly not only between the four programmes, but also within 
them, e.g., between the different types of actions and across strands.  

A more balanced uptake across actions or strands throughout the programming period would be 
beneficial  for  an  effective  implementation. This  could  require  budget reallocations as well  as 
additional activities,  depending on  the  preferred goals and  expectations of  the  programmes’ 
contributions. Cross-fertilisation of communication and coordination across programmes as well as 
more capacities to effectively manage the programmes at different levels and initiatives to reduce 
the  administrative  burden  may  support  an  effective  implementation  for  the  remaining 
programming period.  

III 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table of contents 

1. Introduction_________________________________________________________________ 1 

2. Evaluation methodology _______________________________________________________ 5 

2.1. Theory based evaluation approach ____________________________________________ 5 

2.1.1. Assessment of relevance __________________________________________________ 7 

2.1.2. Assessment of coherence  _________________________________________________ 8 

2.1.3. Assessment of effectiveness  ______________________________________________ 10 

2.2. Quantitative mapping  _____________________________________________________ 10 

2.3. Selection of practices ______________________________________________________ 12 

2.4. Selection of Member States _________________________________________________ 13 

3. Assessment of the early implementation of the Erasmus+ programme _________________ 15 

3.1. Overview ________________________________________________________________ 16 

3.2. Relevance assessment  _____________________________________________________ 19 

3.2.1. Programme design  _____________________________________________________ 20 

3.2.2. Early implementation  ___________________________________________________ 23 

3.2.3. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 25 

3.3. Coherence assessment _____________________________________________________ 26 

3.3.1. Programme design  _____________________________________________________ 27 

3.3.2. Early implementation  ___________________________________________________ 31 

3.3.3. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 33 

3.4. Effectiveness _____________________________________________________________ 34 

3.4.1. Programme launch  _____________________________________________________ 35 

3.4.2. Programme management and responses to changing external conditions _________ 38 

3.4.3. Programme objectives addressed during early implementation __________________ 40 

3.4.4. Challenges in the early implementation _____________________________________ 40 

IV 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

3.4.5. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 41 

4. Assessment of the early implementation of the Creative Europe programme ____________ 43 

4.1. Overview ________________________________________________________________ 44 

4.2. Relevance assessment  _____________________________________________________ 46 

4.2.1. Programme design  _____________________________________________________ 48 

4.2.2. Early implementation  ___________________________________________________ 49 

4.2.3. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 50 

4.3. Coherence assessment _____________________________________________________ 52 

4.3.1. Creative Europe in European Commission Priorities____________________________ 52 

4.3.2. Programme design  _____________________________________________________ 53 

4.3.3. Early implementation  ___________________________________________________ 54 

4.3.4. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 55 

4.4. Effectiveness assessment ___________________________________________________ 57 

4.4.1. Programme launch  _____________________________________________________ 57 

4.4.2. Programme management and responses to changing external conditions _________ 59 

4.4.3. Programme objectives addressed during early implementation __________________ 61 

4.4.4. Challenges for programme and project managers _____________________________ 62 

4.4.5. Coping with future challenges  ____________________________________________ 64 

4.4.6. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 64 

5. Assessment of the early implementation of the European Solidarity Corps programme ____ 67 

5.1. Overview ________________________________________________________________ 69 

5.2. Relevance assessment  _____________________________________________________ 73 

5.2.1. Programme design  _____________________________________________________ 73 

5.2.2. Early implementation  ___________________________________________________ 76 

5.2.3. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 76 

V 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

5.3. Coherence assessment _____________________________________________________ 77 

5.3.1. Programme design  _____________________________________________________ 78 

5.3.2. Early implementation  ___________________________________________________ 80 

5.3.3. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 81 

5.4. Effectiveness assessment ___________________________________________________ 81 

5.4.1. Programme launch  _____________________________________________________ 82 

5.4.2. Programme management and responses to changing external conditions _________ 83 

5.4.3. Programme objectives addressed during early implementation __________________ 84 

5.4.4. Challenges in the early implementation _____________________________________ 84 

5.4.5. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 85 

6. Assessment of the early implementation of Strand 3 of the CERV programme____________ 87 

6.1. Overview ________________________________________________________________ 88 

6.2. Relevance assessment  _____________________________________________________ 92 

6.2.1. Programme design  _____________________________________________________ 93 

6.2.2. Early implementation  ___________________________________________________ 97 

6.2.3. Lessons learnt  _________________________________________________________ 98 

6.3. Coherence assessment _____________________________________________________ 99 

6.3.1. Programme design  _____________________________________________________ 99 

6.3.2. Early implementation  __________________________________________________ 101 

6.3.3. Lessons learnt  ________________________________________________________ 102 

6.4. Effectiveness assessment __________________________________________________ 103 

6.4.1. Programme launch  ____________________________________________________ 103 

6.4.2. Programme management and responses to changing external conditions ________ 104 

6.4.3. Programme objectives addressed during early implementation _________________ 105 

6.4.4. Challenges for programme and project managers ____________________________ 106 

VI 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

6.4.5. Lessons learnt  ________________________________________________________ 106 

7. Cross-analysis of the four programmes and lessons learnt  __________________________ 109 

7.1. Relevance assessment  ____________________________________________________ 109 

7.1.1. Key findings __________________________________________________________ 109 

7.1.2. Lessons learnt  ________________________________________________________ 111 

7.2. Coherence assessment ____________________________________________________ 112 

7.2.1. Key findings __________________________________________________________ 112 

7.2.2. Lessons learnt  ________________________________________________________ 115 

7.3. Effectiveness assessment __________________________________________________ 116 

7.3.1. Key findings __________________________________________________________ 116 

7.3.2. Lessons learnt  ________________________________________________________ 118 

Annex I – Methodological details ________________________________________________ A-1 

Annex II – Complementary information on the assessments__________________________ A-12 

VII 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table of figures 

Figure 1:   Overview of methodological approach and the study’s structure  ______________ 3 

Figure 2:  

Example of a specific intervention logic___________________________________ 6 

Figure 3:   Overview of selected practices for all four programmes _____________________ 12 

Figure 4:   Overview of Member State evaluation coverage by programme ______________ 13 

Figure 5:  

Erasmus+ intervention logic___________________________________________ 17 

Figure 6:   Creative Europe intervention logic______________________________________ 45 

Figure 7:   Number of proposals received per strand ________________________________ 58 

Figure 8:   Creative Europe: Success rate per strand (number of applicants) ______________ 58 

Figure 9:   Creative Europe: total budget per strand (2021, 2022)  ______________________ 59 

Figure 10:   ESC programme structure  ____________________________________________ 68 

Figure 11:   ESC intervention logic________________________________________________ 71 

Figure 12:   ESC: Key actions – submitted proposals, success rate from eligible proposals, 

success rate total____________________________________________________ 72 

Figure 13:   ESC: Sums of Budget per year (direct + indirect management) ________________ 72 

Figure 14:   CERV intervention logic  ______________________________________________ 89 

Figure 15:   Coherence across programmes with the six Commission priorities ___________ 113 

Figure 16:   Comparison of success rates for selected types of action across the four 

programmes (highest and lowest rates for 2021 and 2022 combined)_________ 117 

Figure A.1:   Erasmus+: Proposals received and success rate__________________________ A-14 

Figure A.2:   Erasmus+: Total budget programme per key action (2021, 2022)____________ A-15 

Figure A.3:   CERV programme – applications submitted and awarded  _________________ A-25 

VIII 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Table of tables 

Table 1:  

Relevance evaluation matrix____________________________________________ 8 

Table 2:  

Coherence evaluation matrix (examples of priorities and specific and policies)____ 9 

Table 3:  

Key Achievements Erasmus+ in 2021 and 2022 ____________________________ 18 

Table 4:  

Erasmus+ contribution to horizontal principles____________________________ 31 

Table 5:  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 Key Actions and Action Type fields (indirectly managed)___ 35 

Table 6:  

Erasmus+ cumulative implementation rate at the end of 2021 (€ million) _______ 35 

Table 7:  

The total budget earmarked for Mobility of HE students and staff, € ___________ 36 

Table 8:  

The total earmarked budget for Mobility of HE students and staff in 2021 and 
2022 versus commitment in the selected Member States, € __________________ 36 

Table 9:  

The total budget earmarked for Small-scale Partnerships in VET  ______________ 37 

Table 10:  

The total earmarked budget for Small-scale Partnerships in VET in 2021 and 
2022 versus commitment by selected Member States, €  ____________________ 38 

Table 11:   Key Achievements Creative Europe _____________________________________ 44 

Table 12:   Culture-Specific Challenges Related to Main EU Challenges __________________ 46 

Table 13:  

European Solidarity Corps budget 2021-2027 _____________________________ 70 

Table 14:   Annual budget, 2021-2023 ____________________________________________ 70 

Table 15:   Projects in 2021 and 2022 by selected Member States and practices ___________ 82 

Table 16:   CERV Strand 3 budget 2020-2027_______________________________________ 90 

Table 17:   Annual budget allocations for Strand 3, 2021-2024 (€ million) ________________ 90 

Table 18:   Relevance assessment for the programmes’ design  _______________________ 109 

Table 19:   Relevance assessment for the programmes’ early implementation ___________ 110 

Table 20:  

The four programmes in key policy documents  __________________________ 114 

Table 21:   Coherence of the four programmes with key policy documents  _____________ 115 

Table A.1:   Thematic areas of EU and national challenges____________________________ A-2 

Table A.2:   European Commission Priorities 2019-2024, Recovery Plan for Europe and 

related EU policies__________________________________________________ A-3 

Table A.3:   Evaluation matrix for effectiveness  ____________________________________ A-5 

Table A.4:   Erasmus+ programme practice selection________________________________ A-6 

Table A.5:   Creative Europe programme practice selection___________________________ A-7 

Table A.6:   ESC programme practice selection_____________________________________ A-8 

Table A.7:   Practice selection of Strand 3 of the CERV programme _____________________ A-8 

IX 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table A.8:   MS selection criteria for the Erasmus+ programme ________________________ A-9 

Table A.9:   MS selection criteria for the Creative Europe programme __________________ A-10 

Table A.10:   MS selection criteria for the European Solidarity Corps ____________________ A-10 

Table A.11:   MS selection criteria for the CERV programme  __________________________ A-11 

Table A.12:   Erasmus+ programme specific challenges______________________________ A-12 

Table A.13:   Digital transformation______________________________________________ A-16 

Table A.14:   Green transition  __________________________________________________ A-16 

Table A.15:   Post-pandemic recovery challenges___________________________________ A-17 

Table A.16:   Russian aggression and geopolitical context ____________________________ A-17 

Table A.17:   EU strategic autonomy _____________________________________________ A-18 

Table A.18:   Overview of EU (cultural) policies _____________________________________ A-18 

Table A.19:   Wider lessons learnt on the coherence between Commission Priorities and 

Creative Europe___________________________________________________ A-20 

Table A.20:   Overview of number of calls and submitted and selected proposals, 2021-2023 A-22 

Table A.21:   Selected proposals and MS coverage by project leaders___________________ A-22 

Table A.22:   Thematic Priorities of the European Cooperation Projects – Medium Scale calls  A-23 

Table A.23:   Thematic Priorities of the Innovative Tools and Business Models calls ________ A-23 

Table A.24:   Thematic Priorities of the Rapid Response Mechanism call _________________ A-23 

Table A.25:   CERV Strand 3 programme specific challenges __________________________ A-25 

Table A.26:   CERV Strand 3 awarded proposals and success rates  _____________________ A-26 

X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

List of abbreviations 

ADC 

Architectural Design Competitions 

AI 

AIR 

API 

AT 

AV 

AWP 

CBHE 

CCS 

CE 

CED 

CERV 

CoVE 

CSO 

CULT 

Artificial Intelligence 

Annual Implementation Report 

Application Programme Interface 

Austria 

Audiovisual 

Annual Working Programme 

Capacity Building in Higher Education 

Cross-Sectoral 

Creative Europe 

Creative Europe Desks 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme 

Centres of Vocational Excellence 

Civil Society Organisation 

European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education 

EACEA 

European Education and Culture Executive Agency 

EC 

EE 

EEA 

EFTA 

EPLUG 

ERDF 

ESC 

ESF 

EU 

FPA 

HR 
ICT 

IIEA  
IMZ 

IT 
JMO 

KA 

European Commission 

Estonia 

European Education Area 

European Free Trade Association 

European Platform for Urban Greening 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Solidarity Corps 

European Social Fund 

European Union 

Framework Partnership Agreement 

Croatia 
Information and communication technology 

Irish Institute of International and European Affairs 
International Music + Media Centre 

Italy 
Jean Monnet 

Key Action 

LGBTIQ 
MEP 

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*, Inter*, Queer 
Member of the European Parliament 

MFF 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

MOOC 

Massive Open On-line Course 

XI 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

MS 

MVP 

NCPs 

NDICI 

NEB 

NFT 

NGO 

OMC 

PS 

SDG 

SE 

SME 

TFEU 

UA 

Member State 

Minimum Viable Product 

National Contact Points 

Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation 

New European Bauhaus 

Non-Fungible Token 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

European Union Open Method of Coordination 

Programme Statement 

Sustainable Development Goals 

Sweden 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 

Treaty on the Functioning of the Europe Union 

Ukraine 

UNESCO  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 

VET 

WP 

Vocational Education and Training 

Work Programme 

XII 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

1. Introduction 

The European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (CULT), responsible for various 
cultural aspects of the European Union (EU), including educational and media aspects, is involved 
in the policy-making of several EU programmes. In light of these responsibilities, CULT has launched 
own-initiative  reports  for ‘Erasmus+’, ‘Creative  Europe’ and the ‘European  Solidarity Corps’ programmes 
and Strand 3 of the Citizens, Equality, Rights  and Values Programme  (CERV). To support these activities, 
the Ex-Post Evaluation Unit (EVAL) of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and Foresight (within 
Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services of the European Parliament, DG EPRS) has 
launched  an  evaluation  study  to  collect  evidence  on  the  early  implementation  of  these  four 
programmes.   

The four funding programmes deal with different, though partially overlapping, aspects of culture 
and education. Commonalities of the four programmes go beyond thematic aspects. Three out of 
the four programmes are implemented under the leadership of the European Commission (EC) DG 
for Education and Culture (DG EAC). All four programmes are rolled out through direct management 
by the respective DGs and the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), and all 
four are supported through a network of respective National Agencies in the 27 Member States.1  

Despite these commonalities, the implementation of the four programmes differs significantly. The 
relevant actors work  together in  different  roles, ranging from  the  implementation of  entirely 
centrally  managed  programmes  (e.g.,  the  Creative  Europe  programme)  to  the  combined 
implementation of centrally and decentrally managed programme activities (e.g., the Erasmus+ 
programme). Furthermore, each programme has its specific objectives and supports different types 
of actions. Consequently, this affects the selected indicators, which are used to assess results. The 
four programmes vary considerably in terms of size and complexity (i.e., variety of actions, strands, 
and others) in the 2021-2027 programming period:  

  Erasmus+ with a total budget of €26 billion 2; 
  Creative Europe with a total budget of €2.4 billion 3; 
  European Solidarity Corps with a total budget of €1 billion 4; 
  Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (CERV) with a  total budget of  €1.6 

billion, of which €366 million were earmarked to Strand 3 of the programme 5. 

The differences in budgets and other above-described characteristics are crucial  factors for this 
assignment’s evaluation methodology. The methodology allows for certain differences regarding 
the details of the evaluations performed across the programmes while aiming to achieve an overall 
comparable approach, enabling the successful exploration of each programme’s specifics while 
allowing  for comparison. To obtain both overarching and hands-on insights, this evaluation is 
selective in several respects:  

  for each programme, two to three types of actions are in the analytical focus rather than 

covering all actions in detail;  

1   Apart from these agencies, programmes have also contacts in other partner countries. Some have a different structure 
from those in the EU Member States, e.g.  National Erasmus+  Offices, whereas others do not distinguish  between EU 
Member States and non-EU  partner, e.g. Creative Europe Desks.   

2  
3  
4  
5  

Regulation (EU)  2021/817, Art. 17. 

Regulation (EU)  2021/818, Art. 8. 

Regulation (EU)  2021/888, Art. 11. 

Regulation (EU)  2021/692, Art. 7. 

1 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

  apart from the EU  level  analysis, for each  programme implementation insights are 

collected for a limited sample of four Member States each; 

  in view of the early stage of implementation the analysis focuses on the three evaluation 
dimensions, namely relevance, coherence and effectiveness, whereas efficiency and EU 
added value cannot be considered systematically. 

The evaluation assesses the status of programme implementation by focusing on the design and 
implementation activities that can be assessed in this early stage, such as annual work programmes, 
calls and the selection of initial projects. The evaluation covers the first three years as far as possible, 
i.e., 2021, 2022 and 2023, to consider potentially changing needs for action and different stages of 
implementation.  

Within this context, the study starts with an outline of the methodology (chapter 2) which provides 
the basis for the common evaluation approach. Further detailed methodological information, for 
example, for each programme, is included in Annex I.  

Chapters 3  to  6  present the evaluation findings for each  programme. A short summary of the 
evaluation findings is  presented at the beginning of  each  chapter. This is  followed  by  a  brief 
overview and introduction to the respective programme. Thereafter, each assessment chapter is 
structured along the three evaluation dimensions, differentiating between programme design and 
early implementation, and concluding with findings related to the guiding evaluation questions. 
Annex II complements chapters 3 to 6 with additional data and figures to support the findings. 

Chapter 7 presents the cross-analysis of the four programmes highlighting common findings and 
key differences between them. A distinct focus is placed on findings and recommendations which 
are  relevant  for  the  further  implementation  of  the  four  programmes.  The  following  figure 
summarises the structure of the study to illustrate the coherent evaluation approach across the four 
programmes. 

2 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Figure 1: Overview of methodological approach and the study’s structure 

Source: own presentation. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

2. Evaluation methodology 

Guided  by  a  theory-based  evaluation  approach,  the  evaluation  methodology  builds  on  a 
triangulation of methods: 

  analysing quantitative programme data as available and as harmonised as possible;  
  analysing programme documents at EU level; 
  complementing the EU level analysis with examples from Member States (MS); 
  performing semi-structured interviews or focus groups at EU- and especially at MS-level. 

In view of the wide variety of practices or types of action implemented by the four programmes, the 
early  evaluation  concentrates  on  the  assessment  of  selected  practices,  especially for  the  MS  level 
analysis. The following sections describe the methodology as well as the territorial and practices foci 
to provide the basis for the programme specific analyses in the chapters thereafter. 

2.1. Theory based evaluation approach 

According to the European Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines6 an evaluation covers the 
five mandatory evaluation dimensions: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added 
value.  Evaluations  aim  to  enable  continuous  alignment  of  interventions  to  meet  emerging 
challenges as well as to eliminate inconsistencies.  

Due to the early stage of implementation of the programmes, tentative conclusions can be drawn 
focusing on the direction they have been progressing. This implies a focus on three of  the five 
evaluation dimensions:  

  Relevance  describes the design and the early implementation in relation to EU  and 

national needs and challenges. 

  External  coherence  evaluates the  design and  the  early  implementation of the  four 
programmes in  the  context  of  the  2019-2024  Commission priorities and other EU 
policies. 

  Effectiveness tentatively assesses the adequate and timely setting-up of implementation 
structures and processes, a timely and effective launching of calls, a satisfactory reaction 
to calls, and the selection of proposals that lead to actions and practices in line with the 
objectives of the programmes and their annual work programmes. 

The  conceptual basis for the  evaluation of each  programme is a  specific  intervention logic as 
illustrated below. Corresponding to the evaluation focus, the dark blue arrows in the top row of the 
figure and the points below these are subject to this evaluation.  

6  

Better Regulation Guidelines, 2021, p. 23. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Figure 2: Example of a specific intervention logic 

EU Priorities

Challenges

Programme Design

Programme Delivery

Activities & Practices

Results

Long-term Impact

Relevance

Efficiency

• Design of the Programme
• Main Objectives
• Set-up/Strands
• Specific Objectives
• Annual Work Programmes
• Priorities
• Methods of Interventions

• Implementation Structures and 

• Early Implementation of 

• Results and 

• Overall 

Processes

• Calls
• Reach and Reaction (Proposals)
• Selection of Proposals

Projects 
• Beneficiaries 
• Contribution to output 

indicators

• Contribution to Themes
• Contribution to Results
• Types of Practices 

Achievements of the 
supported actions

contribution to 
quality of life and 
well-being

6 Commission priorities for
2019-2024
A European Green Deal
A Europe fit for the digital age
An economy that works for people
A stronger Europe in the world
Promoting our European way of life
A new push for European democracy

Other EU Policies
• Cohesion Policy (ESF, ERDF, 

Interreg)
• SME Policy
• Industrial Strategy
• Digital Europe
• Etc.

EU and 
National 
Needs

External 
Challenges 
2021-2023

• Climate 
Change

• Technological 

progress
• Coronavirus 
pandemic

• Post-pandemic 
EU recovery

• Russian-

Ukraine War

Coherence

Effectiveness of 
Implementation

Goal Effectiveness

EU Added-Value

Source: own representation. 

6 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

To harmonise the overall evaluation approach across the four programmes, common guidance 
including evaluation questions and analytical tools were developed, while allowing for programme 
specific adjustments when necessary. The following sub-sections summarise the guiding evaluation 
questions and analytical approach for each of the three evaluation dimensions. Complementing 
information is included in Annex I.  

2.1.1. Assessment of relevance 
At the centre of the relevance assessment are the five main EU and national challenges. These five 
main EU challenges are overarching for many if not all EU policy processes and are thus considered 
crucial for the analysis. National challenges not subsumed under the overarching challenges have 
been added, when identified by the programme expert. Programme specific sub-challenges, as 
further explained in  Annex I,  or additional challenges, have been identified in  the course of the 
relevance assessment. In view the guiding policies of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 
2021-2027 and recent developments, the pre-defined challenges are: 

  EU digital transition  – Society and economy need to be empowered by digital solutions, 
and  should be  ensured technological sovereignty through adequate infrastructure, 
networks and framework conditions.7 

  Green  transition  – Climate change and the loss of biodiversity create high risks that 
require actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the resilience of the 
environment, society and economy to climate change risks and impacts.8  

  COVID-19  pandemic  consequences  –  The  pandemic  led  to  numerous consequences 
affecting  many  policy  areas  and  impacting  citizens’  daily  lives  (health,  economic, 
research,  mobility  etc.).  Some  of  these  consequences  are  still  relevant  for  post-
pandemic recovery and have led to numerous policy actions. 9  

  Russian  aggression  on Ukraine  – Challenges from the Russian aggression arise both for 
Ukraine’s responsiveness and resilience as well  as for  EU  Member  States and their 
societies due to refugee influxes, the induced energy crisis and interruptions in value 
chains. 10  

  EU strategic autonomy – Not least some of the previous challenges have highlighted the 
EU need to act more autonomously in various strategic policy areas, particularly with 
respect to economic policies, defence and the securing of democratic values.11  

The assessment is based on a  thorough review of the programme documents and the relevant 
literature available on each  programme. Semi-structured interviews with 21  interview partners 
(partially interviewed in a focus group) complement the information collection. For a consistent and 
harmonised approach, a matrix tool (see Table 1) guided the comprehensive qualitative judgement 
for  the  different  phases of  the  programme including  the  overall  final  judgement. Additional 
programme specific challenges were added as needed. 

Shaping  Europe’s  Digital Future 

European  Commission  COM(2019) 640 final 

7  
8  
9   COVID-19 legal documents  EUR-Lex 
10   See https://eu-solidarity-ukraine.ec.europa.eu/index_en   
11   EEU  Strategic Autonomy 2013-2023: From Concept to Capacity 

7 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table 1: Relevance evaluation matrix 

RELEVANCE 

Programme Design 

Early implementation 

Objectives/ 
strands/ 
priorities 

Annual 
work pro-
grammes 

Other 
design 
aspects 

Calls/ 
imple-
mentation 

Selected 
projects 

Other im-
plemen-
tation asp. 

Challenges 

EU digital transition 

Green transition 

COVID-19 pandemic effects 

Russian aggression 

EU strategic autonomy 

Source: own representation. 

Judge-
ment 

-2/-1/0/ 
1/2 

The final judgement summarises the relevance assessment:  

  0 = No reference at all was identified (neutral).  
  1 = There are 1-2 references or many indirect references (moderate). 
  2 = There are more than 2 direct references and/or other direct links (high). 

With this approach, the assessment of relevance responds to the following evaluation questions for 
each programme: 

  To what extent does the programme tackle the overarching EU challenges? 
  To  what  extent does the  programme consider and tackle specific  EU  and national 

challenges? 

  Is the programme still relevant in view of changing external conditions? 
  Has the programme been able to respond to needs arising from the change of external 

conditions? 

Regarding  the  last  question,  special  attention  was  paid  to  the  extent  of  the  programme 
implementation adjustments made in response to the changing needs arising from the COVID-19 
pandemic  and  corresponding economic  recovery, and  the  Russian  aggression on  Ukraine.  If 
necessary, programme specific aspects were detailed or added. 

2.1.2. Assessment of coherence 
The assessment of coherence focuses on the six European Commission priorities for 2019-2024 and 
their  related EU  policies.  This  is  complemented by the  Recovery Plan  for  Europe 2020  as  the 
additional overarching objective and by programme specific policies not included under any of 
these priorities. Thus, the pre-defined policies for the coherence assessment are 12: 

  A European Green Deal 
  A Europe fit for the digital age 
  An economy that works for the people 
  A stronger Europe in the world 
  Promoting our European way of life 
  New push for European democracy 
  Recovery Plan for Europe 2020 

12   The European  Commission's  priorities  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Annex I  contains additional descriptions of the related EU  policies included in  the analysis. The 
coherence assessment is  mainly  based  on  a  thorough review  of  programme documents and 
literature  detailing  relevant  policies.  Semi-structured  interviews  complement  the  required 
information. For a consistent and harmonised approach, a coherence evaluation matrix (see Table 2) 
guided the comprehensive qualitative judgement for the different phases of the programme. This 
matrix includes an overall final judgement according to each policy and specific priority. Additional 
programme specific policies and priorities are added as needed in additional rows. 

Table 2: Coherence evaluation matrix (examples of priorities and specific and policies) 

Commission 
Priorities & the 
Programme 

Programme Design 

Early 
implementation 

Judgement 

Programme 
links to 
relevant policy 
documents 

Objectives/strands/
priorities/Annual 
work programmes 
… 

Calls/selected 
projects/other 
implementation 
aspects 

-2/-1/0/1/2 

COHERENCE 

Priorities 

Specific priority/policy 

A European Green Deal 

Social climate Fund … 

A Europe fit for the digital age  

Digital decade … 

An economy that works for people … 

Source: own representation. 

The final judgement summarises the coherence assessment:  

  0 = No reference at all was identified (neutral).  
  1 = There are 1-2 references or many indirect references (moderate). 
  2 = There are more than 2 direct references and/or other direct links (high). 
  -1  =  There are some contradictory or excluding relationships leading to a moderate 

negative coherence. 

  -2  =  There  are serious contradictory or excluding relationships leading to a  strong 

negative coherence. 

Within this approach, the coherence assessment answers the following evaluation questions for 
each programme: 

  Is the programme design coherent with Commission priorities and other relevant EU 
policies? To what extent do EU policy documents in relevant policy fields refer to the 
respective programme?  

  To what extent do the respective programme documents refer to Commission priorities 

and relevant EU policies? 

  Is the early implementation of the programme coherent with wider EU priorities and 

policies? 

If necessary, programme specific aspects were detailed for each of the questions. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

2.1.3. Assessment of effectiveness 
As far as possible at this early stage of implementation, the assessment of effectiveness responds to 
the following evaluation questions for each programme: 

  How effective was the launch of the programme and its uptake i.e., the reaction by 

applicants? 

  How effective are direct and the indirect management13 in supporting the programme’s 

objectives? 

  To what extent have the objectives of the programme been tackled during the early 
stages  of  implementation?  How  likely  is  it  that  practices  will  contribute  to  the 
attainment of programme goals in the coming years? 

  Are the effects produced during the early implementation in line with the programme’s 

objectives? 

  Has the programme been able to respond to needs arising from the change of external 

conditions? 

  What  have  been/are  the  specific  challenges  in  the  early  implementation of  each 

programme? 

  What are the success stories of the early implementation of each programme? 

Programme specific aspects were added to the questions, when required. 

Due to the different implementation modes of the four programmes, the analysis of this evaluation 
dimension is more heterogeneous than the other two dimensions. The effectiveness assessment 
relies more strongly on the analysis of selected practices and examples from MS (see sections 2.3 
and 2.4) and is thus less advanced given the stage of early implementation.  

The effectiveness assessment builds on the triangulation of methods, including quantitative and 
qualitative data analyses, interviews and the use of samples. Annex I gives a detailed overview of 
how the seven evaluation questions could be linked to different information sources and analysis 
methods. 

2.2. Quantitative mapping  

The purpose of this exercise is to map the implementation of the four EU programmes. The task 
identifies, analyses and reports on selected key indicators depicting the programmes’ activities over 
the years 2021 to 2023. The main output is a descriptive analysis of the selected indicators, including 
visual illustrations.  

Specifically, the following types of information were analysed: 

  the  types of  activities carried  out by  each  programme, e.g., the  financial  volumes 

planned and implemented, 

  the programmes’ calls for proposals (e.g., number and thematic foci), 
  the selected proposals (e.g., number and thematic foci by programme). 

In  direct  management,  the EC  is  responsible  for  all  steps  of  a  programme’s  implementation.  In  case  of  indirect 
management,  other national authorities or international organisations support  the programme implementation (see 
Funding  by management  mode). 

13  

10 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

To do so, four distinct steps were followed:  

  Step 1: Identification of possible data sources 
  Step 2:  Verification of  the quality and consistency of the data, and identification of 

limitations 

  Step 3: Extraction, aggregation and compilation of the data in a database (Excel file) 
  Step 4: Reporting and production of graphs 

Under Steps 1 and 2, the data available on the programmes’ websites (Creative Europe, Erasmus+) 
and the Funding and Tender opportunities database 14 were reviewed. Due to the lack of a fully 
functioning Application Programme Interface (API) for the database (see ‘limitations’ below) only a 
limited amount of information could be gathered from this review. Thus, in parallel, a request for 
information was put forward to the respective contact persons at the EC via the EPRS. The EC made 
available a  set of  documents outlining the main aspects of the 2021  and  2022  funding years. 
Following a thorough review, a second request to improve data quality and quantity was made to 
the EC which led to little improvement of the data quality. Therefore, a follow-up manual extraction 
of  basic  information from the respective programmes’ websites and the  Funding and  Tender 
opportunities database was conducted. 

In Step 3, the different sources were compiled providing an overview of the available data and the 
quantitative analyses of early implementation for each programme. In general, an assessment of the 
following aspects was conducted: 

  Number of submitted proposals (by strands/key action areas and topics etc.), number 

of selected proposals and success rate. 

  Financial distribution per action area/strand etc., total and relative shares. 

Finally, in Step 4  the information retrieved was presented in a set of graphs and accompanying 
analyses. 

While performing these steps several limitations were identified: 

  API for the Funding and Tender opportunities database does not provide access to the 
datasets required, but only to a limited number of programmes and only for the 2014-
2020 period. 

  There are inconsistencies between different types of sources, e.g., Funding and Tender 
opportunities databases, information received from the  EC  and  information in the 
Annual Implementation Reports (AIR). 

  The data received from the EC only covers limited types of projects (e.g., only direct 
management projects in the case of Erasmus+), which are not adequate for the foreseen 
analysis.  

  The data received from the EC is not consistent in terms of aggregation/disaggregation 
(e.g., some activities are reported for the 2021-2022  aggregate, others are reported 
separately). For CERV, the information provided covers the whole programme and 
includes limited information focusing on the third strand itself.  

  The data received from the EC includes some gaps, e.g., data on the number of calls is 

not available for the Culture Strand of the Creative Europe programme.  

  The data received from the EC may include activities from the preceding programming 
period as reporting is based on reporting years. As such it is not possible to determine 
whether information on the calls for projects and their outcomes is linked to the current 

14   Funding&Tender  database 

11 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

or the previous programming period, which further limits the adequateness of the data 
for the anticipated analysis. 

  Only a limited number of projects have been completed at the point of conducting the 
evaluation, limiting in particular the effectiveness assessment for each programme. 
  The centrally available data (e.g., from the Funding and Tender opportunities database) 
covers only centrally managed programmes and programme strands which include 
only a minor part of the overall programme activities. 

2.3. Selection of practices  

According to the Terms of Reference for this assignment, for each programme, two practices shall be 
analysed in-depth that can support the discussion process of the European Parliament. They can be  

  common for more than one programme; 
  specific to a certain programme; 
  successful practices (based on tentative or previous experience); 
  challenging practices (based on tentative or previous experience); 
  practices implemented at larger scale may be preferred to smaller ones; 
  smaller or narrower practices, if they showcase something new or striking. 

Figure 3: Overview of selected practices for all four programmes 

Source: own presentation. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

For a balanced selection, ten practices have been selected: two each for Erasmus+ and the European 
Solidarity Corps (ESC), and three each for Creative Europe (CE) and CERV. The general selection 
criteria were slightly adapted for each programme. The following figure illustrates the final practice 
selection along the most important general criteria. This includes the combination of previously 
successful practices with new ones and innovative approaches. Looking at all programmes, at least 
one practice that has been implemented at a larger scale has been included. Annex I provides more 
details on the rationale behind the selection, presented per programme. 

2.4. Selection of Member States  

Figure 4: Overview of Member State evaluation coverage by programme 

The  evaluation illustrates the practical implementation of the  four programmes and highlights 
potential differences between MS. Four MS have been selected per programme, enabling a sufficient 
variation across the different approaches of the national implementation (e.g., regarding the indirect 
ele-
management 
ments  of  the  pro-
grammes)  and  vary-
ing 
achievements, 
considering 
while 
the  limited  timeline 
of  the  assignment. 
The  selection aimed 
firstly  to  maximise 
the variation of geo-
graphic 
coverage 
across  the  EU  terri-
tory  for  each  pro-
gramme and second-
ly to balance the co-
verage of MS  across 
four  analysed 
the 
programmes. 
For 
each 
programme, 
additional  selection 
criteria were applied 
to  achieve  an  ade-
quate  variation  per 
programme.  These 
criteria 
additional 
cover 
each  pro-
grammes’  particula-
rities, ones that could 
not  have  otherwise 
been  considered for 
them.  For 
all  of 
example,  this  includes  different  methods of  MS-level  implementation,  territorial participation 
differences or specific trends or situations that are crucial for a programme’s implementation in a 
country. Overall, 16 national level analyses were performed. Annex I provides more details on the 
selection rationales per programme. Figure 4 illustrates the final MS selection.  

Source: own representation. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

3. Assessment of the early implementation of the Erasmus+ 
programme 

Erasmus+ programme key findings: 

  The early implementation demonstrates that the programme lives up to EC ambitions 
and is  sufficiently flexible  to respond to new challenges. Erasmus+ proves highly 
relevant to the twin transition – green and digital. These two priorities are tightly 
woven into the programme’s ‘fabric’, and have been reinforced by the  COVID-19 
pandemic. 

  The  existing  Erasmus+  framework  allows  for  a  prompt  response  to  external 
challenges. It is believed that the programme, by default, plays a relatively important 
role  in  the  post-pandemic recovery. The  Erasmus+ actions  strengthened by  its 
inclusive  dimension  contribute to  personal,  socio-educational  and  professional 
development of people in Europe, and beyond, thus mitigating the negative effects 
created by pandemic. 

  The  programme adequately responds  to the Russian aggression on Ukraine. The 
extent to which Erasmus+ is relevant to this challenge, however, is somewhat smaller 
when compared to the twin transition or the EU strategic autonomy. The programme 
reacted swiftly to the arising educational needs of incoming Ukrainian refugees, as 
well as Ukrainian project partners. 

  The  programme has had  increasing relevance for strengthening the EU  strategic 
autonomy, which is likely to further augment in the future. This holds true for both of 
its perspectives, i.e., building the European identity and democracies, as well as for 
strengthening economy and entrepreneurial skills. 

  The programme demonstrates a high degree of alignment with all six EC priorities. 
Furthermore, four  of  the  priorities  are  directly  translated into  the  programme, 
namely: ‘Promoting our European way of life’,  ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’, ‘A 
European Green Deal’ and ‘New push for European democracy’. 

  Coherence with the EC priority ‘An economy that works for people’ is achieved by 
building  professional  competences  and  skills  required  on  the  labour  market. 
Alignment with the EC priority ‘A stronger Europe in the world’ is ensured by, inter 
alia, international partnerships beyond the EU that are at the core of the programme’s 
architecture. 

  There has been an overall successful launch of the Erasmus+ 2021-2027 programme. 
The overall uptake in 2021  was effective, i.e.,  the commitment matches the funds 
earmarked for this year. 

  Both  the  centralised  and  decentralised  management  structures  appear  to  be 
effective at the early implementation stage for Erasmus+ 2021-2027. Based on the 
experiences of the national authorities it seems that the beneficiaries appreciate the 
extent of the programme’s flexibility in  coping with external challenges and their 
consequences,  including  inter  alia,  the  simplification  of  procedures  and  the 
introduction of more lump sum approaches.  

15 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

3.1. Overview 

Erasmus+ is the EU’s flagship programme supporting and strengthening education, training, youth, 
and sport in Europe. At the core of the programme is the opportunity for students at different 
educational levels, youth and adults to study, train or gain work or volunteering experience in 
Europe, and beyond, as part of their lifelong learning, educational and professional development.  

Erasmus+  recognises  the  fast-changing  world,  i.e.,  demographic,  societal  and  technological 
changes and equips individuals with  the right set of  knowledge, skills and competence from a 
lifelong learning perspective to make them more resilient and able to sustain current standards of 
living, support high rates of employment and foster social cohesion. The programme places an 
emphasis on the need to overcome social exclusion and unequal access to education by providing 
alternative ways to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to improve social opportunities. It 
also strives to improve the awareness and understanding of the EU among citizens.  

The three core objectives of Erasmus+ are:  

  enabling learning mobility  of  individuals and groups as part of  the  education and 

training system;  

  improving non-formal and informal learning mobility among youth;  
  promoting learning mobility of sport staff.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 has defined the following four priorities: (1) inclusion and diversity, (2) digital 
transformation,  (3)  environment  and  fight  against  climate  change  and  (4)  participation  in 
democratic life, common values and civic engagement.  

The programme is implemented through three key actions (KA): KA1 – Learning mobility, KA2 – 
Partnerships for cooperation and exchange of practices and KA3 – Support for policy reform. The 
programme includes the Jean Monnet (JMO) actions, specifically tailored to European integration 
matters and the future of the EU. It covers all four levels of education – (1) primary and secondary, 
(2) vocational education and training (VET), (3) higher education and (4) adult education – and youth 
and sports.  

EU  Member States participate fully  in  all  actions of  the  Erasmus+ programme. In addition, in 
accordance with article 19 of the Erasmus+ Regulation15 third countries, such as members of the 
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) which are members of the European Economic Area (EEA) 
and candidate countries are also eligible to participate in the programme. 

The  following  overview  provides  insights  in  the  implementation approach of  the  Erasmus+ 
programme and details the programme specific intervention logic:  

15   Regulation (EU)  2021/817 

16 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Figure 5: Erasmus+ intervention logic 

EU Priorities

Challenges

Programme Design

Programme Delivery

Activities & Practices

Results

Long-term Impact

6 Commission priorities for
2019-2024
A European Green Deal
A Europe fit for the digital age
An economy that works for people
A stronger Europe in the world
Promoting our European way of life
A new push for European democracy

Other EU Policies
1. European Education Area
2. European Skills Agenda
3. EU Strategy for Universities
4. New EU Agenda for Adult 

Learning

5. EU Youth Strategy 2019-27
6. Learning for environmental 

sustainability 

7. EU Work Plan for Sport 2021-2024
8. Gender Equality Strategy 2020-

2025 

9. New European Bauhaus
10. New EU Innovation Agenda
11. EU SME Strategy 
12. Industrial Strategy
13. Digital Education Action Plan
14. Biodiversity Strategy
15. EU Strategic Autonomy
16. European Democracy Action plan

Source: own representation. 

Relevance

€26.2 billion to support 
educational, professional and 
personal development of people 
by learning mobility 
opportunities and cooperation

Three key actions (KA)
1. learning mobility
2. cooperation among 

organisations and institutions 

3. support for policy 

development and cooperation

+ Jean Monnet actions 
supporting teaching, learning, 
research and debates

4 ERASMUS+ priorities
1. Inclusion and diversity
2. Digital transformation
3. Environment and fight against 

climate change

4. Participation in democratic life, 

common values and civic 
engagement

ERASMUS+ supports students, 
school pupils, young people, 
teachers, educators, youth 
workers and learners of all ages

Direct management by 
respective DGs and the European 
Education and Culture Executive 
Agency (EACEA) (19 % in 2021)

Indirect management through a 
network of respective National 
Agencies (81 % in 2021)

Grants to mobility and 
cooperation actions via regular 
calls for proposals. Support to 
policy development. 

In 2021:
• almost 19 000 projects selected 
• 71 048 organisations
• 703 456 participants

EU and 
National 
Needs

External 
Challenges
2021-2023

• Climate 
Change

• Technological 

progress
• Coronavirus 
pandemic

• Post-pandemic 
EU recovery

• Russian-

Ukraine War

National needs 
• HE internatio-
nalisation

• Improved skills

Efficiency

From 114 centralised (direct 
management) calls for proposals 
emphasis:
• 23 % Green Deal
• 25 % Digital transformation
• 34 % Economy that works for 

people

• 22 % Stronger Europe in the 

world

• 17 % European way of life
• 21 % European democracy
Selected practices
• Mobility for HE: 3 481 projects 
with 328 739 participants –
learners and students

• Small-scale partnerships in 
VET: 297, of which 146 with 
participation of selected MS, of 
which the following thematic 
coverage:
 210 economy, innovation, 

industry, SME
 82 EU core values
 57 digital transition
 32 green transition

• Improved 

employability
• Developed new 

knowledge and skills
• Uplifted confidence 
and independence
• Boosted innovation 

and 
entrepreneurship, 
• Enhanced tolerance 
and understanding

Positive effect on:
• professional,
• social,
• educational and 
• personal 

development 
of beneficiaries.

Crucial contribution 
to a stronger 
European identity 
and active 
citizenship

Coherence

Effectiveness of 
Implementation

Goal Effectiveness

EU Added-Value

17 

 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027  has  an  estimated budget of  around €26.2  billion  which  is  almost twice 
compared to its predecessor programme (2014-2020). The financial envelope is complemented by 
around €2.2 billion from EU external cooperation instruments. Out of this financial envelope, 70 % 
supports mobility opportunities while the remaining 30 % is invested in cooperation projects and 
policy development activities.  

The programme is mainly implemented through indirect management, i.e., approximately 80 % of 
its  budget  is  entrusted  to  the  National  Agencies.  EACEA  is  responsible  for  the  direct 
management of approximately  17 % of  the budget,  the EC Directorate-General  for Education 
and  Culture  (DG  EAC)  for  the  remaining  funds. The indirect management across the Member 
States is implemented either at the national level or differentiated based on various criteria (e.g. 
regionally, by key action).  

The implementation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 started in 2021. According to the EC Administrative 
Procedures document issued each year, there were 19 calls for proposals in 2021, and 28 calls for 
proposals in 2022 and 2023 respectively. The implementation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 had already 
started in 2021.  In April 2023,  the Funding and Tender opportunities database16 containing the 
centrally (directly) managed Erasmus+ calls for proposals had 114 calls, either open or closed, dating 
from 2021. A sub-site of the Erasmus+ main website 17 had 96 mainly decentralised open or closed 
calls for proposals over the same time period.  

Although it is too early to expect any project results, an overview of some key achievements that 
characterise the early implementation of the programme is provided below.  

Table 3: Key Achievements Erasmus+ in 2021 and 2022 

Key Action 

Projects 

Organisations 

Planned participants 

2021 

2022 

2021 

2022 

2021 

2022 

KA1 – Learning mobility 

13 797 

19835 

25 149 

32 258 

707 263 

1 069 533 

KA2 – Partnerships for 
cooperation and exchange 
of practices 

KA3 – Support for policy 
reform 

JMO – Jean Monnet 
Activities 

4 829 

3 357 

14 280 

10 838 

303 

222 

320 

345 

200 

407 

214 

330 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

TOTAL 

19 209 

23 821 

36 551 

41 048 

707 263 

1 069 533 

Source: https ://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/?locale=de  

To illustrate the evaluation findings with details on the following two Erasmus+ actions listed below, 
the selected practices were analysed in four case countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Spain18:  

  Mobility of higher education students and staff 
  Small-scale Partnerships in vocational education and training 

16   Funding&Tender  database   
17   https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/funding 
18   For the selection of MS see section 2.4 and Annex I (section AI.5). 

18 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Outcomes of the document review, data analysis and interviews are presented in the respective 
Erasmus+ related sections of this report. 

3.2. Relevance assessment 

This assessment addresses the four relevance evaluation questions formulated for all programmes 
including the relevance of recent developments as outlined in the methodology (see sub-section 
2.1.1). For the assessment of the programme design, the following information sources have been 
reviewed:  

  Regulation establishing Erasmus+19 
  The Erasmus+ website 20 
  Erasmus+ Programme Guide (Guide) 21 
  Annual Working Programme (AWP) 2021 22, 2022 23, 2023 24 
  Programme Statement (PS) 2023 25 
  Annual report (AR) 2021 26 and its Statistic Annex27 
  Implementation guidelines – Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps Inclusion and 

Diversity Strategy 2021 28 

  Implementation report of the current Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 29  

To assess the extent to which the main EU challenges are addressed in the early implementation 
phase of  the programme, i.e., from 2021  to the 1st  quarter of 2023,  the  following data review, 
according to topics relevant to this research, was performed: 

  All  114  centralised  calls  for  proposals on  the  Funding  and  Tender  opportunities 
database 30 were analysed. This represents approximately 20 % of the total programme 
budget. 

  146 Small-scale Partnerships in VET projects on the Erasmus+ Result Platform31 selected 
for funding in 2021 and 2022 and having participants from the four selected MS in focus 
of this research were reviewed. 

19   Regulation (EU)  2021/817 

20   https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu   
21   The Erasmus+  Programme Guide (Version 3) 
22   2021 Annual Work Programme – Erasmus+ 
23   2022 Annual Work Programme – Erasmus+ 

24   2023 Annual Work Programme (amended) – Erasmus+ 
25   Programme Statements – Erasmus+ 
26   Erasmus+  Annual Report 2021 
27   Erasmus+  Annual Report 2021: Statistical Annex 

Implementation Guidelines – Erasmus+  and European  Solidarity Corps  Inclusion and Diversity Strategy 

28  
29   https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/?locale=de   
30   Funding&Tender  database   
31   Funding&Tender  database 

19 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

3.2.1. Programme design 
The relevance of Erasmus+ is more prominent for the challenges that have been directly translated 
into the programme priorities, such as digital and green transformation as well as the EU strategic 
autonomy  concerned with Europe’s capacity  to  uphold  its  democratic values  and  strengthen 
economic independence. These challenges have a profound place in the programme and, hence, 
are of a relatively high relevance.  

Digital  transformation  is  one of the four priorities of Erasmus+ 2021-2027.  The relevance of the 
programme has been acknowledged in the respective policy documents as well as pinpointed in 
the Regulation establishing Erasmus+. The Regulation defines the programme’s contribution to the 
Digital  Education Action Plan  2021-2027 32.  Erasmus+ commits to the  development of  a  high-
performing digital education ecosystem by building capacity and critical understanding in all types 
of education and training institutions. ‘In line with the Digital Education Action Plan in particular, 
but also the European Education Area33, the European Strategy for Universities, the renewed EU 
Youth Strategy34, the Updated Skills Agenda 35 and the digital dimension are part of the programme’s 
design,  activities  and  underlying  processes. Concretely,  digital  transformation  incentives are 
mainstreamed throughout all sectors and key actions, and dedicated initiatives are supported. The 
digital dimension of the programme ranges along the following lines: mobility and cooperation 
projects, thematic priorities across the sectors, continued support to IT platforms, communities and 
tools, policy support, as well as digitalisation of the programme’s implementation.’ 36  

The Annual Work Programmes (AWP) of Erasmus+ ensure that the strategic focus is maintained 
throughout the entire programme implementation for an effective shift towards digital education. 
It has been specifically strengthened in response to unprecedented digital challenges caused by the 
COVID-19 global pandemic. Through the development of digital readiness, resilience and capacity 
the programme supports digital transformation plans of primary, secondary, vocational education 
and training, higher, and adult education institutions and facilitates the use of digital technologies 
in education, training, youth and sport for teaching, learning, assessment and engagement.  

Green transition  and the fight against climate change is another Erasmus+ priority highlighting the 
programme’s relevance for the  policy  area. In  fact,  green and digital  priorities are increasingly 
becoming inseparable to the point where both are often referred to as twin transition. The Erasmus+ 
Regulation notes that the ‘programme remains instrumental in achieving the objectives of quality 
and inclusive education, training and lifelong learning, and in preparing the Union to face the digital 
and green transitions’37.  

In  line  with  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation  on  learning  for 
environmental sustainability38 of January 2022 and the new European sustainability competence 
framework, sustainability and green transition remain key priorities for Erasmus+. The European 
sustainability competence framework39 provides common ground for education stakeholders on 

32   Digital education action plan 
33   Political Guidelines for the next European  Commission  2019-2024 
34   https://youth.europa.eu/strategy_en 
35   European  Commission  COM/2020/274 final 

36   Programme Statements – Erasmus+,  p.  225 
37   Regulation (EU)  2021/817, Recital 12 
38   European  Commission  COM(2022) 11 final 
39   GreenComp The European  Sustainability Competence Framework 

20 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to live, work and act more sustainably and maps the 
competences  needed  for  the  green  transition,  including  critical  thinking,  initiative-taking, 
respecting  nature  and  understanding the  impact  of  everyday actions  and  decisions  on  the 
environment and the global climate. The programme design proves the readiness and increasing 
capabilities of Erasmus+ to address and tackle the challenges of the twin transition. The programme 
is also sufficiently flexible to react to emerging challenges.  

Post-pandemic  recovery  has been well embedded into the programme design, however, given the 
temporary nature of this challenge, the relevance of Erasmus+ has been assessed comparatively 
lower  than  for the  twin  transition. Nevertheless, the Regulation on  Erasmus+ makes a  strong 
reference to the Recovery plan for Europe 40. The COVID-19  pandemic has shown that access to 
education  is  proving  to  be  essential  in  ensuring  a  swift  recovery,  while  promoting  equal 
opportunities for all. Erasmus+ is well equipped for addressing these challenges, inter alia with its 
new Inclusion and Diversity Strategy 2021 41.  

By  highlighting important digital  needs  and  challenges  the  COVID-19  pandemic  additionally 
incentivised the digital transition and accelerated it. ‘The pandemic has accentuated the digital skills 
gap  that already existed and new  inequalities are emerging as many people  do  not have the 
required level of digital skills or are in workplaces or schools lagging behind in digitalisation.’ 42 Now, 
more than  ever, the  EU  needs  a  paradigm-shift focusing on  ‘skills and  competences that are 
necessary to  develop  as  individuals  and  to  face  the  challenges  and  make  the  most  of  the 
opportunities of the 21st century’ 43.  

The programme actively tackles the new challenges ‘as part of this recovery process, the Erasmus+ 
programme takes its inclusive dimension to a new horizon by supporting opportunities for personal, 
socio-educational and professional development of people in Europe and beyond, with the aim of 
leaving  no-one  behind’ 44.  The  topicality  of  post-pandemic recovery is  also  being  maintained 
through the AWPs by being additionally specified according the main target groups. In this respect, 
for example, sports and the role of being physically active have been specifically emphasised as part 
of  the  post-pandemic recovery  process in  AWP  2023.  The  New  European Agenda  for  Adult 
Learning 45 has also been integrated into the programme to ensure prompt recovery, and to take full 
advantage of the opportunities provided by the green and digital transitions.  

Despite the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the youth sector has relied on the key 
European youth programmes and actions developed over the last  years to react to  emerging 
priorities, such as, for example, health and safety of volunteers and inter-generational solidarity by 
exploring  new  forms  of  volunteering including  digital  volunteering. In  2022,  Erasmus+ also 
contributed to the European Year of Youth.46 

‘The EU and its Member States stand united in their unwavering support for Ukraine and firmly 
condemn Russia’s war of aggression’47. Erasmus+ also stands with Ukraine and in 2023 it has ensured 

Implementation Guidelines – Erasmus+  and European  Solidarity Corps  Inclusion and Diversity Strategy 

40   https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-recovery-plan/ 
41  
42   European  Skills Agenda,  p. 1  
43   Regulation (EU)  2021/817, Recital 9 

44   The Erasmus+  Programme Guide, p. 4  
45   Council Resolution on a new European  agenda  for adult learning 2021 
46   https://youth.europa.eu/year-of-youth_en   
47   European  Council: EU response to Russia’s  invasion of Ukraine 

21 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

a particular focus on projects addressing the consequences of the Russian aggression on Ukraine in 
the education and training sectors. The programme plays a crucial role in supporting the arrivals of 
people fleeing the war. It assists the education and training systems to cope by supporting learners 
and teachers on the ground, early childhood education and care providers, schools, vocational 
education  and  training  institutes  and  higher  education  institutions,  as  well  as  youth  work 
organisations and NGOs, to ensure continued learning and mobilise  the support necessary to 
provide quality and inclusive learning.  

The AWP 2023 makes strong commitments to ‘addressing the educational challenges brought in by 
this dramatic situation and by a fast-changing geopolitical context’48. In this regard, for example, in 
2023 the following two actions are anticipated: (1) partnerships supporting the Pact for Skills that 
aim ‘to integrate refugees having fled Ukraine into the labour market’ and (2) the Capacity Building 
in Higher Education (CBHE) which will also include a special focus on Ukraine. It will thus support 
the creation of an open education digital environment to offer quality higher education for students 
fleeing from Ukraine or internally displaced students – as well as educational opportunities for the 
wide Ukrainian community abroad – based on cooperation between Ukrainian and other European 
universities and academic staff’ 49.  

Stakeholders in Flanders, Belgium, inform that as a result of the Russian aggression on Ukraine the 
programme allows for more flexibility, e.g., to permit inbound KA1 mobility from Ukraine even if this 
was not initially foreseen in the project, as well  as in the domains of school education and adult 
education where such  mobility is  normally not possible. Regarding KA1 projects, ingoing and 
outgoing mobility from and to  Russia remain possible, however, organisational support money 
cannot go to partner institutions in Russia.50  

It  has also been pointed out that the Erasmus+ regulation recalls the programme’s key role in 
strengthening European identity and values and in contributing to a more democratic Union. This 
has become more important than ever in the context of the Russian aggression on Ukraine.  

EU  strategic  autonomy  refers to a  wide  range of  areas, two  of  which  are  related to  Erasmus+ 
objectives: (1) European identity and democracy and (2) economy and entrepreneurial skills. Both 
thematic areas are well reflected in the programme.  

The regulation indicates a strong commitment of the programme towards active participation of 
individuals and civil society in democratic processes. Erasmus+ sets out participation in democratic 
life, common values and civic engagement as one of its four priorities. Through supported mobility 
activities Erasmus+ reinforces participatory skills of  civic  society, as well  as  develops social and 
intercultural competences, critical thinking and media literacy. 

AWP  2023  highlights the  contribution of Jean Monnet actions to disseminating knowledge on 
European Union  integration matters and  fostering  academic  debates  and  exchange  of  best 
practices on values and democracy, including in third countries.  

A Youth Participation Strategy51 provides a common framework and fosters youth participation in 
democratic life. Complementary expertise and support to the programme is provided by the SALTO 

Ibid., p. 65 

48   2023 Annual Work Programme – Erasmus+,  p. 9 
49  
50   https://www.epos-vlaanderen.be/oekrainecrisis/ 
51   SALTO-YOUTH  – Youth Participation Strategy 

22 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Resource Centre 52 that, inter alia,  sets up  strategic and innovative actions encouraging youth 
participation in civic and social life through volunteering or taking up a role in youth organisations. 
In  addition to SALTO, the European Youth Portal53 offers support by providing information and 
opportunities to young people  living,  learning and  working in  Europe. Youth participation in 
democratic life is also encouraged via the EU Youth Dialogue 54 and other initiatives engaging with 
young people to influence policy making. Taking the role of young people into account, in 2022 
Erasmus+ also had a particular focus on youth.  

In  the  context of  the EU  strategic  autonomy  it  is  also  important to mention the programme’s 
contribution to the development of overall economic and entrepreneurial skills. The debate on EU 
strategic autonomy is still on-going, but there is an agreement that for certain industries considered 
truly critical, such as pharmaceuticals and semi-conductors, efforts should be made for ‘reshoring 
production to Europe’ (contrary to the ‘offshoring’ of industries to low-income economies which 
had taken place in previous decades). This has the potential to deliberately increase the need for 
new skills in the industries where Erasmus+ can be instrumental. 

The  shock  of  Russia’s invasion  of  Ukraine  brought the  debate  back  to  difficult  realities  and 
introduced the need to react with concrete and practical actions. Both individual Member States 
and the EU as a whole took several prompt decisions to increase their capacity to act and decrease 
dependencies on Russia. This created additional challenges and surfaced more needs to be tackled 
by  Erasmus+ in  the  near  future, such  as,  for  example,  increased competencies and  skills  for 
production and the use of renewable energy resources.  

3.2.2. Early implementation 
Describing the  first two years of  the Erasmus+ 2021-2027  programme launch, the Programme 
Statement 2023 notes: ‘the Programme is not only more inclusive and innovative, it mobilises the 
education, training, youth and sport sectors for a rapid post-pandemic recovery and helps steer the 
European Union’s economic model towards more sustainability, with green and digital transitions 
as drivers of transformation’55. It further informs that: ‘In 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic still had a 
strong impact on mobility opportunities, and the programme implementation had to be adapted 
accordingly; this was translated in budgetary terms as an overall reduction of the mobility budget 
foreseen under KA1, to the benefit of partnerships under KA2’ 56.  

The  interviewed  representatives of  DG  EAC  acknowledge that  the  programme proved to  be 
adequately flexible to respond to the external challenges within its current framework: ‘It showed 
resilience  to  pandemics. 60 %  of  mobilities were  continued while  for  most other cases virtual 
mobilities  were  introduced.  Funds  from  mobilities  (KA1)  shifted  to  partnerships (KA2).’  The 
interviewed representative of EACEA complements that ‘it is only now in 2023 that mobility resumes 
to  full  scale’.  Most  of  the  interviewed  national  stakeholders of  the  selected  Member  States 
acknowledged appreciation of the mentioned flexibility by the programme’s beneficiaries. 

The  EACEA  confirmed  that  COVID-19  pushed to  speed  up  digital  transition. Analysis  of  the 
centralised Erasmus+ calls for proposals that have been launched since 2021 suggests that 28 out 
of  114  calls  had a  special  emphasis on these challenges, though ‘digital’  is  also an  underlying 
horizontal criterion in most of the other calls. The reviewed centralised calls for proposals evidence 

52   https://www.salto-youth.net/rc/ 
53   https://youth.europa.eu/home_en   
54   https://youth.europa.eu/d8/node/31278_en  
55   Programme Statements – Erasmus+,  p.  225 
56  

Ibid., p. 227 

23 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

that Erasmus+ consistently pursues the need to develop digital skills in all of its target groups. The 
calls persistently focus on training and development of digital skills aimed at adapting to the new 
requirements of the labour market, especially considering the effects of the pandemic.  

Additionally, there is  a  designated lot on  digital  education or  the,  so-called  ‘Forward-Looking 
Projects’  in  Erasmus+. These  large-scale  projects aim  to  identify,  develop,  test  and/or  assess 
innovative (policy) approaches that have the potential of becoming mainstreamed, thus improving 
education and  training systems. Projects under Lot  1  ‘Digital  education (cross-sectoral)’ 57 ‘can 
address different educational sectors or bridge educational sectors, and must support high quality 
and inclusive digital education, in line with the Digital Education Action Plan’ 58.  

The  environment and  the  fight  against global  warming is  another horizontal priority for  the 
selection of Erasmus+ projects. The reviewed 114 centralised calls for proposals confirm that the 
green  transition  is  central. In  26  calls  of  the  current programming period the  focus on  green 
initiatives is  particularly refined. The project  proposals are further expected to  address various 
related policy elements. Sustainability considerations are included in the selection criteria requiring 
the applicants to apply environmentally friendly practices in their projects. From the perspective of 
developing skills, the reviewed sample of calls also indicates that a priority is to develop ‘green skills’, 
especially in  projects for the industrial sector. Examples of relevant calls are the Partnerships for 
Innovation, namely for Alliances for Education and Enterprises 59 and the Alliances for Sectoral 
Cooperation on Skills (Blueprint)60. 

An interesting example project financed under the Alliances for Education and Enterprises is the 
AddTex project, focusing on innovation, co-creation and exchange between the industrial sector, 
research and academia  in  the  textile  industry. Training and learning materials are  developed, 
together with  a  Massive  Open  On-line  Course  (MOOC)  platform, combined  with  a  mobility 
programme aiming at industry upskilling 61.  

15 out of 114 centralised calls for proposals since 2021 aimed at reducing the  pandemic  impact  on 
specific  groups, such as, for  example, the  European Youth Together call62 that targets specific 
actions addressing the consequences of the pandemic on young people in line with the EU Youth 
Strategy. A total of 23 projects have been selected under this call.  

Addressing the most recent external challenge – the Russian  aggression  on Ukraine the programme 
has come up with a prompt solution: ‘€100 million frontloaded from the 2027 budget will  go in 
particular to  cooperation partnership actions. These  are  the  best-suited to  support Ukrainian 
learners and staff currently displaced in other European countries.’63  

The interviewed representatives of DG EAC reported that no new calls have been planned because 
Erasmus+ is  already very  flexible  even  within  the  present framework. In  addition to  this,  the 
programme is not ‘an emergency measure, but supports medium-term cooperation’. However, they 
mentioned the following practical steps being made: (a) new Ukrainian students are being accepted 
promptly, and existing students from Ukraine are having their stay prolonged beyond the initially 
planned duration, (b) all projects with participation of Russian and Belorussian partners have been 

57   ERASMUS-EDU-2023-PI-FORWARD-LOT1 

58   The Erasmus+  Programme Guide, p. 295 
59   See ERASMUS-EDU-2022-PI-ALL-INNO -EDU-ENTERP  or ERASMUS-EDU-2021-PI-ALL-INNO -EDU-ENTERP 
60   See ERASMUS-EDU-2022-PI-ALL-INNO -BLUEPRINT  or ERASMUS-EDU-2021-PI-ALL-INNO -BLUEPRINT 
61   https://www.addtex.eu/ 
62   ERASMUS-YOUTH-2021-YOUTH-TOG 
63   The Erasmus+  website 

24 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

terminated, (c) in special cases mobility project students of these countries have been allowed to 
prolong their stay in instances of proven threats for them upon return to their respective countries, 
(d)  partnerships have become more  open  to  Ukrainian organisations, and  (e)  more  profound 
integration  with  Ukrainian  schools  has  been  initiated.  At  the  same  time,  an  interviewed 
representative from one of the selected Member States admitted that they were not able to find 
ways in which Erasmus+ could help young Ukrainians fleeing the war in the same way as the ESC 
programme has, suggesting that at  the  national  level,  the  programme might have  been  not 
sufficiently flexible.  

The review of the centralised calls for proposals identified a specific financial allocation of €5 million 
assigned to the development of the Education digital environment in Ukraine, but more specifically 
to  partnerships with  Ukrainian  higher  education  institutions (among  other  international EU 
partnerships).64  

The Programme Statement 2023 concludes that ‘the programme actively builds positive attitudes 
towards the European Union and contributes to the development of a European identity across all 
sectors funded, while improving knowledge and understanding of the EU through the Jean Monnet 
actions’ 65. ‘In 2021 the new JMO activities for other levels of education and training were launched 
for  the  first  time:  20  JMO  Teacher  Training activities and  2  JMO  Networks for other levels  of 
education and training could  be selected for funding under the  Erasmus+ call  for 2021.’ 66  One 
example is the Teacher Trainings call for proposals 67, whose projects are still under evaluation. It 
aims at  preparing school teachers to engage and educate pupils on European values and the 
functioning of the EU. 

3.2.3. Lessons learnt  
The Erasmus+ programme actively addresses emerging EU wide  challenges that are within the 
range of its thematic coverage, i.e., education and skills. It supports the Member States in equipping 
the Erasmus+ target groups with understanding and skills on sustainability, climate change and the 
environment. It further calls on: providing learners of all ages access to high-quality, equitable and 
inclusive education and training on climate change, biodiversity, environmental protection and 
sustainability; establishing learning for the green transition and sustainable development as a 
priority area in  education and training policies  and  programmes; encouraging and facilitating 
whole-institution approaches to sustainability and mobilising national and EU funds for investment 
in infrastructure, training, tools and resources to increase preparedness of education and training 
for the green transition. 

Analysis of the Erasmus+ programme design and insights from early implementation suggest that the 
programme addresses the following five challenges, in the focus of this study, with varied intensity: 

  The programme is highly relevant to address the challenges of the twin – digital and 
green – transition. The extent of the relevance of these two challenges stands out in this 
assignment alongside their comparatively large scale and long-term character as well 
as the additional push that the two challenges have had as a result of the COVID-19 
pandemic: 

  There is  a  high  readiness and capacities for the  programme to tackle  digital 
transformation challenges, including those that have emerged since its launch.  

64   ERASMUS-EDU-2023-CBHE-STRAND-2 
65   Programme Statements – Erasmus+,  p.  232 
66  
67   ERASMUS-JMO-2023-OFET-TT 

Ibid., p. 229 

25 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

  The programme is also highly relevant to green transition. 

  From the  design  perspective, Erasmus+ has proved to  be  well-equipped  to  tackle 
related external challenges. The programme is sufficiently flexible to react within the 
current framework. The extent of the programme’s relevance in addressing the COVID-
19  pandemic recovery and the Russian aggression on Ukraine has been assessed as 
adequate:  

  Erasmus+ addresses the post-pandemic recovery challenges well and provides 
the  needed acceleration in  related areas such as,  e.g.,  digital  transition. The 
Erasmus+ actions  strengthened by  their  inclusive  dimension  contribute  to 
personal, socio-educational and professional development of people in Europe, 
and beyond, thus mitigating the negative effects created by the pandemic. The 
programme aims to improve digital capacity in organisations, equip citizens and 
experts with the right skills to adapt to the new realities of online learning and 
teaching as well as to also raise awareness on the twin transition.  
  From  the  design  perspective, Erasmus+ is  also  well-equipped  to  tackle  the 
challenges imposed to the EU by the Russian aggression on Ukraine. However, it 
is too early to judge the implementation.  

  As  for  the  EU  strategic  autonomy,  democratic  life,  common  values  and  civic 
engagement are among the programme’s priorities alongside with the  digital  and 
green transition. The programme, however, does not fully cover all aspects of the EU 
strategic autonomy. Due to the economic development related contribution to the 
green and digital transition processes Erasmus+ is assessed as being of high relevance 
for addressing external challenges and its relevance has been steadily increasing, thus 
strengthening the potential programme impact.  

3.3. Coherence assessment 

This assessment addresses the three coherence evaluation questions formulated for all programmes 
with a focus on the main EU-wide priorities and policies (see sub-section 2.1.2). Coherence with 
Commission priorities and strategic policies has been examined at the programme design stage and 
for early implementation.  

As detailed in the relevance assessment, the Erasmus+ programme tackles many EU wide challenges 
that are  subject  to a  wide  range of  policies.  Thus,  for the  coherence analysis, apart from the 
Erasmus+ programme documents, the coherence assessment is based on the policies listed below. 
These have been selected based on the Programme Guide and the Political Guidelines for the Next 
European Commission 2019-2024 highlighting the EC priorities 68.  

  European Education Area (EEA) 69 
  European Skills Agenda70 
  European Strategy for Universities71 
  New EU Agenda for Adult Learning72 

68   Political Guidelines for the next European  Commission  2019-2024 

69   Achieving the European  Education  Area by 2025 
70   European  Commission  COM(2020) 274 final 
71   European  Commission  COM(2022) 16 final 
72   Council Resolution on a new European  agenda  for adult learning 2021 

26 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

  Commission proposal for a ‘Council Recommendation on learning for environmental 

sustainability of January 2022’ 73  
  EU Work Plan for Sport 2021-2024 74  
  Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 75  
  New European Bauhaus76  
  New EU Innovation Agenda77  
  EU SME Strategy 78 
  Industrial Strategy79 
  Digital Education Action Plan 80 
  Biodiversity Strategy81 
  European Democracy Action plan 82 
  EU Youth Strategy 2019-27 83  
  EU Strategic Autonomy Monitor of July 2022 84 

3.3.1. Programme design 
There are many important aspects where the programme and EC priorities interface. The interviews 
with the DG EAC and EACEA representatives also acknowledged that the programme’s architecture 
contributes to the overall EU objectives in one or another way. A brief overview is provided below.  

A European Green Deal 
The  European  Green  Deal  is  coherently embedded in the  Erasmus+ programme design and its 
alignment  is  being  extended  with  every  AWP.  For  example,  the  Erasmus+  programme  is 
instrumental to support the key role of education institutions and their interaction with pupils, 
parents, and the wider community, who in turn are pivotal in introducing the changes needed for a 
successful transition for the EU to become climate neutral by 2050.  Sustainability is increasingly 
becoming an integral part of education and training activities in Erasmus+ AWPs, including the 
curricula  and  professional development of  educators, as  well  as  buildings,  infrastructure and 
operations.  

Erasmus+ is gradually becoming the main tool for  creating knowledge, skills, and  attitudes on 
climate change and supporting sustainable development both within  the European Union and 
beyond. It commits to increasing the number of mobility opportunities in green forward-looking 
domains, which foster the development of competences, enhance career prospects and engage 
participants in  areas which  are  strategic for sustainable growth, with  special  attention to rural 

73   European  Commission  COM(2022) 11 final 
74   Council resolution on EU work plan for sport 2020/C 419/01 
75   European  Commission  COM(2020) 152 final  
76   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_4626  

77   European  Commission  COM(2022) 332 final 
78   European  Commission  COM(2020) 103 final 
79   European  Commission  COM(2020) 102 final 
80   European  Commission  SWD(2020)  209 final 

81   EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives 
82   European  Commission  COM(2020) 790 final 
83  Council resolution on EU youth strategy 2018/C 456/01 
84   EU Strategic Autonomy  2013-2023 

27 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

development  (sustainable  farming,  management  of  natural  resources,  soil  protection,  bio-
agriculture).  

The two main policies underlying the European Green Deal that are relevant for Erasmus+ are the 
Biodiversity Strategy and the New European Bauhaus. Although there is no mention of these two 
policies in  the Erasmus+ regulation and vice-versa, these thematic priorities are being gradually 
introduced into the programme  and reinforced year-to-year  via the Annual Work Programmes. 
Green Erasmus+ in AWP 2021 specifically mentions, inter alia, bio agriculture, and the AWP 2022 
emphasises the need for mainstreaming climate and biodiversity by prioritising green transition 
through cooperation activities and the promotion of green practices at the level of the projects 
throughout the programme. The most recent AWP 2023 introduces the Council Recommendation 
on learning for the green transition and sustainable development 85 adopted in June 2022 as well as 
the New European Competence Framework86. 

A Europe fit for the digital age 
There is a strong coherence of the programme with the relevant EU policies of the Digital Decade 
2030 87. The Regulation establishing Erasmus+ defines that the programme should contribute to the 
Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027  by engaging learners, educators, youth workers, young 
people and organisations on the path to a  digital  transformation.  The programme continuously 
focuses on  the two  strategic priorities of the  Action Plan  fostering the development of a  high 
performing  digital  ecosystem  and  enhancing  digital  skills  and  competences  for  the  digital 
transformation. The programme is also a key component supporting the objectives of the European 
Education Area, the European Union Youth Strategy and the European Union Work Plan for Sport 
(2021-2024)  and  significantly contributes directly to the  European Skills Agenda. The AWPs  of 
Erasmus+ ensure the operational coherence of the programme to this dynamic challenge.  

An economy that works for people 
Erasmus+ is highly coherent and relevant to the EC priority An economy that works  for people,  and 
the broader socio-economic environment. It is a key instrument for building a European Education 
Area and supports the development of the professional competences and skills required on the 
labour market. The role of Erasmus+ is also emphasised in the relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral 
policies, such as, for example, the New EU Innovation Agenda, SME and Industrial Strategies.  

The European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience commits 
to supporting these policies via, e.g., the European Universities, the Centres of Vocational Excellence 
(CoVE) and the Blueprints for sectoral cooperation on skills. The Agenda accentuates that Erasmus+, 
inter alia, is key to a substantial increase in physical and virtual learning mobility across the EU which 
opens up new learning opportunities that may not be accessible at home. Therefore, for example, 
the objective of mobility projects for higher education and staff is to contribute to establishing a 
European Education Area with a global outreach and to strengthen the link between education and 
research. Erasmus+ is a serious support measure for the European Strategy for Universities goals. 
There is also a strong coherence and commitment of the programme to vocational and the adult 
education initiatives. Training supports vocational excellence  for  smart and sustainable growth 
whereas in adult education the focus is on increased and improved provision, promotion and uptake 
of  formal, non-formal and informal learning opportunities for all.  The  CoVE  initiative supports 

85   Council conclusions  2022/C 159/07 
86   GreenComp The European  Sustainability Competence Framework 
87   Europe’s  Digital Decade: digital targets for 2030 (Webpage) 

28 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

implementation of the European Green Deal, the new Digital Strategy, and the new Industrial and 
SME Strategies because skills are a key component to their success. 

Innovation is one of  the fundamental concepts underlying the programme as described in  the 
Erasmus+ Regulation as well as other programme documents. There are also two practices bearing 
the name of innovation, i.e., Partnerships of Innovation and Alliances for Innovation. The New EU 
Innovation Agenda refers to  the  programme by, inter  alia,  emphasising that as  of  2023,  the 
Erasmus+ Alliances for Innovation will  support the development of entrepreneurial skills with a 
particular focus on deep tech skills. The Alliances continuously foster cooperation between higher 
education, VET and enterprises aimed at boosting innovation and entrepreneurship. There are two 
lots within these practices, Lot 1  Alliances for Education and Enterprises and Lot 2 Alliances for 
Sectoral Cooperation in Skills. Both lots support future-proof skills development, including both 
green and digital skills, and entrepreneurship competences of graduates and the co-designing of 
curricula between industry, including SMEs, and higher education institutions in the strategically 
important industrial sectors identified in the updated industrial strategy. 

Though Erasmus+ is less prominent in the SME Strategy, its role should not be underestimated. SMEs 
are among potential beneficiaries of the programme and there is also a separate programme for 
young entrepreneurs88 allowing young men and women to learn business skills from peers globally. 
Overall,  Erasmus+ extensively  supports SMEs  through many  actions  related  to  the  Industrial 
Strategy, the European Education Area, Skills Agenda and Digital Education. Therefore, for example, 
the concept of Vocational Excellence  ‘is  characterised by a  holistic learner centred approach in 
which  VET  is  an  integrated part of skills  ecosystems, […,] innovation, smart specialisation and 
clusters strategies as well as to specific value chains and industrial ecosystems’ 89.  

A stronger Europe in the world 
The European Union is the world’s biggest donor of development assistance and among the first 
global trading partners and foreign investors. The EU stands for peace, stability and a rules-based 
global order in an increasingly complex and inter-connected world. Prosperity and peace in the EU’s 
neighbourhood and beyond are crucial for the stability and security within the EU itself.  

The Erasmus+ Regulation sets out that the programme is open to the (1) members of the European 
Economic Area in  the  framework of the cooperation established under the Agreement on the 
European Economic Area, (2) acceding countries, candidate countries and potential candidates, (3) 
European Neighbourhood Policy  countries and  other  third  countries, in  accordance with  the 
conditions laid down in a specific agreement covering the participation of the third country in any 
Union programme.  

The new Global Europe instrument 90 covers EU cooperation including cooperation with all third 
countries, beneficiaries and overseas countries and territories from the geographic programmes. 
The Global Europe 2021-2027 programme uses Erasmus+ as a channel to implement its education 
related  measures.  Besides  the  geographic  and  thematic  programmes  of  the  Global  Europe 
instrument  there is an  ERASMUS+ Multiannual Indicative Programme 91. It covers the  Erasmus+ 
actions  financed  by  the  EU  external  action  instruments  Neighbourhood,  Development  and 
International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe and Instrument of Pre-accession III (IPA III) for 
7 years (2021-2027). Overall, more than €2 billion has been allocated to Erasmus+ priorities. As a 

88   Erasmus  for Young Entrepreneurs Global scheme 
89   The Erasmus+  Programme Guide, p. 243 
90   Global Europe: Neighbourhood,  Development and  International Cooperation Instrument (Webpage) 
91   ERASMUS+  Multiannual Indicative Programme, 2021 

29 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

result, it can be said that Erasmus+ has a strong international dimension in mobility, cooperation 
and policy dialogue activities not only within the EU, but also beyond. To this end, the programme 
is fully coherent with the Commission priority a stronger Europe in the  world.  

Promoting our European way of life 
The  Erasmus+ Regulation emphasises the European common values. ‘The  Programme should 
contribute to promoting common European values through sport, good governance and integrity 
in sport, sustainable development, and education, training and skills in and through sport’ 92. The 
overall EU values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and 
respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as stipulated in 
Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union are mirrored and supported in the programme design. 
Inclusion and diversity in all fields of education, training, youth and sport and common values, civic 
engagement and participation are two  of the  four Erasmus+ priorities. This strongly aligns the 
programme with the priority Promoting our European  way of life and enables the implementation of 
its actions in a truly European spirit.  

The  Regulation furthermore accentuates: ‘investing in  learning  mobility  for  all,  regardless of 
background and means, and in cooperation and innovative policy development in the fields  of 
education and training, youth and sport is key to building inclusive, cohesive and resilient societies 
and sustaining the competitiveness of the Union, and is all the more important in the context of 
rapid and profound change driven by technological revolution and globalisation. Furthermore, such 
an  investment also contributes to strengthening European identity and values and to a  more 
democratic Union’ 93. 

In  line  with  European core  values, inclusion  and  gender equality are  among the  main  topics 
underpinning the programme. Erasmus+ aims to support more and better projects focusing on 
inclusion  and  diversity, opening doors to  enhanced participation of  newcomers and  to  small 
grassroots organisations, notably through the launch of simpler actions that are more accessible to 
people with fewer opportunities and for smaller organisations and newcomers to the programme. 
As a  result of the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps co-creation process an inclusion and 
diversity strategy has been elaborated to reinforce these dimensions. Erasmus+ has also been 
mentioned in the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025. ‘An Inclusion and Diversity Strategy for 
the future Erasmus+ programme will provide guidance on how the programme can help address 
gender inequalities in all education and training, youth and sport sectors’94.  

The Jean Monnet actions support teaching and research in the field  of  European Union studies 
worldwide. They promote active European citizenship and contribute to disseminating knowledge 
on manners through which EU policies can improve the daily lives of citizens in the EU as well as 
beyond EU borders. ‘The Jean Monnet actions also strive to function as a vector of public diplomacy 
towards third countries, promoting EU values and enhancing the visibility of what the European 
Union stands for and what it intends to achieve’95. 

New push for European democracy 
Erasmus+ has  a  prominent  role  in  the  European Democracy  Action  plan.  ‘Promoting active 
citizenship among young people is an important feature of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027. The 

92   Regulation (EU)  2021/817, Recital 14 
93  Regulation (EU)  2021/817, Recital 1 
94   EU Gender Equality  Strategy 2020-2025, p. 17 
95   The Erasmus+  Programme Guide, p. 368 

30 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

EU youth dialogue is being reinforced by youth participation activities under Erasmus+ and the 
European Youth Portal. 96‘  

The Erasmus+ Regulation tackles this priority and defines that the ‘Programme should encourage 
the participation of young people in Europe’s democratic life, including by supporting activities that 
contribute to citizenship education and participation projects for young people to engage and learn 
to participate in civic  society, thereby raising awareness of European common values, including 
fundamental rights, as well as European history and culture, bringing together young people and 
decision-makers at local, national and Union levels and contributing to the process of European 
integration’ 97. This commitment is further translated into the Programme Guide and relevant calls 
for proposals.  

3.3.2. Early implementation 
The reviewed 114 centralised calls for proposals and 146 Small-scale Partnerships in VET projects 
indicate consistent alignment with all  Commission priorities at the early implementation of the 
programme. This is particularly prominent for the twin transition and An  economy  that  works  for 
people priorities.  

The Erasmus+ website as well as the Programme Statement 2023 refer to biodiversity as one of the 
programme’s horizontal priorities along with the climate. There is a financial commitment of almost 
€170 million made towards the climate in 2021 (please, see Table 4 below).  

The Programme Statement 2023 does not report any explicit biodiversity contributions between 
2021 and 2023. It does, however, acknowledge that the Erasmus+ programme contributes to the 
overall climate and biodiversity objective. For example, the Erasmus+ project ‘European Platform 
for Urban Greening (EPLUG)’ 98 is mentioned as it aims to increase the knowledge and skills required 
to  address biodiversity, climate adaptation and well-being  in  urban areas and to  broaden the 
expertise among professionals in Europe.  

Table 4: Erasmus+ contribution to horizontal principles 

EU budget contribution in 2021 (€ million) 

Climate 

Biodiversity 

Gender equality (*) 

169.4 

0 
(*) Based  on the applied gender contribution methodology,  the following scores are attributed at the most granular level 
of intervention possible: 
- 2:  interventions the principal objective of which is to improve gender equality; 
- 1:  interventions that have gender equality as an important and deliberate objective but not as the main reason for the 

Score 0*: 2 663 

intervention; 

- 0:  non-targeted interventions; 
- 0*: score to be assigned  to interventions with a likely but not yet clear positive impact on gender equality. 
Source: own representation based on Erasmus+ Performance assessment accessed on the 20 April 2023. 

Describing the Erasmus+ contribution to the SDGs, the Programme Statement 2023 provides an 
example  in  relation  to  SDG  15  ‘Protect,  restore  and  promote  sustainable  use  of  terrestrial 
ecosystems,  sustainably  manage  forests,  combat  desertification,  and  halt  and  reverse  land 

96   European  Democracy Action plan,  p. 10 
97   Regulation (EU)  2021/817, Recital 28 
98   https://platformurbangreening.eu/ 

31 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

degradation and halt biodiversity loss’, where the 4EU+ European University99 aims at focusing its 
activities  inter  alia  on  biodiversity and  sustainable development.  It has  been  concluded  that 
European Universities selected under Erasmus+ are ambitious transnational alliances of  higher 
education  institutions  developing  long-term  structural  and  strategic  cooperation.  The  New 
European Bauhaus, launched in 2020, first appeared in the Erasmus+ AWP 2022 and solidified a 
place under the Green Erasmus+ priority. Its ambition is to help make the Green Deal a cultural, 
human-centred, positive and tangible experience. AWP 2023 acknowledges that the new European 
Bauhaus initiative can also be a catalyst for contributions from the school sector, in particular, by 
building on interrelations among culture, art and science with the aim of helping to devise a more 
sustainable future through creativity and innovation.  

The  reviewed  calls  for  proposals confirm that the twin  transition sees a steady uptake in  the 
programme and its beneficiaries. 26 of 114 centralised calls on Funding and Tender opportunities 
database 100 specifically mention ‘green’ or Green Deal in their topic descriptions, two mention the 
New European Bauhaus and 28 emphasise ‘digital’. It is, however, a presumption that the extent to 
which Erasmus+ is coherent with these two EC priorities is considerably higher and might apply to 
the  majority of  the  calls  for  proposals.  This has been  confirmed  by  the  interviewed national 
stakeholders of the selected Member States.  

The interviewed MS  representatives acknowledged that the ‘green’ and  ‘digital’ topics are  well 
embedded into different projects, even when the project itself does not directly address climate 
change or digitalisation. For example,  university strategies in Spain highlight that international 
partnerships can contribute to their environmental transition and sustainable development efforts. 
In VET, 32 out of the 146 Small-scale Partnerships with participants from selected MS emphasise 
green transformation as one of their project topics, while 57 mention digitalisation.  

The interviewed representatives from Bulgaria recognised that Erasmus+ projects are viewed as an 
important contributor to developing skills for the 21st century (as defined in national priorities as 
well),  mostly from the perspective of digital skills. The new form of blended virtual and physical 
mobility has made  the programme more accessible, especially to working students. They also 
conclude that digitalisation at all  levels  of  education has increased due to the  pandemic. The 
educational institutions have developed capacity to operate virtually and digitally whereas other 
organisations have engaged in  projects to  develop  and  deliver  digital  and  remote education 
platforms.  

The programme’s coherence with the EC priorities ‘Promoting  our European  Way of Life’ and ‘A New 
Push  for  Democracy’  is  well  visible in  24  out of 114  calls for  proposals emphasising democracy, 
common values and civic engagement and 19 calls having equality, human rights and rules of law 
specifically integrated into the topic descriptions.  

For example, ‘Capacity building in the field of youth’ that has three calls 101 has a strong focus on the 
following thematic areas: (a) political participation and dialogue with decision-makers; (b) inclusion 
of  young  people  with  fewer  opportunities;  (c)  democracy,  rule  of  law  and  values;  (d) 
empowerment/engagement/employability  of  young  people; 
(e)  peace  and  post-conflict 
reconciliation; (f)  environment and climate; (g)  anti-discrimination  and gender equality and  (h) 
digital and entrepreneurial skills. Thus, it is also relevant to most of the above analysed policy areas.  

99   https://4euplus.eu/4EU-1.html   
100   Funding&Tender  database   
101   ERASMUS-YOUTH-2023-CB,  ERASMUS-YOUTH-2022-CB  and ERASMUS-YOUTH-2021-CB 

32 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

‘European Youth Together’ – both small and larger actions102 encourage young people to participate 
in the democratic process and in society by organising trainings, showcasing commonalities among 
young Europeans and encouraging discussion and debate on their connection to the EU, its values 
and democratic foundations. 

In the selected Member States the Erasmus+ programme is often used as a serious co-contributor 
to  address certain  national challenges,  e.g.,  internationalisation of  the  higher  and  vocational 
educational establishments in Bulgaria and Spain and youth civic engagement in Lithuania. As a 
rule, these challenges stem out of the national sectoral or overall development strategies that are 
aligned with the overall EU objectives and EC priorities. Out of the 146 Small-scale Partnerships in 
VET selected for funding in 2021 and 2022 with participants from selected MS, 82 explicitly mention 
European core values as one of their project topics. 

Concluding on the remaining two EC priorities and how they play out in the early implementation 
of Erasmus+ it must be said that the keywords related to the EC priority ‘An Economy that works for 
People’  used in filtering 114 centralised calls for proposals by topics have been represented most 
frequently. 55 % of the calls for proposals specifically mention economy, innovation, industry and 
SMEs in their topic descriptions confirming high coherence of the programme to this priority already 
at its launch. Topics, such as innovation, industry, SMEs and similar terms appear 210 times in the 
topic descriptions of the 146 Small-scale Partnerships in VET. In Bulgaria for example, some specific 
projects have focused on developing open access curricula and targeted training activities for at-
risk groups, thereby aiming to create ripple  effects  on the  labour market to ensure improved 
employment perspectives within these target groups103.  

The MS representatives note the following challenges to which Erasmus+ is coherently contributing: 
(1)  further  internationalisation  of  education  (BG,  ES),  (2)  youth  engagement in  society  and 
communities  (LT)  and  (3)  labour  market  adaptation  for  VET  (ES).  The  interviewed  national 
stakeholders also verify  that  economic  improvements, especially an  inclusion  into  the  labour 
market, is a very prominent aspect in Erasmus+ projects that tackle related national issues, such as 
for example youth unemployment in Spain. 

Finally, a high coherence with the sixth EC priority ‘A Stronger Europe in  the  World’ is supported by 
placing the international partnerships at the core of the programme’s architecture. Cooperation 
within Europe reinforces the Union itself while the globally positioned calls for proposals strengthen 
the European stance in  the  international arena. At least 25  out of  114  calls  for proposals have 
neighbourhood and enlargement specifically mentioned in their topic descriptions. 19 out of 146 
Small-scale  Partnerships in  VET  projects  in  the  selected  MS  have  priority  related  topics.  The 
interviewed representatives of Spain highlight that the new focus of the Erasmus+ programme on 
partnerships with countries outside of the EU has been beneficial for Spain, and the overall interest 
in this field is high.  

3.3.3. Lessons learnt  
The  Erasmus+ programme demonstrates a high  degree of  alignment with  all  six  EC  priorities. 
Though there is a very concentrated and profound focus on the twin transition, Erasmus+ is also 

102   e.g. ERASMUS-YOUTH-2021-YOUTH-TOG-LO T1,  ERASMUS-YOUTH-2022-YOUTH-TO G-LO T1  and ERASMUS-YOUTH-

2023-YOUTH-TOG   

103   Project reference 2022-1-BG01-KA210-VET-000084442  

33 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

prominent  in  a  broader  socio-economic  context,  namely,  for  example,  the  development  of 
economic and democratic processes. 

  The EU policy documents very often refer to Erasmus+ as a cornerstone relevant for the 
implementation of the ambitious policy agenda of the European Education Area, Digital 
Education Action Plan  2021-2027,  European Skills Agenda, EU Youth Strategy 2019-
2027 and the European Union Work Plan for Sport (2021-2024). With respect to learning, 
education, youth and sports the programme design aligns well with all six EC priorities 
and relevant EU policies. 

  Four of the EC priorities, namely, a European Green  Deal, a  Europe  fit  for  the  digital  age, 
Promoting  our  European  way  of  life  and New push  for  European  democracy  are directly 
embedded into the programme’s priorities, which contributes to a strong coherence 
with many relevant EU policy documents.  

  As the new relevant policy documents are being developed, they have been gradually 
introduced  into  the  Erasmus+  programme  with  the  help  of  the  Annual  Work 
Programmes as is the case, for example, with the New European Bauhaus and the New 
European Competence Framework.  

  Coherence with the other two EC priorities is achieved via the programme’s underlying 

objectives and its structure:  

  The  EC  priority ‘An  economy  that  works  for  people’  is  achieved  through the 
programme’s  aim  of  being  a  key  instrument  for  building  professional 
competences and skills required on the labour market. The role of Erasmus+ is 
emphasised in  the  relevant sectoral and  cross-sectoral policies,  such  as,  for 
example, the New EU Innovation Agenda, SME and Industrial Strategies.  
  The  priority ‘A  stronger  Europe  in  the  world’  is  ensured by  the  international 
partnerships at the core of the programme’s architecture.  

  Acknowledging the significance  of  education and  training in  transporting EU core 
values  world-wide,  the  programme  is  expected  to  continue  contributing  to 
strengthening democracies, ensuring the rule of law and respect for human rights, not 
least through participation from non-EU countries, and building links through the new 
Global Europe instrument.  

  Due to limited data at the early stage of the Erasmus+ programme it is not possible to 
explicitly  confirm how coherent programme implementation is with  respect to the 
mentioned  EC  priorities.  However,  judging  from  the  available  information,  the 
programme and its projects are moving in the right direction and could potentially be 
coherent from this aspect as well.  

The  interviewed  national  stakeholders  inform  that  Erasmus+  is  able  to  address  relevant 
international and national challenges. In  an international context, for example, aging has been 
mentioned as  an  issue  that  is  well-dealt  with  by  the  programme, at  the  national  level  the 
internationalisation of the educational establishments has been noted as an example. The national 
stakeholders further expressed their appreciation of the  programme simplification efforts that 
ensure greater inclusion and diversity of the applicants.  

3.4. Effectiveness  

Effectiveness of the programme has been mainly assessed based on publicly available data on the 
Erasmus+ Result  Platform 104.  Some  data  from  the  Annual  Implementation Report  2021,  the 

104   Erasmus+  Webpage 

34 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Programme Statement 2023 and the Implementation report of the current Erasmus+ programme 
2021-2027 provided by EPRS have also been used. 

Efforts were made to obtain a general overview on programme effectiveness two years after its 
launch.  

Table 5 showcases where the above mentioned two practices (highlighted in blue) belong in the 
overall palette of mainly indirectly managed programme actions.  

Table 5: Erasmus+ 2021-2027 Key Actions and Action Type fields (indirectly managed) 

Action Type FIELD/ 
Strand 

Education and Training 

HE 

VET 

School 

Adult 

Youth 

Sport 

Key Actions 

Mobility  

Cooperation partnerships 

Small-scale Partnerships 

Youth participation 

Discover EU 

Source: own representation 

3.4.1. Programme launch 
The available data indicates that overall the launch of the Erasmus+ 2021-2027 programme has 
been successful. 43 % of the total Erasmus+ budget (€14 billion) was earmarked for the first three 
years of programme implementation, of which  11 %  has already been  committed in 2021.  This 
indicates a  launch of  the programme with an annual increase in  the total volume of  available 
financing. Furthermore, the commitment for 2021  matches the funds  earmarked for the  year, 
supporting the finding that the overall uptake in the first year of the Erasmus+ 2021-2027 has been 
effective.  

Information on the success rate of various Erasmus+ actions, such as applications received versus 
projects supported, is mainly only available for directly managed actions. It points to varied results 
in  2021  and  2022,  ranging from  22 %  in  the  SPO-KA2 ‘Cooperation among organisations and 
institutions’ to 100 % in ‘Adult learning’. With the overall average being 39.2 %105 this indicates a 
strong variation in demand for different actions compared to their budget allocation. 

Table 6: Erasmus+ cumulative implementation rate at the end of 2021 (€ million) 

Implementation 

2021-2027 Budget 

Implementation rate 

Commitments 

Payments 

€2 812.2 

€1 842.2 

€25 372.7 

- 

11 % 

7 % 

Source: Programme Statements – Erasmus+, p. 225 

The Erasmus+ national stakeholders were very cautious in drawing any substantial conclusions on 
the effectiveness of the programme at such an early stage. Since the application processes of all 
calls,  including the large share under decentralised management, are processed via the  central 

105   Internal implementation report of the current Erasmus+  Programme 2021-2027 by MEP Milan Zver  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

application  portal  of  the  European  Commission,  Member  States  frequently  lack  sufficient 
information on applications and find it difficult to assess the interest of applicants. Only Spain was 
able to provide some concrete data in this regard, which seems to be linked to its own national co-
funding  mechanisms. Nevertheless, every  interviewed  national stakeholder confirmed  a  high 
interest towards almost all actions of the programme especially now in the post-pandemic period.  

Mobility of higher education students and staff 
AIR 2021  reports €753 422 802  contracted for projects under Mobility of HE students and staff in 
2021, which is slightly above the earmarked budget (see Table 7 below).  

Table 7: The total budget earmarked for Mobility of HE students and staff, € 

Member States 

2021 

2022 

2023 

TOTAL EU-30* 

€668 872 590 

€955 452 601 

€1 024 254 147 

* EU-27 plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway 
Source: Annual Work Programmes, 2021, 2022, 2023 

AIR 2021  reports a total of 3 481 projects selected under mobility in higher education expecting 
328 739 participants106. This figure positively exceeds the aim of related key monitoring indicator No 
1 for SO1 ‘Number of participants in learning mobility activities in the Education and Training strand 
of the programme’ in 2021 107, which was set at 308 000 total (250 000 learners and 58 000 staff).  

A Member of Parliament (MEP)  reports ‘After a relative slowdown in  2021,  Erasmus+ started to 
resume substantial support to mobility again in  2022’ 108. Additionally, the information from MS 
indicates that a  high  demand for Erasmus+ actions is back,  in  particular mobility. There is  no 
information, however, on the success rate within the indirectly managed calls for proposals. Table 
8, below, provides certain key data on the uptake of the actions in the selected MS.  

Table 8: The total earmarked budget for Mobility of HE students and staff in 2021 and 2022 
versus commitment in the selected Member States, € 

2021 

2022* 

Member 
States 

Earmarked 

Committed 

Number 
of 
projects 

Earmarked 

Committed 

Number 
of 
projects 

Belgium 

€21 034 876 

€26 426 669 

Bulgaria 

€12 568 245 

€12 433 849 

Lithuania 

€9 571 744 

€9 451 744 

67 

49 

34 

€30 654 986 

€32 007 778 

€18 957 312 

€12 118 724 

€14 437 539 

€13 818 917 

69 

35 

33 

Spain 

€65 307 071** 

€90 571 349 

695 

€96 107 749**  €119 313 695 

925 

Source: Annual Work Programmes 2021, 2022 and Erasmus+ Results Platform109, *Not a complete year, data 
cut-off date 25 April 2023, Green – exceeds the earmarked allocation, Orange – below earmarked allocation ; 
** Additional national co-funding of €40 million is provided annually and not reflected in the table 

106   Statistic Annex to Annual Implementation Report 2021, p. 20 
107   Programme Statements – Erasmus+,  p.  234 
108   Internal implementation report of the current Erasmus+  Programme 2021-2027 by MEP Milan Zver, p. 6 
109   Funding&Tender  database 

36 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

It is also known that some Member States, such as Spain for example, provide additional national 
co-funding to the Erasmus+ programme to satisfy the high demand in some actions. Through such 
national co-financing efforts the Ministry of Universities in Spain manages to maintain an almost 
100 % success rate in ‘Mobility of higher education students and staff’.  

In  Belgium, namely, in  Wallonia and Brussels, a study on the  blended mobility strand 110 of  the 
Erasmus+ programme concluded that  there  is  interest in  such  opportunities. The  strand can 
respond to  challenges  such  as  inclusion  of  individuals  with  fewer  opportunities for instance. 
However, delays in setting up and carrying out projects were detected as well. Reasons for the delays 
include the administrative complexity of the programmes and the lack of functionality of the data 
entry tools. An inconsistency in the information available and financial constraints have also been 
observed. 

Small-scale Partnerships in vocational education and training 
Small-scale Partnerships in VET are among the new actions introduced to make the measure more 
accessible  for smaller organisations and newcomers to the programme. AIR 2021  reports that 
€16 500 000 has been contracted for projects under Small-scale Partnerships in VET in 2021 covering 
a total of 297 projects 111, which can be assessed as an overall good start. Funding wise this accounts 
for approximately half of what has been earmarked for 2021.  

The interviewed DG EAC representatives informed that the slightly bigger total funding amount 
allocated for Small-scale Partnerships in VET in 2021, compared to 2022 and 2023, was due to the 
reshuffling of  funds from  actions not  completed  in  2021  as  a  result  of  COVID-19  restrictions 
preventing travel.  

The related key monitoring indicator No 10 aims for 1 800 Small-scale Partnerships to be supported 
under key action 2 of the Education and Training strand in 2021 112. Therefore, in combination with 
the 1 037  partnerships supporting other levels of education (537 in  school education and 500 in 
adult education), the 1 334 Small-scale Partnerships account for 74 % of what has been anticipated. 
Although this does not fulfil expectations at this stage, it can be expected that the action, will be 
able to catch up in the coming years.  

Table 9: The total budget earmarked for Small-scale Partnerships in VET 

Member States 

2021 

2022 

2023 

TOTAL EU-30 

€30 000 000 

€20 000 000 

€23 493 236 

* EU-27 plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway 
Source: Annual Work Programmes, 2021, 2022, 2023 

MS are signalling an overall high interest in VET related projects admitting insufficient funding to 
satisfy the demand. Small-scale Partnerships in vocational education and training in the calls for 
proposals in Spain in 2021 to 2023 have had an average success rate of 36 %.  

The national stakeholders from Bulgaria highlighted that overall, the VET projects are particularly 
effective for contributing to the inclusion of socially disadvantaged and underrepresented groups (e.g., 
people with disabilities, migrants, refugees, marginalised communities, people from remote cities and 

110   État  des  lieux  des  mobilité hybrides  dans  les  établissements  d’enseignement  supérieur  en  Fédération  Wallonie-

Bruxelles, 2023 

111   Statistic Annex to Annual Implementation Report 2021, p. 20 
112   Programme Statements – Erasmus+,  p.  239 

37 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

villages). In the post-pandemic recovery, they improve educational quality in the country as well as for 
individual participants who they help develop the necessary skills needed in the labour market. An 
interesting example is the Therma Culture113  project developing skills for the tourism industry for 
economically lagging areas, thus increasing the attractiveness of working in the tourism sector.  

Table 10: The total earmarked budget for Small-scale Partnerships in VET  in 2021 and 2022 
versus commitment by selected Member States, € 

Member 
States 

Earmarked 

Committed 

Number of 
projects** 

Earmarked  Committed 

Number of 
projects** 

2021 

2022* 

Belgium 

€785 664 

€510 000 

Bulgaria 

€544 445 

€420 000 

Lithuania 

€463 841 

€60 000 

Spain 

€2 857 081 

€720 000 

10 

7 

1 

13 

€516 114 

€240 000 

€384 082 

€680 000 

€304 704 

€120 000 

€1 876 859 

€1 050 000 

4 

12 

2 

20 

Source: Annual Work Programmes 2021, 2022 and Erasmus+ Results Platform114, *Not complete year, data 
cut-off date 25 April 2023, Green – exceeds the earmarked allocation, Orange – below earmarked allocation; 
** includes only the projects coordinated by MS 

3.4.2. Programme management and responses to changing external 
conditions 

Information on the Erasmus+ calls for proposals that are directly managed is available at the Funding 
and Tender opportunities database 115, while the indirect calls are managed via a joint Erasmus+ and 
European Solidarity Corps website 116. In general, both direct and indirect management are effective 
in supporting the programme’s objectives and in responding to the external challenges experienced 
upon launch. This has been confirmed both by the EU and national stakeholders.  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 was finalised in 2020, at the time that the global COVID-19 pandemic broke 
out. This had an effect on the programme as most actions directly target the mobility of people. The 
interviewed  DG  EAC  representatives  explained  that  virtual  mobilities  were  introduced  to 
compensate for the suddenly limited movement of individuals, and more funds were shifted to 
partnerships thus strengthening the educational establishments that had suffered. According to the 
representatives of EACEA, this reshuffling caused an extra administrative burden, however effective 
and prompt solutions were found. The solutions introduced were effective and the programme 
demonstrated great resilience to the pandemic overall. Moreover, 60 % of the mobilities continued, 
though it was not always deemed easy to navigate through the travel restrictions of the various 
countries involved. As a result, now in 2022 and 2023, the demand for mobility is exploding.  

National stakeholders also confirmed a great deal of flexibility of the programme during the COVID-
19  pandemic.  The  EC  flexibly  adjusted to  virtual mobility,  longer stays, and introduced other 
necessary measures. This established a good framework enabling the programmed activities to 
continue, in addition, digital skills have been observed to have benefited the most.  

113   https://thermaculture.eu/ 
114   Funding&Tender  database 
115   Funding&Tender  database 
116   https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-esc/index/ 

38 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Being very flexible in terms of thematic areas is another advantage of Erasmus+. The representatives 
of EACEA highlighted that the programme is flexible enough to introduce the niche focus within the 
current framework whether this is the twin transition, inclusiveness, democratic processes or youth 
related topics, among others. Any related topic can  be efficiently  picked up and  addressed via 
projects,  including  mental  difficulties  experienced  by  young  people  during  the  COVID-19 
confinement. AWP is the basis for defining specific thematic topics for the call for proposals. Firstly 
discussed and agreed within the Programme Committee representing all MS, they are then adopted 
by the EC  as the final step. The analysis of the three AWPs – 2021,  2022, 2023  within this study 
showed concrete evolution of certain topics throughout the period, such as those related to the 
twin transition. 

In  2022,  the  Russian aggression on  Ukraine was  tackled  very  efficiently  from  the  centralised 
management  perspective. According to EACEA adaptation was needed at  the contractual level 
depending on Ukrainian partner possibilities to proceed with the project. Funding for all Russian 
participation was terminated. This affected some partnerships, but, overall, a very small number of 
projects had to be terminated.  

The interviewed national stakeholders reported a few issues related to effective management of this 
challenge from the decentralised management perspective. A representative of Bulgaria reported 
that  due  to  traditionally stronger  links with  Russia (similar to  many of  the  Eastern European 
countries) there has been a greater number of established partnerships especially at the academic 
level. The Russian aggression on Ukraine, and withdrawal of funding for Russian partners, affected 
these Erasmus+ projects. The new  situation, however, was managed effectively. An interviewee 
stated that the beneficiaries were allowed to redirect funds to other partners outside of Russia. In 
the “traditional Erasmus” student mobility, Russian and Ukrainian students doing their exchange in 
Bulgaria were offered the possibility to extend their stay under the same conditions if they felt 
threatened or unsafe to go back due to the war. From the decentralised management perspective, 
certain challenges were evident related to the Ukrainian refugee influx. National agencies, other 
organisations, and ministries were  unable to  find  ways  in  which  Erasmus+ could  help  young 
Ukrainians fleeing the war the same way that was possible with the ESC. However, some projects 
that involve Ukraine and key partnerships for youth exchanges and mobility with Ukraine do exist, 
stated one of the interviewees.  

Decentralised management proves to be effective due to the proximity of management to potential 
beneficiaries and the greater potential for providing assistance. One interviewee highlighted that, 
for  example,  many small-scale  organisations, such as  VET  centres, do  not have  the  necessary 
capacity to  develop and manage projects. Therefore SEPIE 117,  the Spanish National Agency for 
Internationalisation of Higher Education, assists them in the capacity development, e.g., ‘building 
muscles’ for applying for projects. The same was also mentioned by the Lithuanian stakeholders 
who emphasised that they specifically support young people and organisations to develop their 
networks by reaching out, travelling to the different cities and offering capacity building training. 
As a result of the direct work with potential beneficiaries, the respondent indicated having many 
high-quality projects.  

A significant amount of appreciation has been expressed by the national stakeholders for the new 
financial management of the Erasmus+ programme in allocating lump sums to organisations. This 
approach makes the programme more accessible for smaller organisations. It has proven to be a 
clear benefit, one that is additionally supported by the simplified application procedure which has 
been highlighted as a significant positive change in the new period.  

117   http://sepie.es/internationalisation.html  

39 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

3.4.3. Programme objectives addressed during early implementation  
Due to the early stage of implementation and limited data, it is only with some approximation that 
the  extent  to which  the  programme objectives are being  addressed can be  assessed. A clear 
trajectory of the early calls for proposals towards meeting programme objectives and EC priorities 
is  visible,  however, a  definite  judgement can  be  made  only  at  a  later  stage. The  preliminary 
assessment finds that the  Erasmus+ actions are  already contributing significantly to overall EC 
priorities as  well  as  the  two  external  challenges  –  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  Russian 
aggression on Ukraine. The extent of this contribution has the necessary prerequisites to further 
increase toward the end of the programming period, especially as international mobility has been 
resumed.  

It is also very likely that the two selected practices ‘Mobility in Higher Education’ and ‘Small-scale 
partnership in VET’ will contribute to the attainment of programme goals in the coming years. At 
this stage, it remains too early, however, to judge their effects. For ‘Mobility in Higher Education’ the 
assessment can be partly based on its past success and achievements. There are no indications at 
this stage that the undertaken course towards the common goals will change. Judging from the 
appreciation expressed by the Erasmus+ national stakeholders towards the ‘Small-scale partnership 
in VET’, this practice has the potential to contribute greatly to the overall aims by onboarding many 
smaller organisations that have not yet had a chance to participate due to their limited capacity. 
Extending the scope of the programme will certainly lead to greater policy effects.  

The national stakeholders elaborated on how Erasmus+ has been addressing national challenges. A 
Lithuanian respondent assessed the programme as very relevant and coherent at a national level 
because the national priorities are also very focused on increasing youth civic engagement and 
inclusion and increasing the quality of youth work. It was mentioned that these three pillars are very 
connected to the Commission priorities as well, making them work very well altogether. It is a good 
support mechanism for youth organisations and opportunity to engage young people to contribute 
to these priorities.  

3.4.4. Challenges in the early implementation  
The  mid-  and  longer-term challenge for programme management is the  cyclical  nature of EU 
funding. In the mid-term, when the programme has taken off, this has less of an impact. However, 
the  programme needs time  to  pick-up  after  the  beginning  of  a  programming period and  to 
successfully raise awareness, for instance, on new  or amended actions. Toward the  end of  the 
programming  period,  wider  awareness  creates  increased  demand.  While  applicants  are  not 
necessarily aware of  the cyclical  nature, programme authorities are still  placed in  a  position to 
decline  applicants until the start of the  next programming period, which is  perceived as being 
counterproductive.  

In the short term, the effectiveness of the Erasmus+ programme implementation and management 
at the project level is impeded by the consequences of the two major challenges analysed in this 
report. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine have led to unprecedented 
inflation that also affects project budgets. The Erasmus+ national stakeholders indicated that the 
beneficiaries have difficulties  coping with  the previously budgeted expenses being  insufficient 
considering recent inflation trends.  

Furthermore, the national Erasmus+ stakeholders report that their national budget allocations are 
too often insufficient, and this presents a challenge for beneficiaries as well. This issue has been 
exacerbated by the recent inflation trends across Europe, specifically concerning travel costs which 
are an important part of Erasmus+ budgets.  

40 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

The national stakeholders also reported having certain issues utilising the digital online portals of 
the EC to apply for projects and to report results (as observed in Belgium, Spain and Bulgaria). The 
national  stakeholders from  Belgium  added  that  monitoring of  the  programme can  become 
problematic if the IT tools in place are not running efficiently. This can lead to gaps or mistakes in 
the figures reported. 

Speaking  about  the  programme’s  success  in  the  early  implementation  stage,  an  EACEA 
representative mentions the new capacity building measures for sports and VET. They report that 
there has been sufficient interest to date, and the first projects are rolling out. Expansion of Jean 
Monnet actions at other levels of education, and schools in particular, have also been mentioned as 
one of the potential success stories. Despite some technical and practical issues (such as that most 
schools not being registered as legal entities) the action is being rolled out successfully and the 
number of applications is increasing from year to year.  

3.4.5. Lessons learnt 
Due  to  the  data  limitations and a  very early  stage of  implementation, only some preliminary 
conclusions on the effectiveness of Erasmus+ can be made:  

  There has been an overall good launch of the Erasmus+ 2021-2027 programme. The 
overall  uptake  in  2021  was  effective,  and  the  commitment  matched  the  funds 
earmarked for the year. For the  centrally managed calls, the  overall good launch is 
illustrated with an average success rate of 39 % of proposals.  

  After suspending almost 40 % of mobilities due to travel restrictions, a high demand is 

back for Erasmus+ actions, especially concerning mobility. 

  Both the direct and the indirect management mechanisms are effective in supporting 
the programme’s objectives and responding to the external challenges experienced 
upon its launch. The programme demonstrated great resilience to the pandemic. It also 
tackled the Russian aggression on Ukraine related response efficiently.  

  It can be expected, that the two selected practices analysed for this study will contribute 
greatly  to  the  attainment of  the  programme goals.  Mobility  of  higher  education 
students and staff in 2021 attained the annual key monitoring indicator, while Small-
scale Partnerships in VET did not. Nevertheless, they have been mentioned as a success 
of this programming period alongside the capacity building measures for sports and 
Jean Monnet actions for schools.  

  National stakeholders signal certain drawbacks related to the administrative complexity 

of the programmes and the lack of functionality of the data entry tools.  

41 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

4. Assessment of the early implementation of the Creative 
Europe programme  

Creative Europe programme key findings: 

  The programme Creative Europe is strong in connecting national perspectives. With 
creativity at the core of its objectives, it encourages artists and creatives to tell their 
stories and to develop activities beyond the ordinary. 

  The programme has the potential to strengthen the positive transformation power 
of the cultural and creative sectors in partnership with a wide range of EU policy areas. 
However, the recognition of Creative Europe by other EU policies  is so far widely 
underexploited. 

  While highlighting the digital dimension throughout the programme documents, the 
programme underplays its potential role related to the digital transformation. The 
frontrunning EU digital policies are only weakly referred to in the work programmes 
and call documents. Thus, the awareness raising potential to the sector is underused. 
  Creative Europe is on a good trajectory to become a reference practice for a ‘green 
funding programme’, which systematically addresses the ecological transition in and 
with the cultural and creative sectors. It demonstrates the wider potential a funding 
programme could have for transition areas and policies generally. 

  Solidarity with the Ukraine is well-anchored in the Creative Europe programme which 
comprises specific  calls  and  already operational projects. The activities targeting 
support to Ukraine could be further enhanced including the calls in the Media and 
Cross-Sectoral Strands. 

  Creative Europe underplays its potential in view  of strategic autonomy questions, 
which  are  considerably  interlinked  with  new  geopolitical  as  well  as  updated 
international cultural  relations.  Related  references  to  EU  international (culture) 
policies should be a minimum requirement for Creative Europe Work programmes. 
  Heavy  administrative conditions including  the  digital  portal  in  use  for  Creative 
Europe can generate negative effects related to the variety of applicants including 
those  from  smaller  countries  and  institutions,  as well  as  inefficiencies  for  the 
implementation of selected projects. Negative experiences in view of the (perceived) 
poor  access  to  information  and  funding  can  generate  considerable  negative 
collateral  for  the  European project. Data  availability  should also  be  ensured for 
research purposes. 

  Further attention is  required for  the  working conditions and frameworks of the 
Creative Europe Desks including ensuring appropriate briefing and training on new 
funding streams. 

The Creative Europe programme aims to safeguard, develop, and promote European cultural and 
linguistic diversity and heritage and to increase the competitiveness and economic potential of 
cultural and creative sectors, in particular the audio-visual sector.  

In  the programming period 2021-2027,  the programme contributes to the recovery of relevant 
sectors, reinforcing their efforts to become more inclusive, more digitally developed, and more 
environmentally sustainable. In this programming period, there is an even stronger emphasis on 
transnational creation and on innovation, easier access to funding, supporting EU-level cooperation, 
the mobility scheme for  artists and professionals  and actions that target the needs of  specific 
creative sectors, such as music, architecture, and cultural heritage.  

43 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

The Creative Europe programme is open to individuals as well as cultural and creative organisations 
from EU Member States, as well as non-EU countries. The programme is fully managed by the EACEA.  

The Creative Europe Desks are support structures at the national level financed from the CREATIVE 
EUROPE programme. In every participating country a Creative Europe Desk provides programme 
related assistance and helps cooperating with organisations in other countries.  

4.1. Overview 

The implementation of the Creative Europe programme started in 2021. For all three strands of the 
programme, a wide range of calls referring to the work programmes 2021, 2022, and 2023  were 
launched. The project results are mainly available for the calls launched up to 2022. 

The Programme Statement118 provided by the European Commission’s DG Connect and DG EAC for 
the implementation of the Creative Europe programme highlights the following key achievements 
for the first implementation year 2021. This has been complemented with additional data received 
from the  European Commission for the elaboration of this study and data extracted from the 
Funding and Tender opportunities portal. 

Table 11: Key Achievements Creative Europe  

2 European Capitals of Culture 

3 Oscars 

36 European networks 

68 European Cinema Night 
screenings 

€520 million committed for 
grants 

Nearly 13 500 awarded grants 

1 536 Projects 

3 220 Organisations 
Participations 

49 Calls (until January 2023) 

Source: DG EAC and DG Connect, ‘Programme Statements – Creative Europe’, 2022; DB 2023 and EC 2023 
and own calculations for number of calls from the Funding and Tender opportunities portal. 

118   Programme Statements – Creative Europe 

44 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Figure 6: Creative Europe intervention logic 

EU Priorities

Challenges

Programme Design

Programme Delivery

Activities & Practices

Results

Long-term Impact

6 Commission priorities for
2019-2024
A European Green Deal
A Europe fit for the digital age
An economy that works for people
A stronger Europe in the world
Promoting our European way of life
A new push for European democracy

Other EU Policies
• EU Work Plan for Culture 2023-

2026 

• A New European Agenda for 

Culture 

• Towards an EU Strategy for 

International Cultural Relations 
• European Framework for Action on 

Cultural Heritage 

• New European Bauhaus 
• And those linked to the 

Commission priorities 2019-2024

Relevance

EU and 
National 
Needs

External 
Challenges
2021-2023

• Climate 
Change

• Technological 

progress
• Coronavirus 
pandemic

• Post-pandemic 
EU recovery

• Russian-

Ukraine War

National needs 
(Creative Europe is 
centrally managed)

€2.44 billion to invest in actions 
that reinforce cultural diversity 
and respond to the needs and 
challenges of the cultural and 
creative sectors

Three strands:
1. CULTURE strand for initiatives 
promoting and enhancing 
artistic and cultural cooperation 
at European level

2. MEDIA strand for actions 

encouraging the 
competitiveness, innovation 
and sustainability of the 
European audio visual sector
3. CROSS-SECTORAL strand for 

initiatives promoting 
innovative actions and 
collaboration across the audio 
visual and cultural sectors.

The Creative Europe programme 
is open to cultural and creative 
organisations from EU Member 
States, as well as non-EU 
countries.

Efficiency

7 Calls assessed: European 
Cooperation Projects – Medium 
Scale (Culture strand); 
Innovative Tools and Business 
Models (Media Strand); Rapid 
Response Mechanism (Cross-
Sectoral Strand)
88 projects selected covering 
inter alia topics like green and 
digital transition with cultural and 
creative industries answers.
4 countries further analysed: 
Austria, Croatia, Estonia, and 
Sweden in view of the 3 selected 
practices from the 3 strands 
covering topics like digital, 
audiences, architecture, 
sustainability.

Direct management by 
respective DGs and the European 
Education and Culture Executive 
Agency (EACEA)

Grants to cooperation projects, 
European networks and 
platforms, Culture Moves 
Europe, and Pan-European 
entities. (Culture – 33 %)
Support for content, business, 
audience development. Policy 
support cluster. (Media – 58 %)
Financing for innovative digital 
solutions, news media sector, 
and the Creative Europe Desks 
(Cross-Sectoral – 9 %)

Success rates: 
30 % (Culture strand),
62 % (Media strand),
23.5 % (Cross Sectoral strand)

• Positive 

development of 
European cultural 
and linguistic 
diversity and 
heritage.
• Increase the 

competitiveness and 
the economic 
potential of the 
cultural and creative 
sectors, in particular 
the audio visual 
sector.

Positive impact on
• the eco-systems of 
the cultural and 
creative sectors
• the cross-sectoral 
effects of culture 
on society and 
economy

• European values 
and intercultural 
dialogue

Source: own representation. 

Coherence

Effectiveness of 
Implementation

Goal Effectiveness

EU Added-Value

45 

 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

The following overview provides insights in the overarching results of the implementation of the 
Creative Europe programme and details the programme specific intervention logic. For the analysis 
of the project results the focus was on the pre-selected practices in four MS, namely Austria, Croatia, 
Estonia and Sweden. 119 Due to the central management of the Creative Europe programme, the MS 
perspective is not subject to the relevance and coherence dimension of the evaluation. 

4.2. Relevance assessment 

This assessment addresses the four relevance evaluation questions formulated for all programmes 
including the relevance of recent developments. The main EU-wide  challenges (see sub-section 
2.1.1) are complemented with challenges specifically relevant for the cultural and creative sectors. 
These were identified from following reference studies:  

  Cultural  and  Creative Sectors  in  post-COVID-19-Europe –  Crisis  effects  and  policy 

recommendations120  

  From Reaction to Action – Collaborative Transformation Policies in Culture and Beyond 

for Future-Oriented Policy Making and Action121  

  Report of the European Union Open Method of Coordination (OMC) expert group on 

the cultural dimension of sustainable development 122  

  Report on the situation of artists and the cultural recovery in the EU 123  
  In the Face of War, a Year of Action in Ukraine 124  
  EU strategic autonomy 2013-2023 – From concept to capacity 125  

From these studies and documents the following challenges were identified in view  of culture-
specifics: 

Table 12: Culture-Specific Challenges Related to Main EU Challenges 

Main EU Challenges 

Related Culture-Specific Challenges 

Digital Transformation 

The European Way of Digitalisation 
Digital Divide 
Rules-Based Digital Economy 
Digital Accessibility 
Digital and Interlinked Green Challenges 
Digital Business Models  
Culture in the Metaverse 
AI in Culture Production 
Cultural Diversity and the Digital World 
Digital Audiences and Societal/Health Effects 

119   For the selection of MS see section 2.4 and Annex I (section AI.5). 

120   Cultural and  Creative Sectors in Post-COVID-19  Europe. Crisis Effects and  Policy Recommendations 
121   From  Reaction to  Action – Collaborative Transformation  Policies in Culture and  Beyond  for  Future-Oriented Policy 

Making and  Action 

122   Stormy  Times:  Nature and  Humans :  Cultural  Courage  for  Change :  11  Messages  for  Action for  and  from  Europe : 

Executive Summary 

123   The Situation of Artists and  the Cultural Recovery in the EU 
124   In the Face of War, a Year of Action in Ukraine 
125   EU Strategic Autonomy  2013-2023 

46 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Main EU Challenges 

Related Culture-Specific Challenges 

Green Transition 

Pandemic Consequences 

Raising Awareness with Culture Action 
Contribute to Change of Lifestyle of Europeans 
Overcoming Governance Silos 
Cultural Policy and Action Equally Involved in Global Initiatives 
A Circular Economy In/With Culture 
Measure What You Value 
Sustainability of Culture Climate Networks 
Culture and Biodiversity 
Territorial Segregation 
Local/Global Just Transition 

The European Approach to a Social Market Economy 
Endangered Parts of the CCS 
Persisting Social Divide 
Decent Earning for All Workers 
Public Employers and related specificities 
Deployment of CCS (Cross-Sectoral) Innovation Forces, Societal Forces 
Broad Notion of Innovation 
International Cooperation and Solidarity 
Media in Democracy 
Recognise Intrinsic Value of Culture 
Culture as Essential for Societies and Economies 
Culture as Part of the EU Industrial Policy Framework 
Culture in NextGenerationEU 
Recognition of EU Added Value of Cross-Border-Cooperation 
Mobility Opportunities for Artists/Cultural Workers 
European Status of the Artist 

Russian Aggression and 
Geopolitical Context 

Preventing Destruction and Looting 
Assessing the Damage 
Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property 
Sustain Cultural Life and Artistic Production 
Refugee (Women) Artists 
Continuity of Education 
Key Equipment Provision 
Impacts on (Mental) Health 
Reliable Information 
Safety of Journalists 
Women in Culture/Arts 
Future of Cultural Diplomacy 
Culture(s) at Risk 
Cultural Diversity as Societal Resource 
Better Understanding of Culture and Conflict 

47 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Main EU Challenges 

Related Culture-Specific Challenges 

(Cultural) Institutions as Places of Democracy 
A New Media Culture 
Global (Cultural) Citizenship 
Cultural (Participation) Rights 
Challenges to Democracy and Artistic Freedom 
Youth Dialogue 
Collaborative Transformation Policies and CCS Eco-Systems 
A Strategy Culture 

EU Strategic Autonomy 

Source: own representation. 

The relevance assessment of the Creative Europe programme is based on several documents: the 
regulation 126 and annual work programmes127 were used for  the  design; the  calls  and  related 
activities,  selected  practices  and  other  implementation  aspects  were  used  for  the  early 
implementation information. 

4.2.1. Programme design 
The programme design of the Creative Europe  programme  addresses all five major EU challenges. 
While strong references are made to the digital transformation, the areas of green transition, post-
pandemic recovery, and EU strategic autonomy are addressed to lesser extents in the Regulation. 
The Creative Europe regulation was already in place when the war in the Ukraine started. Thus, no 
references to the  war were  made in  the Creative Europe regulation. However, the  programme 
regulation already refers to migration and refugees. 

The Creative  Europe Work Programmes  2021-2023 tackle all five major EU challenges: 

In  relation to the  digital  transition,  the  Creative Europe Work Programme 2021-2023  addresses 
related challenges (e.g., lack of digital skills) and opportunities like the digital and hybrid outreach 
to international markets. While the Work Programme 2021 seemed to be influenced by the then 
ongoing pandemic and the enhanced digital requirement for the cultural and creative sectors to 
reach out to the (digital) audiences and (online) markets, later Work Programmes highlight stronger 
challenges of the digital transition (e.g., the disruptive power of the digital world on the news media 
sector as well  as  the  need of  defending media pluralism in  the  digital  era). Overall, the  Work 
Programmes reflect the initial provisions of the Creative Europe regulations well,  with a  strong 
transversal reference to the digital transition. 

The green  transition  is  mentioned in the Work Programmes as a cross-cutting element. A study 
commissioned  by  the  programme  provides  the  related  insights  for  a  green  EU  funding 
programme.128 Especially in the Media Strand of the Creative Europe programme, a series of calls are 
referred to for which the requirement of greening strategies have been applied and the refund of 
greening costs is foreseen. 129 The key areas of the green transition named in the different Work 

126   Regulation (EU)  2021/818 
127   Annual work programmes  Creative Europe 

128   Greening the Creative Europe Programme: Final Report 
129   Creative Europe Work Programme 2022 (p. 18) states ‘In parallel, the MEDIA support  actions will introduce additional 
financial  incentives for greening in 2022. For  almost  all schemes,  beneficiaries will be required to present greening 
strategies, air travel will be reduced and greening costs  will be funded.  In 2022 the following schemes will introduce 
further greening incentives:  TV  and  Online content;  Talents  and  Skills;  Markets  and  Networking;  MEDIA  360; VOD 
Networks; Networks of Festivals;  Networks of Cinemas;  and Films on the Move.’ 

48 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Programmes are: climate and biodiversity mainstreaming, greening of the (AV) sectors including 
green production and potentially a green label, raising awareness, risk management with respect to 
preservation of cultural heritage, testing and innovative green solutions, fostering green life cycle 
thinking as well as green recovery. 

With  reference to  the  post-pandemic  recovery  challenges  several actions are  highlighted in  the 
priorities such as sectoral approaches in the Culture Strand (e.g., music) and a series of considerations 
related to the Media Strand (recovery of festivals, reconnecting with audiences, and cinemas). The 
adoption of the funding provisions due to the special needs of the cultural and creative sectors 
during the pandemic is another supporting element. It is expected that these provisions will soon be 
replaced by pre-pandemic settings as stated in the 2023 Work Programme. Furthermore, the Work 
Programme  for  the  year 2023  highlights  several  measures related  to  a  simplification  of  the 
programme management and project implementation settings (e.g., a wider application of lump 
sums). This could be an effect related to the lessons learnt from the pandemic years. 

The Work Programmes refer in a more limited extent to the Russian aggression on Ukraine. However, 
the  measures  foreseen  in  the  Culture  Strand  of  the  Work  Programme  for  2023  are  more 
comprehensive in view of the enhanced participation of the representatives of the Ukrainian art and 
culture sectors in the European Cooperation projects, including a special call and training activities 
for the Ukrainian heritage sector. The wider geopolitical context and related conflicts are weakly 
covered in  the Work Programmes. This considers, for example, references and frameworks for a 
wider range of refugee artists and cultural professionals. 

The  strategic  autonomy  of  the  European  Union  refers to  a  wide  range of  topical areas of  which 
strengthening  the  European  democracies  is  best  reflected  in  the  Creative  Europe  Work 
Programmes. Related to  youth dialogue, as  another relevant topic, the  Creative Europe Work 
Programmes also refer to the European Year of Youth 2022. The newly introduced areas in the Cross-
Sectoral Strands of the Creative Europe programme cover an important field to strengthen the 
democracy –  namely media and journalism. The  Work Programmes  also refer to the  European 
Democracy Action Plan  when detailing the wider frameworks for action of  the Creative Europe 
programme in this area.  

4.2.2. Early implementation 
The analysis of  the early implementation of the Creative Europe programme is based on  three 
selected practices as outlined in the methodology. 130 This approach allows for a related preliminary 
and exemplary understanding of how relevant the programme is for the identified challenges. The 
following calls were launched related to the three selected practices131:  

  Culture Strand: European Cooperation Projects Medium Scale – 3 calls 
  Media Strand: Innovative tools and business models – 3 calls 
  Cross-Sectoral Strand: Rapid Response Mechanism – 1 call 

When evaluating the calls  of  the  selected  practices  in view  of the five overarching challenges, the 
digital  transition  is reflected in the selected Culture Strand calls by objectives and priorities. These 
aim to enhance digital ways of producing and disseminating content, to take full  advantage of 
digital technologies to improve competitiveness and more recently to develop audiences in the 
digital field. The digital dimension of sector-specific approaches is highlighted for cultural heritage, 
music, book and publishing, architecture, fashion and design, and sustainable cultural tourism. The 

130   For the selection criteria of the practices see Annex I (Section AI.4).  
131   Result based  on 

49 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

selected calls in the Media Strand refer to the specific challenges of the European audio-visual sector 
in view of the digital transformation. The related Call 2023 is the most specific, highlighting activities 
such as improving accessibility across platforms as well as developing related business models, and 
use of technology for data gathering and analysis. The latest call also makes reference to AI, Big Data, 
blockchains,  Metaverse, Non-Fungible  Token  (NFTs) 132,  and  others.  The  call  ‘Rapid  Response 
Mechanism’ under the Cross-Sectoral Strand aims at monitoring violations of press and media 
freedom and  providing practical  help  to  protect journalists under threat. This call  specifically 
addresses the digital challenges in view of the digital media environment with reference e.g., to 
databases of media councils and actions for improvements of digital tools. 

The  green  transition  and related  concrete greening activities of  the  Culture Strands calls have 
become  more  concrete  and  binding  to  be  addressed by  the  applicants  in  the  project  work 
programmes. The related effects on the projects have not yet become visible as these measures 
were only taken in the call 2023 for which the results are not yet available. In the Media Strand calls, 
the greening of the European audio-visual sectors became one of the award criteria integrated in 
the project relevance assessment since 2022. The Cross Sectoral Strand call in Creative Europe does 
not refer to the green transition. 

The post-pandemic  recovery  challenges were more prominently addressed in the 2021 and 2022 calls 
in the Culture Strand when the effects of the pandemic were still immediately visible. The call 2023 
stresses the fact that the cultural and creative sectors require support for recovery and resilience 
and highlights the related digital acceleration in one of the priorities. The other selected calls do not 
have specific reference to the (post-)pandemic context. 

With  reference  to  the  Russian  aggression  on  Ukraine,  the  selected  calls  of  the  Culture Strand 
encourage applicants to take into account in their proposals, as much as possible, the Ukrainian 
cultural and creative sectors as well  as the Ukrainian population. The Cross-Sectoral Strand call 
addresses the safety of journalists as a topical area including the organisation of related awareness 
campaigns. However, it covers journalists’ safety only in EU Member States. The selected Media 
Strand calls do not refer to the war specifically.  

The considerations related to the EU strategic autonomy  are only mentioned in the Cross-Sectoral 
Strand by referring to democracy and the related role of the media and journalists. 

A further analysis on project  level  confirmed the successful uptake in the areas of digital and green 
transition. An increasing importance of the ecological transformation can also be observed. Few 
projects address the  pandemic  recovery and  the  Russian aggression  on Ukraine, whereas EU 
strategic autonomy aspects were only tackled to a minor extent by successful applicants. 

4.2.3. Lessons learnt 
The  Creative Europe programme addresses the five  overarching EU  challenges  with  different 
intensity: 

  The digital dimension is a strong topic anchored on all levels, strands and calls of the 
Creative Europe programme as a  transversal feature. Upcoming challenges like  the 
cultural  dimension  of  the  metaverse, interlinked green-digital  impacts,  effects  on 
international relations as  well  as  societal  effects  of  digital  practices  are  so  far  not 
systematically addressed, i.e., on programme-level. 

132   These are unique digital identifiers that are recorded on a blockchain,  and used to certify ownership and authenticity. 

50 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

  The green transition is a topic of increasing relevance. Related challenges are tackled 
structurally  in  the  Creative  Europe  programme  with  specific  measures  (e.g.,  the 
objective to green the cultural and creative sectors). Based on this engagement, further 
attention on challenges, such as local  and global just transition or enhanced cross-
sectoral cooperation, could be beneficial. So far, the Creative Europe programme is less 
explicit on green challenges in the Cross-Sectoral Strand. 

  The (post-) pandemic recovery is a topic mainly covered by the Culture Strand of the 
Creative Europe programme. Recovery is a  broad topic for the cultural and creative 
sectors, which were heavily impacted by the pandemic and not all related challenges 
can  be  addressed with  a  funding  programme (e.g.,  social  security  for  creatives). 
However, challenges like fair payment could be addressed with related conditions in 
project implementation. 

  The  Russian aggression on Ukraine and related effects on  the cultural and creative 
sectors so  far  play  a  minor  role  in  Creative  Europe,  starting with  the  2023  Work 
Programme and  the  calls  in  the  Culture  Strands. Despite  the  strong response to 
challenges related to the Russian aggression on Ukraine, the programme underplays 
highlighting other areas of concern like the growing numbers of artist refugees, the 
cultures at  risk  (beyond  heritage), and  the  urgent need  for  updated international 
cooperation practices. This is even more relevant as the programme countries now 
reach widely beyond the EU Member States. 

  The strategic autonomy considerations gain minor attention from the Creative Europe 
programme. While the support for media and journalists, which was introduced in the 
current programme, is an  important  element  to support  strategic autonomy, other 
strategic autonomy challenges gain  less  attention. These  concern  the  need  for  a 
democratisation of cultural institutions and practices (e.g., including women’s rights in 
cultural and artistic production, better reflecting diverse European societies in funding 
programmes).  Furthermore,  the  intensification  of  the  involvement  of  the  next 
generation in the European (cultural) project is underplayed. Ensuring transformation 
ready  cultural  and  creative  sectors  (e.g.,  addressing energy  transition in  cultural 
infrastructures) is a further topic not yet gaining sufficient attention. 

Specifically  assessing the different (culture-specific) challenges shows that the Creative Europe 
programme with its fully centralised mechanism does not specifically address national challenges 
as an explicit objective. However, a wide range of topics in Creative Europe are relevant for national 
cultural development (e.g., the greening of the sectors). Furthermore, it must be taken into account 
which national challenges can be adequately covered with support programmes, and which require 
other types of policy interventions (like e.g., regulations or laws). Annex II details the findings for 
culture-specific challenges. 

The programme is still relevant despite changing external conditions as it is the only EU programme 
that directly addresses the cultural and creative sectors, the cultural dimension of the European 
project and of transformation, and related values and European identities. However, the programme 
underplays the potential of  arts, culture, and the creative industries in  view  of an  active cross-
sectoral transformative power.  

The programme reacted quickly to emerging needs in the context of the pandemic. Efforts were 
made to support the project implementation as well as to increase the available budgetary means 
in the first two years of programme implementation. Creative Europe also provided further support 
in the context of the Ukraine war. However, implementation projects in the specific calls related to 
the Ukraine have also led to new challenges. Focus group respondents reported that cultural actors 
have experienced difficulties in the project to cope with political agendas. The participants referred 
e.g., to the calls co-implemented with partners from Ukraine.  

51 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

The transformation of the programme in view of the green transition is remarkable and demonstrates 
the potential a funding programme has to contribute to improved practices and projects. 

4.3. Coherence assessment 

This  assessment  addresses  the  three  coherence  evaluation  questions  formulated  for  all 
programmes. The main EU-wide priorities and policies (see sub-section 2.1.2) are complemented 
with policies specifically relevant for the cultural and creative sectors. These comprise of:  

  the EU Work Plan for Culture 2023-2026 133 
  A New European Agenda for Culture134 
  Towards an EU Strategy for International Cultural Relations135 
  the European Framework for Action on Cultural Heritage 136 
  the New European Bauhaus137 

The corresponding overview of EU (cultural) policies is provided in Annex II, where the main policy 
objectives, general related policies and the culture specifics are jointly described.  

The coherence analysis is based on the same programme documents as the relevance assessment. 
These documents were complemented with the strategies and publications available related to the 
European Commission Priorities 2019-2024 138. 

4.3.1. Creative Europe in European Commission Priorities 
Creative Europe is mentioned explicitly as a relevant support programme only in a minority of the 
Commission Priorities 2019-2024, namely the New European Bauhaus, the EU solidary with Ukraine 
initiative, the EU strategy combatting antisemitism, the European Democracy Action Plan and the 
European Media Freedom Action139. Surprisingly, highly relevant areas for culture policy and culture 
development like the European Skills Agenda or the Enhanced EU engagement with the Western 
Balkans do not refer to Creative Europe. 

When further analysing the key documents of the EU actions in the field of culture policy, a full 
coverage of  the Creative Europe programme could be  observed. All strategic EU culture policy 
documents mention the programme. 

133   Council resolution on EU work plan for culture 2023-2026 2022/C 466/01 
134   European  Commission  SWD(2018)  267 final 
135   Towards  an EU  Strategy for International Cultural Relations 

136   European  Framework for Action on Cultural Heritage 
137   https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/about/about-initiative_en   
138   The European  Commission’s  priorities (Webpage) 
139   European  Commission  COM(2022) 457 final 

52 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

4.3.2. Programme design  
The Creative  Europe  Programme  Regulation  refers briefly to the EU Green Deal,  the Digital  Single 
Market 140,  the  European  Industrial  Strategy 141,  the  InvestEU  programme 142  as  well  as  to 
NextGenerationEU 143,  and to  Global  Europe 144. The  regulation is  more  explicit  in  view  of  the 
European values which are considered as a key element of the cultural sphere anchored in the Treaty 
on European Union (Article 3). The values are further detailed in view of the industrial developments, 
the European films, arts education, promotion of cultural heritage as well as related to the inclusive 
communities and  the  integration of  migrants.  Another strong area  of  consideration by  the 
regulation are the positive impacts the programme can generate by the means of interacting with 
the European citizens. Related references include the Baukultur (building culture), the European 
Capitals of Culture as well as the promotion of media literacy and critical understanding. In view of 
the explicit  mention of EU cultural policy documents, the regulation refers strongly to the New 
European Agenda for Culture and mentions the EU strategy for International Cultural Relations. 

The analysis of the Creative  Europe  Work  Programmes  2021-2023 yields the following observations 
on the European Commission priorities: 

The European  Green  Deal as such was less referenced in the Work Programmes in the course of the 
implementation, but the New European Bauhaus (NEB) gained continuously more attention in the 
time span from 2021 to 2023. New aspects were introduced in the programmes like NEB elements 
related to mobility, the urban development (European Capital of Culture) and innovation labs. These 
considerations were limited to the Culture and Cross-Sectoral Strands of the Work Programmes. 

The priority A Europe  fit  for the  digital  age is referred to in the Creative Europe Work Programmes 
with a focus on the mention of the European Digital Single Market. This is highlighted in the policy 
frameworks and also linked to related evaluations of the previous Creative Europe programme 
(2014-2020). The Work Programme 2023 highlights the European Industrial Strategy in view of the 
cultural and creative sectors eco-systems. 

An  economy  that  works  for  people  is only partly addressed in the Work Programmes. They refer to 
SMEs  and  to  the  smaller  organisations  addressed  with  Creative  Europe  without  explicitly 
mentioning  related  EU  policy  papers.  However,  the  Work  Programme  2023  becomes  more 
comprehensive by dedicating further attention to working conditions (as mentioned in the Work 
Plan for Culture) and by mentioning the EU Pact for Skills. 

Referring to the European Commission priority A stronger Europe in  the  world, the Creative Europe 
Work  Programmes  explicitly  mention  the  Global  Gateway  initiative 145.  However,  the  global 
dimension of Creative Europe is highlighted in all three Work Programmes including global markets 
outreach, increasing global sales and connecting to global audiences. The Ukraine, Western Balkan 
and Mediterranean countries are mentioned in the Work Programmes in view of third country and 
candidate country participation. The  Work Programme 2023  dedicates a  considerable part  of 
attention to the war in  Ukraine which is  specifically addressed in the Culture (focus) and Cross-
Sectoral Stands (one element) of the programme. 

140   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chapter/31.html   
141   European  Commission  COM(2020) 102 final 
142   Regulation (EU)  2021/523 
143   https://next-generation-eu.europa.eu/index_de   
144   Global Europe: Neighbourhood,  Development and  International Cooperation Instrument 
145   JOIN(2021) 30 final 

53 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

The European Commission priority Promoting  our  European  way  of  life is widely addressed in the 
Work Programmes and across strands by highlighting the promotion and defence of European and 
common values. They cover activities like grants (Media Content Cluster), EU Prizes (such as the EU 
Prize for Popular and Contemporary Music) and Media Pluralism (Cross-Sectoral Strand). However, 
migration related policies are not specifically mentioned. Furthermore, the Work Programme 2022 
addresses the EU Strategy on combatting antisemitism as one of the priorities of the Culture Strand 
and in view of the European Heritage Days (including the cooperation with the Council of Europe). 

Regarding the New push for European democracy, the Work Programmes are explicit in view of the 
citizens dimensions of Creative Europe and aim to reach out to the hearts and minds of European 
citizens. Related actions highlighted are the European Capitals of Culture, the European Heritage 
Label, the initiative for sub-titling and the European Film Forum. Furthermore, the Creative Europe 
Desks should reach out to citizens. All three Work Programmes mention the European Democracy 
Action Plan but do not refer to the European Media Freedom Act. These plans and acts are mainly 
addressed by the Cross-Sectoral Stand of the programme. 

Analysing the references to the Recovery Plan  for Europe shows that the Work Programmes provide 
a wider insight in recovery needs and how these will be addressed by Creative Europe. The 2023 
Work Programme refers explicitly to National Recovery Plans and their cultural dimension 146. 

Main  EU Cultural Policies  are referred to in the Work Programmes 2021-2023 in what concerns the 
New European Agenda for Culture. With the adoption of the new Work Plan for Culture post-2022, 
this  policy  document  was  widely  addressed in  the  Work  Programmes. The  strategic  policy 
documents related to EU international cultural relations and to Cultural Heritage were no longer 
included in the Work Programme 2023. 

4.3.3. Early implementation  
Early implementation was assessed based on the selected practices and calls listed in the relevance 
assessment (sub-section 4.2.2). 

The evaluation of the calls of the  selected  practices  shows that the Culture Strand calls are the most 
explicit  in  view  of  major  European Commission priorities. The  Cross-Sectoral Strand Call  only 
indirectly refers to one of the European Commission priorities (A new push for European democracy: 
The European Democracy Action Plan as thematic priority). The selected calls in the Media Strand 
highlight none of the priorities as well as none of the related policies and documents.  

The  European  Green  Deal  including the New European Bauhaus are well-anchored in the selected 
calls  of  the Culture Strand. This  is further enhanced as the Green Deal  and the  New  European 
Bauhaus are mentioned as part of one of the Call priorities.  

A  Europe  fit  for  the  digital  age  is  not broadly addressed in the  Culture Strands calls.  They refer 
generally to the Digital Single Market and the Digital4Culture Strategy147. Related policies like Digital 
Services Act and the Digital Markets Act are not mentioned in the Culture Strands calls. 

The selected calls in the Culture Strand neither mention the NextGenerationEU nor the European 
Skills  Agenda related to  the  priority An  economy  that  works  for  people.  However, the  working 
conditions were especially referenced to in the Culture Strands calls 2021- 2022. These calls also 
further mention the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan. 

146   Recovery and  Resilience Scoreboard. Thematic Analysis – Culture and Creative Industries 
147   See European  Commission  SWD(2018)  267 final 

54 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

When further analysing the uptake of the calls  of  the European Commission priority A  stronger 
Europe  in  the  world, the selected Culture Strand calls mentioned none of the related policies and 
considerations related  to  global  scaling  and  branding  (which  were  mentioned  in  the  Work 
Programme 2021). The selected call 2023 in the Culture Strand refers briefly to the Ukraine war. 

The priority Promoting  our European  way of life was addressed in the selected calls (Culture Strand) 
concretely in the context of the sectoral priorities in the field of architecture in 2022 as an element 
to promote cultural heritage reuse and to transfer related values. The EU Strategy on combatting 
antisemitism and fostering Jewish life  was  mentioned in the policy  framework of the selected 
Culture Strand call of the same year. 

Citizen-related sectoral priorities in  architecture and culture  heritage were  highlighted in  the 
analysed Culture Strand calls 2021-2022 – addressing the European Commission priority New push 
for European democracy. The Cross-Sectoral Strand highlights democracy as a thematic priority with 
the features of the European Democracy Action plan. 

Neither of the selected calls has a specific reference to the Recovery  Plan for Europe. 

Main  EU  culture  policies  referred to  in  the  selected  calls  from  the  Culture Strand are the  New 
European Agenda  for  Culture,  the  EU  Work  Plans  for  Culture  and  a  wider  range  of  Council 
Conclusions from the field of Culture. The strategies for international cultural relations and in the 
field of heritage were not mentioned in the 2023 call. The Media and Cross-Sectoral Strands calls 
analysed made no reference to the main EU culture policies. 

When further analysing the uptake of priorities and policies on the level of projects, the successful 
applicants from the analysed Culture and Media Strands were mainly implicitly referring to A Europe 
fit for the digital  age and to a lesser extent to A Europe stronger  in the  world. 

4.3.4. Lessons learnt 
EU policy documents outside the cultural area address Creative Europe to a (very) limited extent. 
With respect to the European Commission priorities, the following findings have been observed: 

  Creative Europe is exclusively mentioned in view of the New  European Bauhaus and 

none of the other policy areas linked to A European Green Deal. 

  The programme Creative Europe is not mentioned in the policy documents related to 
the priority A Europe fit for the digital  age. However, the Cultural and Creative Sectors are 
mentioned in the European Industrial Strategy. 

  Similarly, Creative Europe is not mentioned in the Commission priority An economy that 
works  for  people,  even though there is e.g., an EU Pact for Skills for the Cultural and 
Creative Sectors. 

  When analysing the priority A stronger Europe in the world, Creative Europe is mentioned 
in the EU Solidarity with Ukraine initiative, yet in none of the other strategies e.g., those 
referring to the Western Balkans or to the Mediterranean space. 

  Promoting  our European way of life refers to the Creative Europe programme with regard 

to the EU Strategy on combatting antisemitism. 

  A  new  push  for  European  democracy  includes  references  to  the  Creative  Europe 

programme and makes a reference in the European Democracy Action Plan. 
  The Recovery  Plan for Europe does not refer to the Creative Europe programme. 
  Creative Europe is mentioned in all strategic EU cultural policy documents. 

The very limited mention of Creative Europe (or the cultural dimension in general) in the documents 
related  to  the  European Commission  priorities is  a  shortcoming. The  added  value  of  culture 

55 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

(including the activities which can be supported by Creative Europe) are manifold and would benefit 
from explicit mentions in these documents. 

The programme design is generally coherent with all European Commission priorities and relevant 
EU policies, though the degree to which the programme documents of Creative Europe refer to 
these policies differs. The European Green Deal and the New European Bauhaus are well-mentioned, 
but further green topics from the European Commission priorities are not specifically highlighted. 
The digital dimensions are transversally addressed in the programme. However, a lack of explicitly 
mentioning related EU policies has been observed. This refers, for example, to the regulative policies 
for the digital world in which the EU is a global frontrunner. An economy that works for people must 
also include decent working conditions for the cultural and creative sectors. This topic is highlighted 
in the Creative Europe work programmes and linked to (some) related EU policies. The programme 
documents miss out on referring to global perspectives beyond the war in the Ukraine.  

Highlighting (changing) global frameworks would not automatically mean providing funding in this 
direction, but would rather serve to draw attention to the wider context for the project applicants. 
The  bridging role  of  culture in  times of  conflict  could  also be  a  related area  of  consideration. 
Promoting the European way of life and A new push for European democracy should be central 
areas for a cultural programme, but very few references can be found to the related policies in the 
Creative Europe work programmes. Recovery is a central topic in the work programmes of Creative 
Europe, but there is less mention of the related EU policies. The mentioning of EU cultural policy 
documents in work programmes was modified during early implementation. Especially remarkable 
and surprising is that the document “Towards an EU Strategy for International Cultural Relations” is 
no  longer referred to in  the  latest editions of the  work programme. The detailed findings are 
presented in Annex II. 

The data availability is very limited when analysing the results in view of selected projects and the 
related references to EU policies and priorities do not seem to be common 148. However, the calls 
launched for the selected practices make explicit reference to: 

  The European Green Deal and the New European Bauhaus 
  The Digital Single Market as one reference policy (limited to the Culture Strand) 
  The EU Solidarity with Ukraine (limited to the Culture Strand) 
  A reference to European values and to the EU Strategy on combatting antisemitism 

(limited to the Culture Strand) 

  Citizens-related priorities in the Culture Strand of the Creative Europe programme and 

the European Democracy Action Plan in the Cross-Sectoral Strand 

Mentioning policies in the calls for proposals seems to be underexploited especially in the Media 
and Cross-Sectoral Strands of the programme despite the beneficial effects this could generate for 
the uptake by project applicants. 

148   The analysis  is based  only on available short project summaries  rather than comprehensive project applications  or 

descriptions. 

56 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

4.4. Effectiveness assessment 

The  analysis  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  Creative  Europe  programme  focuses  on  the  early 
implementation and is based on the following information sources: 

  The internal document ‘The implementation of the current Creative Europe programme 

2021-2027’ drafted by Rapporteur: MEP Massimiliano Smeriglio 

  The Creative Europe websites on the servers of the European Commission 149 and the 

EACEA 150 

  The European Commission Funding and Tender opportunities portal151, used to extract 

project level information  

  The Performance as detailed in the Programme Statement on Creative Europe prepared 

by EAC and DG CONNECT 152 

The Creative Europe project results website153 provides no results for projects selected in 2021 or 
later. Due to this fact, this website could not be used for the assessment of the effectiveness of the 
early implementation of the Creative Europe programme. Furthermore, due to the diversity of data 
sources that had to be used, potential inconsistencies are difficult to avoid, though they are not 
likely to affect the overall assessment. 

4.4.1. Programme launch 
The implementation of the Creative Europe programme started in the year 2021 in all three strands 
of the programme. A wide range of calls referring to the work programmes 2021, 2022, and 2023 
were launched. The project results are mainly available for the calls launched in the first two years. 

In 2021-2022,  28 calls for proposals have been issued for the Media Strand and six for the Cross-
Sectoral  Strand. The  number of  calls  issued  for  the  Culture  Strand was  not  provided  in  the 
information received from the EC. 

The success rate of the received proposals varies greatly between strands. In 2021-2022, the success 
rate of project applications was 30 % for culture projects and 62 % for media projects. The success 
rate of proposals submitted for the Cross-Sectoral Strand was 23 % and 24 % in  2021  and 2022, 
respectively. This variation is also visible in the different budget allocation of the three strands, with 
the Cross-Sectoral Strand having a much smaller budget. 

The analysis of the number of  selected projects by  practice and call  shows that the number of 
projects selected in the 2021 calls was higher than in 2022. For the Rapid Response Mechanism, the 
one call in 2022 yielded two applications of which one was selected (see Table A.20 in Annex II). 

The  overall effectiveness of the  Creative Europe programme during the initial implementation 
phase seems to be appropriate. The significantly lower uptake of practices in the Media Strand in 
2022 can be explained through budgetary framework conditions. Due to the frontloading of the 
Creative Europe budget in 2021 to cope with the severe effects of the pandemic on the cultural and 
creative sectors, budgetary means for the call in 2021 were doubled compared to 2022. 

149   The Creative Europe programme (Webpage)  and  Culture and creativity – Funding  opportunities 
150   https://www.eacea.ec.europa.eu/grants/2021-2027/creative-europe_en  
151   Funding  and Tender opportunities 
152   Programme Statements – Creative Europe, pp.  299 
153   Culture and creativity – projects 

57 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

All four MS selected for in-depth analysis have at least one approved project as lead partner from 
the selected practices. Austria and Sweden each have two projects, and Croatia and Estonia one 
each. Apart from one project under the Innovative Tools and Business Models, they are all European 
Cooperation Projects Medium Scale. Data for the Rapid Response Mechanism is not sufficient to 
allow corresponding insights (see Table A.21 in Annex II).  

Figure 7: Number of proposals received per strand 

Number of proposals received – cross-sectoral 
strand

243

Number of proposals received – Media strand

1 195

929

Number of proposals received – Cooperation 
projects (culture strand)

682

468

 0

 200

 400

 600

 800

1 000 1 200 1 400

2021-2022

2022

2021

Source: own representation based on EC, 2023. 

Figure 8: Creative Europe: Success rate per strand  (number of applicants)  

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

 500

 0

2 124

1 150

1 274

345

243

57

Culture Strand

Media Strand

Cross-sectoral strand

Applications

Successful applications

Source: EC, 2023 

The effectiveness of the uptake of applicants from the four selected countries seems to be well-
achieved related to the Culture Strand of the Creative Europe programme. The situation is different 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

in the Media Strand with only one successful application. However, it has to be taken into account 
that in the selected practice of the Media Strand only very few countries are covered with a focus on 
bigger MS with very well developed creative and especially audio-visual industries. Nevertheless, a 
small country like Denmark is represented with several successful proposals in these calls. This leads 
to the conclusion that there is potential for wider uptake by media companies and organisations in 
the selected countries.  

Figure 9: Creative Europe: total budget per strand (2021, 2022) 

Total budget – Cross-sectoral Strand 

€30 134 024

€26 570 216

Total budget – Media Strand 

€205 555 321

€155 223 973

Total budget – Culture Strand 

€129 053 166

€97 029 485

Source: own calculations, based on EC, 2023 

2022

2021

4.4.2. Programme management and responses to changing external 
conditions 

The implementation of the Creative Europe programme was fully affected by the pandemic and 
related crisis management when it was launched in 2021. The programme was further impacted by 
the Russian aggression on Ukraine which required a response related to the political decisions on the 
level of the European Union as well as support for the culture and heritage in the Ukraine and the 
refugees from the arts and culture sectors. In parallel, the programme must respond to the growing 
effects of climate change. The mentioned issues were addressed in the work programmes 2021 to 
2023 and through a wider range of implementation settings on programme management level.  

Related  to  the  pandemic,  immediate  and  longer-term  lessons  learnt  are  found  to  be  well-
summarised in the Creative Europe Work Programme 2023: ‘The implementation of the Programme 
has been adapted to take into account the lasting challenging context resulting from the COVID19 
pandemic.  The  overall  budget  was  frontloaded, with  a  third  of  the  Creative  Europe  budget 
committed in  the  first  two  years of  the  Programme. The profile  of  the  programme has been 
frontloaded in 2021 and 2022, as a strong signal of the Union support to the recovery of the cultural 
and  media sectors in  the aftermath of the  COVID-19  pandemic. In  2023,  the  allocation of  the 
programme returns to the regular profile, which explains the reduction of appropriations compared 
to previous years. Newly introduced higher co-financing rates for Culture co-operation projects as 

59 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

well as for several MEDIA actions, as a response to the urgent liquidity needs of the beneficiaries 
continue to be relevant due to the lasting impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sector.’ 154 The 
concrete effects on the frontloading of budget are also visible in the selected Media Strand project 
results described above. Therefore, the implementation modalities seem to have been effective. 

The Russian  aggression  on  Ukraine  was also tackled by the Creative Europe programme. The Work 
Programme 2023 published in August 2022 includes specific calls to support the cultural sectors in 
and from the Ukraine. Cooperation projects are foreseen as well as training for cultural heritage 
professionals in Ukraine. These actions are concentrated on the Culture Strand and complementary 
activities in the Media and Cross-Sectoral Strands of the programme are not visible. This approach 
bears the risk of not covering the full range of cultural support measures and related target groups 
e.g., from the Ukrainian audio-visual and creative industries.  

Furthermore, the Work Programme is not explicit in view of potentially enlarging supporting and 
information tasks of the Creative Europe Desks (e.g., those in neighbouring countries to the Ukraine) 
to best support new applicants in submitting proposals.  

When analysing the country-specific uptake in the three strands and the selected practices, as early 
as  2021  and  2022  projects  involved  partners from the  Ukraine  in  the  Culture  Strand of  the 
programme.  One  of  the  projects  selected  ‘Tales  of  Ukraine’  from  the  European  Publishers 
Association in the Culture Call 2022 was a work prepared in response to the war. The selected Media 
Strand projects provided no  visible coverage of, or  project leadership by, Ukrainian innovative 
creative companies. The Cross-Sectoral Strand would be an additional area of action in favour of the 
Ukraine e.g., by strengthening free and democratic media. 

The  ongoing climate  crisis  was  broadly addressed by the  Creative Europe programme and the 
related  early  implementation  programme  settings.  The  Work  Programme  2023  provides  a 
comprehensive summary on the status of green provisions155. One example is a policy dialogue on 
greening with the audiovisual industry that was started in the context of the Media Strand156. The 
European Commission published a related study covering a Good Environmental Practices Guide, 
the Creative Europe Programme Greening Strategy, and the Creative Europe Monitoring Guide for 
Programme Greening 157. This is a forward looking approach which can build on the already wider 
range of  successful applicants addressing the ecological transformation in the analysed Culture 
Strand Calls. Furthermore, it provides the potential to generate a reference practice for other (EU) 
funding programmes. However, the further involvement of the Creative Europe Desks has not yet 
become visible in the programme implementation with potentially reduced effectiveness in view of 
the  uptake by  a  large  majority of  project applicants. In  addition, Media  Strand provisions are 
responding well to the ‘green’ challenges on the level of programme documents. However, when 
analysing the selected projects, a wider greening is not yet visible 158. 

154   2023 Annual  Work  Programme  for  the  Implementation  of  Pilot Projects  and  Preparatory  Actions  in  the Area  of 

Education,  Youth, Sport and Culture, p. 24 

155   Ibid, pp. 13 

156   Greening the European  Audiovisual Industry. The Best Strategies and Their Costs 
157   Greening the Creative Europe Programme 
158   Nota  bene:  the  Funding  and  Tender  opportunities  portal  provides  only  a  few  lines  project  description  and  the 
required settings like the introduction of  greening strategies as  stated in the Work Programme might be simply  not 
stated in these summaries. 

60 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

4.4.3. Programme objectives addressed during early implementation  
The extent of achievements refers to the selected practices in the four MS using their project results 
and have to be seen in the framework of the priorities of selected calls. Table A.22 to Table A.24 in 
Annex II list the corresponding priorities for the three types of practices.  

The  following  insights indicate  achievements of  the  projects in  the  four  MS  illustratively. The 
European Cooperation Projects – Medium Scale Calls aim at achieving 12 thematic priorities. The four 
analysed projects addressed four of these priorities (digital, audience, sustainability, architecture): 

  The project ‘Peripheral Visions – towards a trans(l)national publishing culture’ led by 
UDRUGA  ZA  PROMICANJE  KULTURA  KULTURTREGER  from  Croatia  addressed  the 
pandemic context in semi-peripheral areas and aims to use new technologies to reach 
out to (new and) larger audiences. (digital, audience) 

  The  selected  proposal  from  Trans  Europe  Hall  (Sweden)  ‘Building  to  Last:  Non-
governmental Cultural Centres, Environmental Sustainability and Communities’ aims at 
‘build(ing) the capacity of cultural spaces to address the sustainable futures of their 
buildings  and  organisations,  inspiring  and  leading  sustainable  transition  among 
cultural teams, audiences, communities and cities.’ (sustainability, architecture) 

  Implemented by  the  ‘Bundeskammer der Ziviltechniker’ in  Austria  together with  a 
consortium of similar intermediaries, the project ‘European Platform for Architectural 
Design Competitions’ addresses ‘the promotion of high-quality architectural solutions 
for the built environment by increasing the use of architectural design competitions 
(ADC)  in  Europe and  overcoming cross  border  market barriers in  the  market  for 
architectural services.’ (architecture) 

  The project ‘MODINA – Movement, Digital Intelligence and Interactive Audience’ led by 
Tallinn University in Estonia aims to ‘expand the creative possibilities for contemporary 
dance  performances, and augment the  experience  for  the  audience, using  digital 
technology – with an emphasis on exploring artificial intelligence (AI) and audience 
interaction, on-site and online.’ (digital, audience) 

The  one  project  example  of  the  Media  Strand  Call  on  Innovative tools  and  business models 
addressed one out of five priorities covered by calls in 2021 and 2022. Due to the limited data, no 
general statement on the effectiveness of the uptake of the thematic priorities by the applicants can 
be provided: 

  The successful project ‘Content.Agent’ from Austria is dedicated to a B2B marketplace 
addressing performing arts in and through audio-visual media. The marketplace aims at 
‘democratizing the audio-visual market and to promote competitiveness, scalability, 
cooperation, innovation and the development, creation, and distribution of audio-visual 
works across Europe and beyond. As a result of this funding period, we will have made a 
substantial roll-out of Content. Agent far beyond the IMZ membership and continuously 
developed and deployed its additional functionalities as well  as conceptualized and 
delivered an MVP of the pitching, co-production, and financing services.’ (Business tools 
improving  the efficiency and the transparency  of the audio-visual  markets) 

Due to a lack of project selection data of the Rapid Response Mechanism call in 2022 no assessment 
can be made on the thematic focus of the approved project within the eight thematic priorities of 
this call.  

61 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

During the focus group organised with stakeholders from the Creative Europe programme in May 
2022, the following achievements of the programme were highlighted: 

  The programme is strong in connecting across borders, bringing people together and 
supporting networking. This enables it to contribute to overcome national perspectives. 
The  minimum  criteria  to  include  organisations  from  three  different  programme 
countries is a useful requirement of the programme. 

  The  new  type of  cooperation for medium-sized projects in the Culture Strand was 
highlighted as especially well adapted to the needs of the cultural and creative sectors. 
  The European Capitals of Culture initiative is perceived as an impressive flagship of the 
European cultural action and is recommended by the stakeholders to be continued. 
  The Creative Europe programme, with creativity at the core of its objectives, encourages 
artists and creatives to tell their stories and to propel their activities and work beyond 
the ordinary. These features are also perceived as being positive vectors for personal 
development for those engaging in Creative Europe projects. 

  The introduced lump sum funding is a real advantage with respect to administrative 

burden from the project applicants and during implementation. 

  The  programme adds  a  supranational funding opportunity for  contemporary and 
experimental  creative  projects  supplementing the  existing  national opportunities. 
National funding for culture is much more limited in many areas of the European Union, 
and in some cases favours traditional cultural expressions. 

  Project  applicants  were  also  successful  with  experimental  project  proposals  and 
appreciated that –  despite a risky and highly creative approach – the projects were 
selected for funding. The selection process seems to be well in place for these needs of 
the innovative European cultural and creative sectors. 

  The special programme addressing the cooperation with Ukrainian cultural and creative 
sectors is reported to have been well-operational as of May 2023  in  view of  project 
implementation, and it was found that the related funds have already reached project 
partners. 

  European film  production is well-supported with the  Media  Strand of  the Creative 
Europe programme. The related films gain a lot of recognition in Europe and on the 
international scene (including being awarded prizes). This is a real success story. 

4.4.4. Challenges for programme and project managers 
Programme and project  managers, together with  representatives of Member  States, gathered 
during a focus group meeting in May 2023 and highlighted the following challenges: 

The digital portal introduced for Creative Europe project applications and their management is one 
of the biggest challenges for project managers. It is perceived as not state-of-the-art as stakeholders 
report that better digital solutions exist (e.g., Estonia) that are appreciated by applicants from at 
least  some  countries.  The  responsiveness  of  project  officers  seems  to  have  slowed  down 
considerably on the portal compared to other communication frameworks which were in place for 
previous Creative Europe programme editions. Due to technical shortcomings, it can take several 
days  to  post  a  message  on  the  digital  portal.  Furthermore,  stakeholders  from  project  and 
programme management reported undesired side-effects of the digital communication platform 
(such as, difficult access to information, challenging capability of participation and related negative 
effects on equal access to funding, administrative burden and related costs, formation of a bad 
reputation for the European project). Creative Europe Desks (CED) face an increase of requests for 
finding solutions for problems encountered with the digital platform. This requires a considerable 
amount of time which the CED staff needs for other activities. Only one target group was identified 
by the stakeholders who is not facing substantial problems with the digital platform. This group 

62 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

consists of advanced tech companies with young staff applying for funding in the Media Strand. 
Participants in the focus group proposed – as a first step – to introduce a direct communication line 
with the project officers to speed-up international procedures. 

Stakeholders recognise the efforts of the CED to disseminate information on the programme and 
the individual support they provide to applicants. However, the  project managers have shared 
observations that newcomers and smaller entities are unable to cope with the requirements of the 
programme (e.g., application forms are perceived as being  more adapted to  research than to 
cultural projects). Furthermore, stakeholders of the focus group reported that the Creative Europe 
programme is still unknown to many organisations especially outside the metropolises, which a 
recent survey in Estonia has brought to the foreground. Stakeholders emphasised that often the 
same or similar organisations are selected and that these are frequently bigger institutions in many 
cases based in Brussels. The financial capability to engage EU funding experts is another element 
which  favours bigger institutions. There is no doubt about the quality and merit of  the related 
projects, but the stakeholders wanted to draw the attention to the fact that a diversity of applying 
organisations and geographic contexts would be more beneficial for innovation in culture and the 
creative industries. Efforts in this direction would also further strengthen the European integration, 
including from smaller countries with often smaller institutions, and from rural and remote areas in 
general. 

Challenges which specifically concern the CED are reported in view of late contracting and an ever-
increasing list  of  activities and topics which  should be  covered. This concerns for  example the 
funding  programmes  outside  Creative  Europe.  Furthermore, 
awareness  raising  to  EU 
representatives of CED report difficulties addressing new target groups. This relates e.g., to the new 
Cross-Sectoral Strand in Creative Europe, which is dedicated to journalists and media. In addition, 
the innovation labs in the Media Strand require a lot of effort. These labs aim to incentivise the 
creative  sector’s players to  test  innovative solutions for key  challenges  with  the  objective  of 
achieving long-term impacts. The innovative and experimental setting of these calls is appreciated 
by the CED which were present at the focus group exchange. However, the CED staff might require 
more  related  (strategic and  operative) support  to  provide  high  quality  advice  to  (potential) 
applicants. One CED wished that the programme could have opened the calls in the Media Strand 
for the participation of Ukrainian organisations and creative companies. Stakeholders participating 
in  the focus group shared the impression that the current communication on Ukraine support 
generates some inaccurate impressions for potential applicants particularly related to the access to 
Creative Europe calls. 

Country-specific challenges were highlighted by stakeholders from Estonia, Croatia, and Sweden. 
The CED Sweden was honoured for having provided very good support to applicants. According to 
respondents,  an  even  greater  pro-active  attitude  could  convince  further  application-ready 
organisations from Sweden to engage in  the Creative Europe programme. In some cases, non-
application is based on incorrect judgement of an organisation’s effective capacities which can be 
circumvented with better outreach. Furthermore, project managers from Sweden think that the 
budget increase in Creative Europe could be more wisely spent on artistic and innovative creative 
production instead of a perceived enhanced focus on prices and bureaucratic frameworks. 

Stakeholders from Estonia emphasise the specific challenges smaller countries face in participating in 
Creative Europe with their full capacities. From a programme level view, a multiannual debate to raise 
awareness for the specific needs of smaller countries has still not encouraged substantial changes in 
the Creative Europe programme frameworks and project results. The funding conditions and selection 
criteria should take account of capacities from smaller institutions as well  as of  smaller language 
spaces. The Creative Europe programme should be equally accessible for all geographic areas. This 
would have beneficial effects on innovation and on the diversity of views and institutions covered. 

63 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Croatian participants further highlighted the fact that current implementation frameworks of the 
programme seem to hinder a wider range of (smaller) organisations from countries, with a small 
creative sector, to equally participate in Creative Europe. Croatian focus group participants shared 
their perception that countries with a  (perceived) lower audio-visual capacity find it  specifically 
difficult to access Media Strand calls of Creative Europe. 

4.4.5. Coping with future challenges 
The programme has an overall good effectiveness related to the considerably changing frameworks 
in the course of the first years of implementation. Stakeholders from the focus group report that 
Creative  Europe  projects,  which  they  have  successfully  submitted  and  co-implement  with 
organisations from Ukraine, have now begun to be operational. 

However, a general observation is that the uptake time-frame related to major disruptions is rather 
long. The content of the annual work programme reflects the frameworks of implementation in the 
summer (e.g., August 2021) before the year addressed (e.g., Work Programme 2022). The related 
calls for proposals are launched later (e.g., November 2021). The decision-making process, as well as 
contracting and  project  initiation  and  kick-off  takes time.  While  this  is  a  completely  normal 
procedure  for  the  implementation  of  funding  programmes,  it  becomes  too  slow  when 
transformative settings are accelerated. The delayed information on the selected proposal for the 
Rapid Response Mechanism also illustrates these time frames and delays. 

4.4.6. Lessons learnt 
The launch of Creative Europe was effective and some deviations in 2022 (e.g., in the Media Call) are 
due to structural changes of the programme. Project promoters from the MS covered by the analysis 
successfully  participated in  the  Culture  Strand  of  the  programme. However,  the  geographic 
coverage of the analysed Media Strand calls is less balanced than in the Culture Strand. 

The Creative Europe programme management was fully affected by disruptive events like the pandemic 
and the Russian aggression on Ukraine since its start in 2021. The related coping measures were effective 
related to immediate emergency support (e.g., frontloading of budget) and longer-term lessons learnt 
(e.g., higher co-financing rates). The involvement of partner organisations from Ukraine was not equally 
effective in all programme strands with a weaker uptake in the Media and Cross-Sectoral Strands. 
Furthermore, the work programmes did not refer to an enhanced support of the Creative Europe Desks 
for the involvement of partners from the Ukraine. The need for a funding programme oriented towards 
green practices is substantially addressed by the Creative Europe programme. Overall, the programme 
was able to cope with the needs arising from changing external conditions. 

The achievements of the work programmes’ priorities are becoming appropriately visible for the 
Culture and  Media  Strands calls  covered by  this  assessment. The  calls  addressed programme 
priorities to a large extent and can achieve a similar level in the upcoming years.  

An assessment of the effects produced is not feasible due to the early implementation stage of the 
projects. For the Cross-Sectoral Strand call no sufficient data was available. 

Specific challenges in the early implementation of the programme were linked to the new digital 
application and project management platform which is perceived as highly inefficient. Furthermore, 
stakeholders identify challenges related to the uptake and participation of smaller entities. Creative 
Europe Desks report on challenges related to new programme strands and the related mobilisation of 
applicants, number of staff related capacity challenges, as well as issues with long contracting periods. 

Due to the early stage of implementation individual success stories cannot be identified . However, 
stakeholders emphasised a  whole  range  of  positive  effects  achieved  by  the  programme like 

64 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

widening perspectives beyond one country, bringing people together, allowing for experimental 
implementations  and complementing  more  traditional  funding  schemes  in  certain  MS.  The 
medium-sized projects were mentioned as being especially beneficial for the cultural development 
and  involvement of  applicants.  Other  highlights of  the  Creative  Europe  programme are  the 
European Capitals of Culture as well as the support for the European film industry. These promote 
the programme and European cultural diversity on a global scale.  

65 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

5. Assessment of the early implementation of the European 
Solidarity Corps programme 

European Solidarity Corps programme key findings: 

  The programme is well-positioned to tackle emerging challenges, as visible in the 
reactions to the COVID-19  pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine. The 
launch of the programme faced challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the 
nature of the  projects during the pandemic show that volunteers quickly helped 
according to their capacities. Regarding the Russian aggression on Ukraine a number 
of  projects  have  already  been  granted,  such  as  aiding  Ukrainian  refugees. 
Stakeholders highlighted an increase in the interest towards the ESC as volunteers 
quickly began to look for ways to help. 

  The programme has increased its relevance related to the digital transition, as shown 
by  the  increase  in  projects  addressing  digital  skills,  literacy,  education  and 
information and communication technologies. In the previous programming period, 
these categories were either non-existent or not highlighted. 

  The  programme has seen a  rise  in  projects related to  the  green transition, thus 
increasing  its  relevance.  Since  2021,  hundreds  of  project  descriptions  have 
mentioned the environment, climate change or green skills. 

  The  programme is generally aligned with  the Commission priorities. The level  of 
coherence with ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’ is high, as evidenced through the 
significant  increase in  projects using  digital  tools or  tackling  digital  challenges. 
Aspects of ‘An economy that works for people’, such as the European Education Area, 
the European Year of Skills 2023, and the European Skills Agenda show moderate to 
high 
levels  of  coherence.  Little  to  no  coherence  was  found  with  the 
NextGenerationEU and the ‘Recovery Plan for Europe’. 

  The programme launch was challenged due to delays and the negative impact of the 
COVID-19 pandemic on the projects. Programme implementation challenges result 
from issues with IT tools and budgetary constraints. The programme is still in its early 
stages and there is still a need for national authorities and organisations to familiarise 
themselves with the processes involved. 

  In general, the early implementation of the ESC is deemed to be effective. Despite 
some delays and a decreased interest in the ESC due to the COVID-19  pandemic, 
stakeholders  agree  that  the  launch  of  the  programme  was  successful.  The 
programme is seen as a  tool to  promote solidarity, and increase young peoples' 
involvement and interest in volunteering. It helps young people develop their skills 
and transition from school to work.  

  Stakeholders, however, pointed out that the further promotion of the programme is 

important.  

  The management of the programme is deemed to be effective, with rapid sharing of 
information and good communication, although further improvements should be 
sought after. 

The European Solidarity Corps (ESC) ‘brings together young people to build a more inclusive society, 
supporting vulnerable people and responding to societal and humanitarian challenges. It offers an 
inspiring and empowering experience for young people who want to help, learn and develop and 

67 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

provides a single-entry point for such solidarity activities throughout the Union and beyond.’159 It 
targets young people aged 18-30, or up to 35 in the case of humanitarian activities. 

The ESC programme was established in 2018,  with the aim of creating ‘opportunities for young 
people across the Union to make a meaningful contribution to society, show solidarity and develop 
their  skills, enabling  them  to  obtain not  only work  experience  but  also  an  invaluable human 
experience.’ During this period more than 450 000  young people expressed an interest in taking 
part, and more than 56 000 were able to take up opportunities. 

Compared to the previous pilot160 the current programme for 2021-2027 has a broader scope as it 
has taken over the role of two other initiatives that operated during the 2014-2020 financial cycle: 
the European Voluntary Service and the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative.  

Figure 10: ESC programme structure 

i

n
a
m
o
D

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

e
d
o
M

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
n
a
M

Youth

European Solidarity Corps

Strands
− Participation of young people in solidarity activities

− Volunteering Projects
− Volunteering Teams in Higher Priority Areas
− Solidarity Projects

− Participation of young people in humanitarian aid related solidarity activities

− Volunteering under the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps

Direct: Education Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), DG EAC

Indirect (2021 situation)
− Programme countries: Member states of the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, 

Republic of North Macedonia, Turkey

− Partner countries: Norway and other countries neighbouring the EU

Source: based on Programme Statements – European Solidarity Corps (ESC), p. 270, accessed on the 
18 April 2023 

The European Voluntary Service was previously part of the Erasmus+ programme and is seen as a 
learning mobility programme. It has now been subsumed into a solidarity strand. The other former 
initiative that is now  part of the  European Solidarity Corps programme, the EU  Aid Volunteers 
Initiative, supports humanitarian aid projects and has deployed nearly 1 200 volunteers between 
2014 and 2020. This initiative has become a specific humanitarian aid strand in the new programme. 
Having a single structure makes it possible to exploit the strengths of the predecessor programmes 
synergistically and  eliminates  confusion  from  having  three  similar  initiatives. 161  A  schematic 
representation of the structure of the programme is shown in Figure 10. 

159   European  Solidarity Corps  – Our Mission and Principles 
160   European  Solidarity Corps:  Annual Report 2018-2019 
161   See also European  Solidarity Corps  – Performance (Webpage) 

68 

 
 
 
 
                                                             
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

5.1. Overview 

The European Solidarity Corps programme supports EU youth policy, notably the European Youth 
Strategy 2019-2027, as well as (transnational) volunteering. The programme has one general and 
one specific objective: 

The general  objective  of the European Solidarity Corps programme is to enhance the engagement 
of  young people  and organisations in accessible and high-quality solidarity activities, primarily 
through volunteering, as a means to strengthen cohesion, solidarity, democracy, European identity 
and  active  citizenship  in  the  Union  and  beyond.  It  has  the  aim  of  addressing societal  and 
humanitarian challenges on the ground, with a particular focus on the promotion of sustainable 
development, social inclusion and equal opportunities. 

The specific  objective  of the programme is to provide young people, including young people with 
fewer opportunities, with easily accessible opportunities for engagement in solidarity activities that 
induce positive societal changes in the Union and beyond EU borders, while improving and properly 
validating their competences, as well as facilitating their continuous engagement as active citizens. 

The programme also has four transversal priorities. Three of the priorities have been unchanged in 
2021-2023,  these  are  inclusion  and  diversity,  participation  in  democratic  life  and  digital 
transformation.  In  2021,  reflecting  on  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  prevention, 
promotion and support in the field of health was a priority. In 2022 and 2023, this was replaced by 
environmental protection, sustainable development and climate  action  due  to  the  increasing 
mainstreaming of climate actions across programmes. However, calls under the different strands of 
the programme may also have specific additional priorities. 

The countries participating in the European Solidarity Corps are the EU-27, Iceland and Liechtenstein 
(two EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries which are part of the European Economic 
Area (EEA)) and North Macedonia and Turkey. Organisations from participating countries can lead 
projects. Volunteers and project partner organisations can come from any of these countries or 
Norway,  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia,  Armenia, Azerbaijan, 
Belarus,  Georgia,  Moldova,  Ukraine,  Algeria,  Egypt,  Israel,  Jordan,  Lebanon,  Libya,  Morocco, 
Palestine, Syria or Tunisia. 

The European Solidarity Corps by strand 

The solidarity strand of the programme supports volunteering, solidarity projects, networking activities, and 
quality  and  support  measures. Two  types  of  volunteering supported  are  volunteering projects  and 
volunteering teams in high priority areas.  

In volunteering projects, participating organisations provide individual young people or teams of young 
people with the opportunity to volunteer in their own country, or in another country, for up to 12 months. 
The volunteers’ board and lodging, and local travel are paid for, they receive pocket money from the project 
(€4 to €7 per day depending on the country) and their travel costs are met. Participating organisations 
receive funding to meet management costs and, if appropriate, for language training for volunteers and 
inclusion support to support young people who have fewer opportunities. 

Projects to provide volunteering teams in high priority areas can receive up to €400 000. They must involve 
participants from at least two countries, who will work on short-term projects in areas of particular need. 
The participating  organisations receive support towards organisational costs, including the board  and 
lodging of the volunteers, travel and pocket money for the volunteers and, where appropriate, inclusion 
support. In 2023, the priorities are relief and assistance for those fleeing armed conflicts and victims of 
natural or man-made disasters, and prevention, promotion and support in the field of health, particularly 
support for vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. These include health challenges brought on by events 

69 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

such as COVID-19 or the Russian aggression on Ukraine, or related to EU policy priorities, such as Europe’s 
Beating Cancer Plan. In 2022, the priorities were healthy lifestyles and preserving cultural heritage.  

Solidarity  projects are  non-profit solidarity  activities initiated, developed and  implemented by young 
people themselves for a period of 2 to 12 months. They involve groups of at least five young people. They 
should address key challenges within their communities (including any identified jointly in border regions) 
and should be a non-formal learning experience. The funding meets project management costs, the cost 
of a coach and to support inclusion of those with fewer opportunities. 

Under the humanitarian aid strand, humanitarian aid projects can involve individuals volunteering for 2 to 
12 months (as part of projects with at least 15 volunteers) or teams of between 5 and 40 people from at 
least two participating countries lasting two weeks to two months. The maximum EU grant is €650 000 and 
meets similar expenses as the other projects. Projects are expected to prioritise inclusion and diversity, 
environmental protection, sustainable development and climate action, and digital transformation in their 
approach. Funding under the humanitarian aid strand became available from 2022. 

There are provisions in the two strands to prevent young people from being exploited as cheap 
labour. In  the  case  of  the  solidarity strand, volunteering must include a  learning and  training 
component, may not be a substitute for traineeships or jobs, must not be equated with employment 
and must be based on a written volunteering agreement. The humanitarian aid strand contains 
similar  provisions, with  the  additional option of  including  development and capacity-building 
components involving highly skilled, highly trained and experienced coaches, mentors and experts. 

The  total  budget  for  the  2021-2027  programme  is  €1 009  million,  with  94 %  foreseen  for 
volunteering and solidarity projects and the remainder for humanitarian aid volunteering162. 

Table 13: European Solidarity Corps budget 2021-2027 

Budget for volunteering and solidarity projects 

Budget for humanitarian aid volunteering 
Source: based on Regulation 2021/888, Art. 11 

Budget available 

€948.5 million 

€60.5 million 

The programme is managed through annual work programmes, which establish the annual budget. 
The work programmes also contain annual breakdowns of the budget by country. 

Table 14: Annual budget, 2021-2023163 

Annual budget (€ m) 

O/w indirect 
management 

Indirect management as 
% of annual budget 

2021 

2022 

2023 

138.9 

150.0 

142.2 

114.4 

126.4 

121.0 

82.4 

84.3 

85.1 

Source: Annual Work Programmes, 2021, 2022, 2023 

162   This  budget  figure is the amount  in the programme  Regulation. The  final figure will be higher as a  result of  annual  

adjustments  for inflation and contributions from Iceland and Liechtenstein. 

163   Figures rounded for ease of reading.  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Figure 11: ESC intervention logic 

EU Priorities

Challenges

Programme Design

Programme Delivery

Activities & Practices

Results

Long-term Impact

Relevance

Efficiency

6 Commission priorities for
2019-2024
A European Green Deal
A Europe fit for the digital age
An economy that works for people
A stronger Europe in the world
Promoting our European way of life
A new push for European democracy

Other EU Policies
• New European Bauhaus
• EU Forest Strategy
• Digital Decade
• Digital Education Action Plan
• European Skills Agenda
• European Education Area
• European Year of Skills 2023
• SME Strategy
• European Pillar of Social Rights 

(Action Plan)

• European Civil Protection and 
Humanitarian Aid Operations

• EU Core Values
• Gender Equality Strategy 2020-

2025

• European Democracy Action Plan
• EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027
• Next Generation EU

Source: own representation. 

Direct management by the 
European Education and Culture 
Executive Agency (EACEA) on 
behalf of the Directorate-General 
for Education, Youth, Sport and 
Culture.

94 % of the overall budget is 
allocated for volunteering and 
solidarity projects, while 6 % is 
allocated for volunteering under 
the European Voluntary 
Humanitarian Aid Corps. 

The projects since 2021 are 
analysed regarding the following 
countries and practices:

Four countries analysed: 
Germany, Italy, France, Poland.

The selected practices are 
Community Development (195 
projects indicated on the ESC 
platform), and Digital skills and 
competences (40 projects 
indicated on the ESC platform).

Positive impact on
• Strengthened and 
more resilient 
communities
• Increased digital 

literacy

• Promotion of 
inclusion and 
diversity;

• Promotion of 

participation of 
young people in 
democratic processes 
and civic 
engagement;

• Contribution to the 
digital transition, 
including 
strengthening digital 
skills and raising 
awareness of the 
risks and 
opportunities of 
digital technology.

EU and 
National 
Needs

External 
Challenges
2021-2023

• Climate 
Change

• Technological 

progress
• Coronavirus 
pandemic

• Post-pandemic 
EU recovery

• Russian-

Ukraine War

National needs 

With a budget of €1 009 billion, 
the ESC aims to enhance the 
engagement of young people 
and organisations in accessible 
and high-quality solidarity 
activities, primarily volunteering, 
as a means to strengthen 
cohesion, solidarity, democracy, 
European identity and active 
citizenship in the European Union 
(EU) and beyond.

The specific objectives include 
providing young people with 
easily accessible opportunities for 
engagement in solidarity 
activities that induce positive 
changes in society in the EU and 
beyond, while also improving and 
properly validating their skills, 
and facilitating their continuous 
engagement as active citizens.

The two action strands of the 
programme are ‘Participation of 
young people in solidarity 
activities’ and the ‘European 
Voluntary Humanitarian Aid 
Corps’.

Coherence

Effectiveness of 
Implementation

Goal Effectiveness

EU Added-Value

71 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

The key action ‘Volunteering, traineeships, jobs and solidarity projects’ has received 62 proposals, in 
the 2021-2022 period, 54 of which were eligible and 45 selected. Under the key action ‘Networking 
activities, quality and support measures’, 192 proposals were submitted over the same period, and 
177 were deemed eligible from which 140 have been selected. This demonstrates a relatively high 
success rate of 83 % and 79 %, respectively. 

Figure 12: ESC: Key actions – submitted proposals, success rate from eligible proposals, 
success rate total 

250

200

150

100

50

0

63

52

45

192

152

140

KAA – Volunteering, Traineeships, Jobs and 
Solidarity Projects 

KAB – networking activities, quality and support 
measures 

Submitted

Success (eligible)

Success (total)

Source: own representation based on EC, 2023 

Figure 13: ESC: Sums of Budget per year (direct + indirect management) 

€86 427 518

€73 563 972

€22 187 759

€18 512 250

€28 923 077

€20 863 002

€10 000 000

€9 007 000

Volunteering

Solidarity Projects and
networking activities

Quality and support
measures

Other

2022

2021

Source: own representation based on EC, 2023 (all fund sources including EU voted budget and assigned 
revenues) 

Figure  13  presents the  total  budget  per  action  of  the  ESC  programme. This  includes  work 
programme items of which implementation is both direct and indirect. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

To illustrate the evaluation findings with details, the following two ESC actions were analysed with 
a focus on the four selected countries (Germany, France, Italy and Poland 164):  

  Community development  
  Digital skills and competences  

Outcomes of the document review, data analysis and interviews are presented in the respective ESC 
related sections of this report. 

5.2. Relevance assessment 

The assessment below has been made based on the document review conducted related to the ESC 
programme design. The most valuable sources of information are the Annual Work Programmes165 
and the Programme Statement 2023, providing both an overview on the programme design and 
the early implementation. This is complemented by initial outcomes of the early calls. 

5.2.1. Programme design 
Digital transformation  
The digital transformation has been better integrated in the 2021-2027 programming period of the 
European Solidarity Corps, frequently mentioned alongside the green transition, reflecting the 
rising importance of these two important challenges Europe is facing.  

In particular, the policy priorities of the ESC include the digital transformation. Furthermore, the 
priorities themselves are aligned with the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 166, as stated in 
the 2021 Annual Work Programme. To this end, one of the goals of the ESC is to support individuals 
living in the digital age by providing projects that help improve digital literacy, including enhancing 
awareness on the risks and opportunities that lie within digital technology. This also extends to 
supporting older people to gain and improve their digital skills. For instance, one of the projects in 
this area covers related several activities 167, while another specifies that the volunteers will create a 
digital cookbook via which they will help retirees learn about the use of digital tools. 168  

In the ESC Programme Guide 2021 169, the organisations wishing to participate are encouraged to 
keep  in  mind  the  importance of  the  digital  transition and incorporate digital tools 170 in  their 
activities. In fact, the award criteria include the use of digital tools, therefore proposals including 
digital  methods may receive  a  higher score. Programme information at the national level  also 
includes the integration of digital tools in the projects. 171 For instance, in France, it is recommended 

164   For the selection of MS see section 2.4 and Annex I (section AI.5). 
165   2021 Annual  Work Programme  – European  Solidarity Corps,  2022 Annual Work  Programme  (amended)  – European 

Solidarity Corps,  and  2023 Annual Work Programme – European  Solidarity Corps 

166   European  Commission  SWD(2020)  209 final 
167   The Polish project ‘Nie starzej się za szybko’ 

168   The Croatian project 'Godine su samo broj' 
169   European  Solidarity Corps  Guide – 2021 Call, Version 2(2021) 
170   The use of digital tools in projects include designing digital information cards for social media use, e.g., in the Turkish 

project ‘Temiz Hava  Elçileri’; or the use of a quest game as  in the Latvian project 'KOPĀ' 

171   See e.g. ‘Das  Europäische Solidaritätskorps.  The power of together. Infobroschüre für Fachkräfte der Jugendarbeit und 

aus dem Engagementbereich.  2021-2027’ 

73 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

for  applicants  to  include  digital  tools  in  order  to  improve  cooperation  between  partner 
organisations and enhance the quality of activities. 172  

Overall, it can be concluded that the ESC shows some relevance in addressing challenges stemming 
from the digital transformation. In fact, there is evidence of the inclination to embed digital skills 
and tools in the foundations of the European Solidarity Corps. 

Green transition 
As mentioned above, the green transition is one of the key challenges that has been emphasised in 
the 2021-2027 programming period of the ESC.  

One of the key priorities of the ESC outlined in the 2021 Annual Work Programme is environmental 
sustainability and climate goals. The ESC aims to contribute to the commitment of the Commission 
to tackle climate and environmental-related challenges by supporting projects that address the 
topic,  for example,  by aiming  to protect, conserve and enhance natural capital and by  raising 
awareness of environmental sustainability issues. 

Similar to the digital transformation, the ESC also emphasises the importance of incorporating green 
practices in its projects, and thus contributing to the European Green Deal. ESC projects also support 
several Sustainable Development Goals and are aligned with the Commission’s Reflection Paper 
‘Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030’ 173. This could include an emphasis on walking or cycling 
throughout the project.174 

The key documents of the programme also mention the New  European Bauhaus175 and the EU 
Forest Strategy176, underlining the relevance of the ESC in tackling environmental challenges. 

At the national level, programme information includes suggestions for applicants to incorporate the 
promotion of environmentally sustainable and responsible behaviour among participants, and raise 
awareness of the importance of taking actions to reduce or offset the environmental footprint of 
activities,  for  instance via  waste  reduction and  recycling,  and  by  using  sustainable means of 
transport. 

Overall, it  can  be  concluded  that high  relevance of  the  green transition is  shown in  the  key 
documents as well as the project objectives. 

Post-pandemic recovery 
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the activities of the ESC in  2020, and as a  result, a call  for 
proposal was cancelled, and instead certain on-going projects received an extension. In 2021, as a 
reaction to the ongoing pandemic, volunteers under the projects of the European Solidarity Corps 
provided support to elderly people, particularly with food and medical shopping. For example, in 
Poland, projects related to the pandemic and its impacts aimed to alleviate the negative effects of 
the pandemic by organising activities that promote an active lifestyle among children, youth and 

172   See e.g. ‘Fiche d’aide à La Lecture Du Guide Du Corps  Européen de Solidarité 2023 – ESC30’ 

173   Reflection Paper. Towards  a Sustainable  Europe by 2030 
174   See e.g., the German  project 'Ich zeige dir mein Bremen' 
175   https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/index_en   
176   European  Commission  COM(2021) 572 final 

74 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

seniors 177, or that boost the digital skills of seniors in light of the increased use of digital tools in 
everyday lives 178. 

In  the 2021-2027  programming period, the policy priorities include  prevention, promotion and 
support in the field of health. While much of the work in this area is directly related to addressing 
the impact of the pandemic and the post-pandemic recovery itself, the activities will also aim to 
involve volunteers in tackling other health-related challenges, such as cancer. 

It can be concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a clear impact on the programme as a 
whole,  and  the  current programming period  includes  many  activities  that  address the  post-
pandemic recovery.  

Russian aggression on Ukraine  
Some references can be found to the Russian aggression on Ukraine in the key documents, although 
it broke out after the beginning of the current programming period. Nevertheless the relevance of 
the ESC in tackling these challenges is likely to be made more apparent in upcoming projects and 
reports on the results of the programme. In particular, this could be because more organisations 
may be looking for an avenue to organise activities and the ESC’s 2023 Annual Work Programme 
referencing the war is likely to result in more applications, since this raises awareness about such 
potential projects.  

In  fact,  the  Russian aggression  on Ukraine was  directly  referenced  in  the  2023  Annual Work 
Programme of the ESC. The Work Programme includes ‘relief for persons fleeing armed conflicts and 
other victims of natural or man-made disasters’ 179 as one of its policy priorities. This is a key element, 
whose importance has been increased due to the Russian aggression on Ukraine and the resulting 
arrival of Ukrainian refugees in EU Member States. Furthermore, the Russian aggression on Ukraine 
is also referenced under the priority ‘Prevention, promotion and support in the field of health’ as it 
had an impact on the physical and mental health of people.  

Projects  tackling  the  challenges  created  by  the  war  can  already  be  found,  particularly  in 
neighbouring countries, such as Poland. 180 

EU strategic autonomy 
Although EU strategic autonomy is not mentioned in the ESC documents, the European Democracy 
Action Plan 181, which is closely related to one of the key elements of the EU strategic autonomy, 
namely the capacity to uphold democratic values, is mentioned. 

In fact, the 2021 annual work programme of the ESC states that the programme is fully aligned with 
the European Democracy Action Plan. In addition, democracy in general is one of the core values of 
the European Solidarity Corps.  

177   2021-2-PL01-ESC30-SOL-000039047 
178   2021-1-PL01-ESC30-SOL-000036204 

179   2023 Annual Work Programme – European Solidarity Corps,  p. 10 
180   E.g. 

2022-2-PL01-ESC30-SOL-000091084;  2022-2-PL01-ESC30-SOL-000090523; 

and  2022-2-PL01-ESC30-SO L-

000091228 

181   European  Commission  COM(2020) 790 final 

75 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

5.2.2. Early implementation 
The early implementation of the current programming period of the ESC can be assessed based on 
the projects available on the programme website, which includes the activities of 2021 and 2022. 

Based on this, the programme shows a rise in projects addressing digital skills, digital literacy, digital 
education and information and communication technologies. In the previous programming period 
these categories were either non-existent or not flagged as such due to a lack of emphasis on the 
thematic area. 

Regarding the green transition in 2021 and 2022, a significant number of projects were related to 
the areas of ‘environment and climate change’ (397  projects) and ‘green skills’ (267  projects).182 
Interviews with stakeholders in selected Member States also revealed that there is an increase in 
applications and projects focusing on sustainability and environmental challenges, particularly in 
Germany. 

Looking at the post-pandemic recovery, many of the projects in the current programming period 
reference the COVID-19 pandemic, including to emphasise its lasting impact on the most vulnerable 
people in society or to show lessons learnt during the pandemic, such as the possibility of using 
digital  tools  for  enhancing  skills.  The  launch  of  the  programme faced  challenges due  to  the 
pandemic, and a decrease was expected in the number of applications submitted. Although there 
was a small dip in the number of applications received in 2021, by now, the figures have more or 
less recovered. 

In connection with the Russian aggression on Ukraine, a number of projects aim to alleviate some 
of  the impacts, particularly by focusing on aiding Ukrainian refugees in the EU  Member States. 
Further applications for projects in  the area  are expected 183.  Highlighting this, stakeholders in 
Germany already recognised an increase in the interest in ESC projects, as young people looked for 
ways to help. 

Finally, about 200 projects in the current programming period are organised around the thematic 
area of ‘Democracy and inclusive democratic participation’.184 This includes projects, such as the 
Greek ‘Active citizen’ project 185, which promotes the concept of active citizenship, or a Romanian 
project aiming to develop the social and civic  competencies of young people, including via the 
promotion of EU citizenship. 186 

5.2.3. Lessons learnt  
The European Solidarity Corps is well-positioned to contribute to tackling the above-mentioned 
challenges. In particular, the digital and green transitions have been thoroughly embedded. The ESC 
has many avenues open to support post-pandemic recovery and contribute to tackling challenges 
arising due to the Russian aggression on Ukraine. 

The  ESC  has  the  capability  to  quickly  react  to  upcoming  challenges  and  changing  external 
conditions, as seen with the 2021 efforts addressing the needs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Other evidence is the increase in projects addressing the Russian aggression on Ukraine. 

182   https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/projects/ 
183   2023 Annual Work Programme – European Solidarity Corps 
184   https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/projects/ 
185   2022-3-EL02-ESC30-SOL-000102528 
186   2021-2-RO01-ESC30-SOL-000039905 

76 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Although the ESC has the capacity to respond to the overarching challenges facing the EU, there are 
differences in the extent to which the early implementation of the current programming period is 
prepared to contribute to tackling the above-mentioned specific challenges. It can be concluded 
that there is a high relevance of the programme addressing challenges related to the twin transition 
as well  as  the post-pandemic recovery. Regarding its degree of  relevance vis-à-vis the  Russian 
aggression on Ukraine, it may be a bit too early to draw conclusions, but the programme is well-
positioned to help, for instance, the Ukrainian refugees who have fled to EU Member States. At the 
same time, it can be concluded that although one of the core values of the ESC is democracy, EU 
strategic autonomy as a whole is not thoroughly ingrained within the programme as indicated by 
the lack of corresponding mentioning in ESC documents. 

5.3. Coherence assessment 

This subchapter aims to assess the coherence of the European Solidarity Corps and specific policies 
that are  relevant for the goals and  scope of  the programme. The following policies  have been 
identified as showing relevance for this assessment: 

  European Green Deal187 

  New European Bauhaus 
  EU Forest Strategy 
  A Europe fit for the digital age 188 
  Digital Decade 189 
  Digital Education Action Plan 
  An economy that works for the people 190 
  European Skills Agenda191 
  European Education Area192 
  European Year of Skills 2023 193 
  SME Strategy194 
  European Pillar of Social Rights (Action Plan) 195 

  A stronger Europe in the world 196 

  European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations197 

  Promoting our European way of life 198 

  EU Core Values 199 

187   A European  Green Deal (Webpage) 

188   A Europe fit the digital age (Webpage) 
189   Europe’s  Digital Decade: digital targets for 2030 (Documents) 
190   An economy that works  for people (Webpage) 
191   European  Commission  COM(2020) 274 final 

192   Achieving the European  Education  Area by 2025 
193   https://year-of-skills.europa.eu/index_en   
194   SME  Strategy for a Sustainable and  Digital Europe 
195   The European  Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan 

196   Europe's  Digital Decade: digital targets for 2030 
197   https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/index_en   
198   Promoting our European  way of life (Webpage) 
199   Aims and values of the European  Union 

77 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

  Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 200 

  New push for European democracy201 

  European Democracy Action Plan 
  EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027 202 

  Recovery Plan for Europe 203 
  NextGenerationEU 204 

5.3.1. Programme design 
European Green Deal 
The European Solidarity Corps is referred to in documents as related to the New European Bauhaus 
(NEB). Specifically, a Communication on the New European Bauhaus 205 states that the 2022 annual 
call for the ESC will  include projects contributing to the New European Bauhaus, as the initiative is 
part of one of the horizontal priorities (environmental sustainability and climate goals) of the ESC. 
The 2023 Annual Work Programme of the ESC mentions the role of the ESC in contributing to the 
New European Bauhaus and the EU Forest Strategy, particularly the latter’s ‘3 billion trees’ initiative. 
Moreover, it mentions the general priority of being mindful of energy efficiency in the upcoming 
activities under the ESC. The Programme Statement of the ESC notes that 13 % of the projects of the 
ESC contribute to climate action, environment and nature protection. So far, in the implementation 
of the current programming period, 397 projects were included under the area of ‘Environment and 
climate change’ and 267 under ‘green skills’ 206.  

A Europe fit for the digital age 
As mentioned above, the ESC has been made more digital  in the current programming period. 
Although the main documents on the Digital Decade and the Digital Education Action Plan do not 
directly mention the ESC, the digital transition is embedded in the ESC. The Digital Education Action 
Plan in particular is directly mentioned in the 2021, 2022 and 2023 Annual Work Programmes as a 
transversal priority  to  be  addressed by  the  ESC  as  well  as  a  key  policy  under  the  ‘Digital 
transformation’ thematic priority of the ESC. 

The Digital Decade, although not directly mentioned, can be interpreted as a part of the ESC’s goals 
due to the objectives of the programme including fostering digital literacy, and focusing on the use 
of digital technologies in its activities. 

An economy that works for people 
This thematic area includes a variety of specific policies and priorities at the EU-level that show some 
coherence with the European Solidarity Corps. 

For  instance,  the  European  Skills  Agenda,  although  not  explicitly  mentioned,  is  inherently 
connected with the ESC. On the other hand, the European Year of Skills 2023 specifically mentions 
the ESC as one of the programmes supporting skills development. 

200   European  Commission  COM(2020) 152 final 
201   A new push for European  democracy (Webpage) 
202   The European  Union Youth Strategy 2019-2027 

203   https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-recovery-plan/ 
204   https://next-generation-eu.europa.eu/index_en 
205   European  Commission  COM(2021) 573 final 
206   https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/projects/ 

78 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

The SME Strategy has no direct link with the ESC. However, some coherence exists, since the SME 
Strategy includes a digital volunteers programme207, which focuses on sharing digital competence 
with traditional businesses through the support of volunteers. Similarly, there is no direct mention 
of the ESC in the key documents of the European Pillar of Social Rights or vice versa, however, the 
ESC is connected with Principle 1: Education, training and life-long learning by nature. 

The  Communication on achieving the European Education Area by 2025  mentions the ESC in 
connection with making education and training more inclusive and gender sensitive. Moreover, it 
elaborates on how the ESC has incorporated the learning value and its recognition in its aims. In 
turn, the 2023  Annual Work Programme of the  ESC  also mentioned that its activities and key 
priorities are aligned with the European Education Area. 

A stronger Europe in the world 
Regarding the priority ‘A stronger Europe in the world’, there is a connection between the European 
Solidarity Corps and the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. Although not 
explicitly  mentioned in the key documents, the ESC has extended its scope to humanitarian aid 
operations. The volunteering efforts in this area will  be  guided by the European Consensus on 
Humanitarian Aid 208. 

Promoting our European way of life 
Regarding the European Core Values, solidarity, a fundamental aspect of the ESC, is included in the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 209, and this value is also referenced in the 
Programme Statement of the ESC. 

Another key priority in this thematic area is the Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025. Although the 
main documents on the strategy do not directly mention the European Solidarity Corps, the 2023 
Annual Work Programme of the ESC is aligned with the Strategy and the gender equality perspective 
is intended to be mainstreamed throughout the programme as well. Furthermore, the Programme 
Statement of the ESC highlights gender equality as a key aspect. For instance, project promoters are 
encouraged to demonstrate how they will ensure gender balance in their activities, and there is a 
determination to address gender inequality via the projects of  the ESC.  For instance, the Czech 
project ‘Horses heal and integrate’ states that they strive for gender balance among the participants 
by setting a ratio of 60:40. 210 Moreover, the 2021-2027 programming period also includes gender 
equality as a specific topic which allows for the tracking of the number of projects, participants, and 
funding in the activities of the ESC.  

New push for European democracy 
Democracy is a core value integrated in the activities of the European Solidarity Corps. In particular, 
the European Democracy Action Plan mentions that the ESC offers a broad range of opportunities 
related to promoting active citizenship among young people. It also notes the role of the ESC in 
supporting media literacy. In  turn, the 2023  Annual Work Programme of the  ESC  indicates its 
alignment with the European Democracy Action Plan. 

Another key priority in this thematic area is the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027. The main document 
on the Strategy refers to the ESC multiple times, e.g., in the context of the importance to reinforce 
the link between the youth policy of the EU and related EU programmes. Moreover, the Strategy 

207   See e.g. https://digital-skills-jobs.europa.eu/en/about/digital-volunteers   
208   European  Consensus  on Humanitarian  Aid, 2017 
209   Charter of Fundamental  Rights of the European  Union 
210   2022-2-CZ01-ESC30-SOL-000091264 

79 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

elaborates on the part the EU has played in supporting volunteering among young people, in which 
the ESC plays a large role. The 2023  Annual Work Programme of the ESC explicitly  mentions its 
coherence with the Youth Strategy. Moreover, it highlights a key objective of the Strategy, which is 
inherently linked to the ESC, namely, to ‘Encourage young people to become active citizens, agents 
of  solidarity and positive change for communities across Europe, inspired by EU  values and a 
European identity’211. 

Recovery Plan for Europe 
Although the European Solidarity Corps shows relevance for the post-pandemic recovery, there is 
no direct mention in the key documents. Nevertheless, with the inclusion of ‘Prevention, promotion 
and support in the field of health’ in the Annual Work Programme of the ESC, there is a link to some 
extent between the programme and the recovery. 

5.3.2. Early implementation 
Regarding the early implementation of the ESC, a few figures can be noted in relation to the specific 
priorities 212. 

For instance, 77 projects mention ‘forest’, and while some of these are indeed connected with the 
EU  Forest Strategy as they pertain to reforestation, it should be  noted that the  word may be 
mentioned in a different context. For instance, it can refer to ‘reforestation’213, ‘forest bathing,’ a type 
of ecotherapy,214 an activity taking place in a forest, 215 or even the description of a thematic weekend 
treasure hunt activity for children organised in the ‘enchanted forest’.216 A further analysis would be 
necessary to determine the extent to which this priority is taken into account in the specific projects.  

Regarding the digital aspects of the projects, 221 projects can be found under the topic ‘Digital skills 
and competences’, 116 projects under the topic ‘Digital literacy, Information, constructive dialogue, 
fake news’, 80  projects under the topic ‘Digital youth work’, 42 projects under the topic ‘Digital 
safety’,  and  34  projects  under  the  topic 
‘Information  and  communication  technologies.’ 
Furthermore, there are 12 projects dealing specifically with digital education. 

Humanitarian aid is mentioned in four projects, while the EU core values are mentioned three times. 
Gender equality, however, has been more explicitly embedded in the projects with 100  projects 
making mention of it. 

Regarding democracy, 201 projects are  included  under the  topic  of  ‘Democracy and inclusive 
democratic participation’. 259 projects could be identified through the key word search ‘democracy’ 
and the Youth Strategy is mentioned in  21  projects. To put these figures into perspective, the 
highest number of projects are found under Community development, with 905 projects, out of a 
total 4 370 projects. 

Although the Recovery Plan for Europe is  not found to be explicitly  coherent with the ESC, the 
NextGenerationEU is mentioned one time across all projects from 2021 and 2022. 

211   2023 Annual Work Programme – European Solidarity Corps,  p. 5 
212   https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/projects/ 
213   See e.g. 2022-3-IT03-ESC30-SOL-000100460 
214   See e.g. 2022-3-LT02-ESC30-SOL-000101070 
215   See e.g. 2022-3-PL01-ESC30-SOL-000092618 
216   See e.g. 2022-1-RO01-ESC30-SOL-000066796 

80 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

5.3.3. Lessons learnt  
Based on a preliminary review, it can be concluded that there is coherence with the key European 
Commission priorities to varying extents. 

Regarding the European Green Deal, evidence for coherence is found, particularly in connection 
with  the  New  European Bauhaus. Moreover, the  green  transition is  an  inherent  part  of  the 
programme.  

A high level of coherence was also found with ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’. In particular, the ESC 
is  aligned  with  the  Digital  Education  Action  Plan,  while  also  aiming  to  incorporate  digital 
technologies in different ways into the activities. 

The ESC is coherent with the thematic area of ‘An economy that works for people’ in varying degrees. 
While  overall,  there is  high  coherence, the most important priorities from this aspect are  the 
European Education Area, the European Year of Skills 2023, and, to a lesser extent, the European 
Skills Agenda. 

Although humanitarian aid  has been  made  an  integral part of  the  European Solidarity Corps, 
references  to  the  European  Civil  Protection  and  Humanitarian  Aid  Operations  are  scarce. 
Nevertheless, as a priority of the ESC, coherence can be found with the area of ‘A stronger Europe in 
the world’. 

Regarding the EU Core Values and the Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, both fitting under the 
thematic area of ‘Promoting our European way of life,’ the ESC is found to be coherent. With both 
being embedded in the mission of the ESC, either from its creation (EU Core Values) or starting from 
the current programming period (Gender Equality). 

The greatest evidence of coherence was found with the ‘New push for European democracy’. Both 
the  European Democracy Action  Plan  and  the  EU  Youth Strategy 2019-2027  are  extensively 
mentioned by, or mention, the ESC. 

Finally, little to no coherence was found with the NextGenerationEU, and the wider ‘Recovery Plan 
for Europe’ priority, despite the post-pandemic recovery being found relevant vis-à-vis the ESC (see 
above). 

5.4. Effectiveness assessment 

The  analysis of the  effectiveness of the  European Solidarity Corps programme is based on the 
following information sources: 

  The European Solidarity Corps website on the European Youth Portal217  
  Interviews with national authorities and volunteer organisations in selected countries. 

It should be noted that only a few conclusions can be drawn at this stage of the implementation of 
the  programme. This  is  due  to  the  culmination of  the  facts  that the  implementation of  the 
programme was delayed and that the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the projects, 
and caused delays in their implementation. As a result, some projects which began in 2021 are still 
ongoing due to necessary extensions granted by the European Commission to projects severely 
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

217   https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity_en   

81 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

5.4.1. Programme launch 
The  implementation of the European Solidarity Corps began late in  2021,  due  to  the delayed 
adoption of the legal basis for the programme in May 2021. 

The total budget for the 2021-2027 programme is €1 009 million, most of which (94 %) is allocated 
for volunteering and solidarity projects. The annual budget for each year between 2021 and 2023 
has ranged between €139 million and €150 million. 218 

Table 15 provides information on the number of projects that have been implemented in 2021 and 
2022 per MS and the selected practices. Three of the four analysed Member States (Germany, Italy 
and Poland) have projects in both selected practices (Community development; Digital skills and 
competences).  Only  France  does  not  yet  have  any  approved  projects  in  Digital  skills  and 
competences, with the number of projects under Community development still observed to be very 
low compared to the overall number of projects in France. 

The table also shows the increase in total project numbers for most countries in line with EU-wide 
development. It should be noted, however, that the 2022  projects are still being uploaded and 
updated  on  the  ESC  platform, therefore the  final  number of  projects  for  2022  may  change. 
Furthermore, while the below figures can give an indication regarding the share of projects within 
each country, it should be kept in mind that not all projects are categorised under a topic on the ESC 
platform. This is particularly true for the French projects, where the majority of projects do not flag 
the topics they are organised around. 

Table 15: Projects in 2021 and 2022 by selected Member States and practices 

Member State 

All projects 

Germany 

Community development 

Digital skills and competences 

All projects 

France* 

Community development 

Digital skills and competences 

All projects 

Italy 

Community development 

Digital skills and competences 

All projects 

Poland 

Community development 

2021 

160 

17 

2 

114 

2 

0 

119 

31 

9 

144 

30 

2022 

214 

34 

5 

107 

1 

0 

171 

51 

6 

222 

59 

12 
* Most French projects on the ESC platform do not include the topics they are organised around. 
Source: https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/projects/  

Digital skills and competences 

9 

218   Annual Work Programmes,  2021, 2022, 2023 

82 

 
 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Further data on the French projects 219 in general show that, since the beginning of the programme, 
57 % of the applications for solidarity projects were successful and 85 % of the volunteering projects 
were  successful. 220 Regarding the  solidarity  projects, the  differences  between  the  number of 
successful projects compared to all applications in 2021 and 2022 are striking. While in 2021, 82 % 
of applications were approved, in 2022, this fell to only 41 %. For 2023, only the results of the first 
call (out of two) are available, however, early findings also suggests a lower rate of success with only 
50 %  of the applications being successful. It should be  noted that one of  the reasons for these 
differences could be the increase (albeit small) in the number of applicants. 

Regarding the effectiveness of the  programme launch, the  interviewed stakeholders expressed 
satisfaction, although one interviewee added that the expectations were low due to the ongoing 
COVID-19 pandemic at the time. Nevertheless, by 2023, the application and project numbers have 
more or less recovered. Another stakeholder noted that the decision to separate the ESC from the 
Erasmus+ programme was welcomed, as it added gravity to volunteering projects, and made the 
goals and objectives of the ESC clearer. It also introduced a positive change in terms of promoting 
the programme. 

As the ESC is a new programme, the pilot for which was only launched in 2018 221, it is still in its 
growth phase. This means that both managing authorities and organisations wishing to implement 
projects need time to familiarise themselves with the processes of the programme. 

5.4.2. Programme management and responses to changing external 
conditions 

The overall communication at programme level, both with the EU-level management and with the 
other  Member  States  is  deemed  to  be  very  well  organised  and  effective.  Meetings  with 
representatives of all countries are in place to find a common line on relevant issues. There is a ticket 
system for national agencies to solve doubts or challenges and provide answers that can be seen by 
other countries as well, which means that countries can learn from this problem-solving mechanism 
for themselves. Sharing documents on the rules of the programme implementation and eligibility 
is  done quickly and effectively. Nevertheless, a stakeholder mentioned that further cooperation 
between the Commission and national agencies would be beneficial. 

In  2021,  when the programme was being implemented, the COVID-19  pandemic was ongoing, 
therefore some activities were limited or reduced. Nevertheless, the networks and exchanges with 
other Member States could be adapted to virtual settings, which was aided by quick decisions made 
at the EU-level on the ESC, allowing for exceptions and changing the eligibility rules to allow online 
activities to replace in-person activities. To disseminate information on the new rules introduced as 
a  result  of  the  pandemic,  relevant  documents containing this  new  information were  quickly 
published. 

The Russian aggression on Ukraine also impacted the European Solidarity Corps programme, on the 
one  hand because both Ukraine and Russia are partner countries in the  programme, but also 
because of the influx of Ukrainian refugees to EU Member States. The latter resulted in both projects 
aiding Ukrainian refugees and the increased interest of organisations to work with people migrating 

219   The latest results were published on 23 May 2023.  
220   There has  been a total of 290 application,  out of which 51 were for solidarity projects and  239 for volunteer funding 
for  labelled  structures.  Out  of  these  applications,  233  have  been  accepted,  including  29  solidarity  projects,  204 
applications  for volunteering projects. 

221   European  Solidarity Corps:  Annual Report 2018-2019 

83 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

from Ukraine. However, the war made it difficult to work with organisations and young people from 
Russia and Belarus.  

Nevertheless, the projects that were accepted in response to the war included food collections, 
volunteering at  train  stations where  refugees  were  arriving  in  order  to  provide  them  with 
information, as well as sending aid to Ukraine. 

It is seen as a positive development that the European Commission quickly decided to consider the 
young people in Ukraine who ended up in EU Member States as international mobility, because in 
this manner they could take part in the programme without administrative restrictions. 

National agencies’ responses to the war included the suspension of projects involving travel to 
Ukraine, Russia or Belarus (as in France). In some countries this was complemented with additional 
activities. For instance, in Germany, the national authority quickly published a Frequently Asked 
Questions section for  young people  from  Ukraine. Moreover, an  extra  application  round was 
launched targeting working with refugees from Ukraine. 

5.4.3. Programme objectives addressed during early implementation  
As  the  programme is  still  in  its  initial  phases, it  is  difficult  to  draw  substantial conclusions. 
Nevertheless,  some  insights  can  illustrate  the  success  of  the  early  implementation  of  the 
programme. 

Stakeholders from Poland have mentioned that the separation of the  ESC  from Erasmus+ has 
heightened awareness of the programme, and has elevated volunteering at the national level. In 
fact, the explicit inclusion of solidarity in the programme is seen as beneficial across Member States, 
and has been found to have increased awareness. 

In Italy, the programme is seen as very beneficial in terms of making more young people interested 
in volunteering, and it is also deemed helpful in the transition from school to work. Furthermore, 
the  programme helps young people develop  soft skills,  languages, and the ability  to  work in 
multicultural environments. An  interviewee  indicated  that  the  response to  sustainability and 
environmental solidarity projects is very positive. 

Furthermore, German stakeholders pointed out that a high share of projects address young people 
with fewer opportunities or special needs. 222 In  fact, specific projects and exchanges have been 
organised in the form of groups or teams, which opens up new inclusive opportunities for young 
people who likely would not be able to go abroad in the framework of such a project on their own. 

Overall, the annual work programmes reflect changing needs, for instance, with the inclusion of the 
Russian aggression on Ukraine and the policy priority of ‘relief for persons fleeing armed conflicts 
and other victims of natural or man-made disasters’ in the 2023 Annual Work Programme. Moreover, 
the projects have embedded the digital and green transitions, as well as democracy, a core value of 
the ESC (see above in chapters 5.2.2 and 5.3.2). 

5.4.4. Challenges in the early implementation 
The challenges in the early implementation include the delays experienced with the late adoption 
of the legal framework, as well as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. 

222   See e.g., the projects ‘Fostering Youth Participation and Athletisism Values – SIEG’  or the project ‘Together as  One’. 

84 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Furthermore, as the programme is still in its early stages and does not have the kind of history that 
other programmes have, both the national authorities and the organisations wishing to participate 
need more time to become familiar with the programme and the processes involved. This includes, 
for example, the methods for calculating project funding, procedures related to the quality mark223, 
and procedures related to awarding organisations.  

With the separation of the ESC from the Erasmus+ programme, the administrative requirements 
have increased, which led to more administrative burden at the national level for both the national 
authorities and the organisations involved in the projects.  

Stakeholders also pointed out issues with the IT tools, which for instance, frequently show system 
errors when trying to submit reports. 

Another challenge is related to the budget. An interviewee mentioned the need for annual budget 
increases, to  acknowledge the  growing  number of  new  organisations wishing  to  implement 
projects. This would allow for the extension of the cooperation, enabling new organisations to take 
part in  the programme alongside organisations who have already joined the  ESC  community. 
Furthermore, due to inflation and the cost-of-living crisis in many countries, some organisations are 
unable to work with volunteers and have had to give up on certain projects. 

5.4.5. Lessons learnt 
The early implementation of the European Solidarity Corps is generally deemed to be effective. 

The launch of the programme was deemed effective by the interviewed stakeholders. When starting 
the programme during the COVID-19 pandemic, expectations were low. Although several projects 
related to alleviating the negative impacts of the pandemic were taking place, many other activities 
were limited or did not take place. However, even taking this challenge into account, the launch of 
programme is seen as a success story. 

Apart from the pandemic, the late acceptance of the legal basis also delayed the launch of the 
programme. Due to this, multiple stakeholders mentioned the need to be cautious with drawing 
conclusions on the results of the programme too early. 

The programme is a valuable tool to promote solidarity, making young people more interested in 
volunteering and helping them transition from school to work. The programme helps young people 
to  develop  their  skills,  and  it  also  provides opportunities for  young people  from  vulnerable 
backgrounds and those with special needs. 

Stakeholders noted that the programme is in its growth phase. It does not have the kind of history 
that, for instance, Erasmus+ has. As a relatively new programme, its further promotion would lead 
to more awareness. Nevertheless, there are more and more organisations interested in participating 
in the ESC. 

The management of the programme is generally seen as effective. There is good communication 
across the programme, and important information is shared quickly and efficiently. It was, however, 
mentioned by one of the stakeholders that further communication avenues set up between the 
European Commission and the national agencies would be beneficial. 

223   The European Solidarity Corps Quality Label is used to certify that an organisation participating to the programme ‘is 
able to provide the necessary conditions young  people to take part in solidarity activities’. For more information, see: 
https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/organisations/quality-label_en   

85 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Besides the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Solidarity Corps programme was also affected by the 
Russian aggression on Ukraine. The programme was, however, quick to include references to it in its 
annual work programme. The quick  sharing of information and clarifying/modifying rules (e.g., 
treating young refugees from Ukraine as international even as if they were already residing in an EU 
Member State) were welcomed positively by the national agencies in charge of the ESC. 

Further challenges in  the early implementation of the  programme  relate  to the administrative 
burden stemming from the processes of the ESC, issues with the IT tools, and financial constraints. 
Regarding the latter, stakeholders suggested that an increase of the budget will be required as more 
and more organisations become interested in applying for projects. 

86 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

6. Assessment of the early implementation of Strand 3 of 
the CERV programme 

CERV programme Strand 3 key findings: 

  The implementation of CERV is based on two-year work programmes. This is a change 
compared to the predecessor programmes which worked with annual programmes.  
  The work programmes address different topics, including e.g., a focus on the impact 
of COVID-19 and on projects looking ahead to the 2024 European elections. Networks 
of Towns and the legacy of colonialism and transnational migrations were priorities. 
  The programme has effectively addressed new challenges, such as its response to the 

COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine. 

  The programme aligns well overall with the European Commission priorities.  
  There is  a high level  of  coherence with  ‘New  push for  European democracy’ and 
‘Promoting our European way of life’, and the programme has incorporated many 
aspects of the digital and green transitions.  

  However, there is limited coherence with other priorities such as ‘An economy that 

works for people’ and ‘A stronger Europe in the world’.  

  The programme launch has faced challenges due to delays (the CERV Regulation was 
adopted only in April 2021) and the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on 
the projects. 

  Challenges in implementing the programme relate to the online portal used in the 
application for grants (seen as not sufficiently user-friendly for the target groups of 
CERV). The programme is also somewhat weak in communication and promotion.  
  Programme contact  points  in  the  Member  States  are  available  to  disseminate 
information about the programme and help with  inquiries. However, in  February 
2023 contact points were missing in nine Member States. 

  The  programme is  still  in  its  early stages. Thus, there is  not enough information 

regarding its outputs, results and impacts. 

The Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme 2021-2027 (CERV) is the successor programme 
to the two EU programmes ‘Rights, Equality and Citizenship 2014-2020 (REC)’ and the ‘Europe for 
Citizens Programme 2014-2020’. Strand 3 of the four CERV strands brings together the citizenship 
elements of the two predecessor programmes.  

In proposing a single programme, the European Commission acknowledged that the fragmented 
nature and limited resources of the predecessor programmes have limited the ability to respond to 
new and emerging challenges at a time when emerging movements were challenging the idea of 
open, inclusive, cohesive and democratic societies. Such societies are those where civic participation 
and the enjoyment of rights make it possible to build a tolerant way of living together. Progress has 
been made in ensuring that citizens understand their rights, but more needs to be done to make them 
aware of the benefits of EU citizenship, to encourage a greater level of participation in political life and 
society, and to support a better understanding of the Union, its history, cultural heritage and diversity. 
Those rights are to be found in the Treaties. Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union (TFEU) 224 establishes the citizenship of the Union to which all persons holding the nationality of 
a Member State are entitled. It also lists the main rights and duties of citizens of the Union. 

224   Consolidated  Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

87 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

The Treaty on European Union guarantees that all Member State citizens are also citizens of the EU. 
This ensures equal treatment and specific rights, such as the ability to travel and reside anywhere in 
the EU, vote and run for office in European and local elections, and receive consular support and 
diplomatic  protection from any other  EU  country. EU  citizens  can  also  voice  concerns to  the 
European Ombudsman, write to any EU institution in an official EU language, or participate in public 
exams to join the EU civil service.  

6.1. Overview 

CERV has an overarching general objective, which is ‘to protect and promote rights and values as 
enshrined in the Treaties, the [EU] Charter [of Fundamental Rights] and the applicable international 
human rights conventions, in particular by supporting civil society organisations [(CSOs)] and other 
stakeholders active at local, regional, national and transnational level, and by encouraging civic and 
democratic participation, in order to sustain and further develop open, rights-based, democratic, 
equal and inclusive societies which are based on the rule of law’ 225. 

The overriding specific objective for Strand 3 – the citizens’ engagement and participation strand – 
is to promote citizens’ engagement and the participation of citizens in  the life  of the European 
Union. This is broken further down into three specific sub-objectives for Strand 3, which are to 226: 

  support projects  aimed  at  remembering defining  moments in  modern  European 
history, such as the coming to power of  authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and 
projects aimed at raising awareness among European citizens of their common history, 
culture, cultural heritage and values, thereby enhancing their understanding of the 
Union and of the importance of mutual understanding and tolerance; 

  promote citizens’ and representative associations’ participation in and contribution to 
the democratic and civic life of the Union by enabling them to make known and publicly 
exchange their views in all areas of Union action; 

  promote exchanges between citizens of different countries, in particular through Town-
Twinning and Networks of  Towns, so as to  afford them practical experience  of the 
richness and diversity of the common heritage of the Union. 

The objectives of Strand 3 (and of the CERV programme) are achieved through action grants to 
projects, operating grants to civil society, and procurement and communication activities by the 
European Commission. The  range of  activities applies  to  all  strands. The  activities, which  the 
Commission funds,  include  national  contact  points  (NCPs)  in  the  Member  States.  NCPs  are 
considered an innovation in the CERV programme, as they existed under the Europe for Citizens 
Programme but not under the REC programme. 

An innovation in the CERV programme 2021-2027 is the creation of the Civil  Dialogue Group to 
strengthen relations with stakeholders. A CERV Dialogue Week was held in May 2021 to launch the 
programme. 

225   Regulation (EU)  2021/692, Art. 2 (1) 
226   Regulation (EU)  2021/692, Art. 5 

88 

 
 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Figure 14: CERV intervention logic 

EU Priorities

Challenges

Programme Design

Programme Delivery

Activities & Practices

Results

Long-term Impact

6 Commission priorities for
2019-2024
A European Green Deal
A Europe fit for the digital age
An economy that works for people
A stronger Europe in the world
Promoting our European way of life
A new push for European democracy

Other EU Policies
• European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)
• EU Child Participation Platform
• EU Strategic autonomy
• Gender Equality Strategy 2020-

2025

• EU Roma strategic framework on 

equality, inclusion and 
participation

• EU Strategy on combating 

antisemitism and fostering Jewish 
life

• EU anti-racism action plan 2020-

2025

• EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027
• LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-

2025

Relevance

EU and 
National 
Needs

External 
Challenges
2021-2023

• Climate 
Change

• Technological 

progress
• Coronavirus 
pandemic

• Post-pandemic 
EU recovery

• Russian-

Ukraine War

National needs 

€191.4 to invest in actions to 
protect & promote Treaty-, 
Charter & human rights 
convention – enshrined rights & 
values, in particular by 
supporting CSO’s & other 
stakeholders at local, regional & 
transitional level, & by 
encouraging civic & democratic 
participation, in order to sustain & 
further develop open, rights-
based, democratic, equal & 
inclusive societies based on the 
role of law. 

The specific objectives are 
Remembrance, Democratic 
participation, and Citizen 
exchanges

The objectives of Strand 3 (and of 
the CERV Programme) are 
achieved through action grants to 
projects, operating grants to civil 
society, and procurement and 
communication activities by the 
European Commission. For the 
moment, it only funds projects in 
the Member States

Efficiency

Strand 3 calls for proposals 
analysed for 2021-2022

Four countries further analysed: 
Latvia, Romania, Ireland and 
Hungary in view of the 3 selected 
practices from the 3 strands 
covering topics like Citizens 
participation,
European remembrance
Town-Twinning and Networks of 
Towns

Direct management by DG JUST 
and the European Education and 
Culture Executive Agency 
(EACEA)

The objectives of Strand 3 (and of 
the CERV Programme) are 
achieved through action grants 
to projects, operating grants to 
civil society, and procurement 
and communication activities by 
the European Commission. 

Success rates: For Strand 3, the 
success rate is 54 % overall 
however the success rate varies 
between 27 % and 88 % within 
Strand 3 (Citizen remembrance 
and 
Citizens town topics respectively).

Positive impact on
• Citizens’ 

engagement and 
participation in 
the democratic life 
of the Union and 
exchanges 
between citizens 
of different 
Member States, 
• Our awareness of 
their common 
European history

• An improved 

collective memory of 
defining moments in 
modern European 
history, such as the 
coming to power of 
authoritarian and 
totalitarian regimes
• Promotion of citizens’ 
and representative 
associations’ 
participation in and 
contribution to the 
democratic and civic 
life of the Union

• Promotion of 

exchanges between 
citizens of different 
countries, in 
particular through 
town-twinning and 
networks of towns, to 
afford them 
experience of the 
richness and diversity 
of the common 
heritage of the Union 

Source: own representation. 

Coherence

Effectiveness of 
Implementation

Goal Effectiveness

EU Added-Value

89 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

For the moment, the CERV programme only funds projects in EU Member States. EFTA countries 
which are members of the EEA (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) are eligible to take part but have 
chosen not to. Six acceding, candidate and potential candidate countries have expressed an interest 
in joining the programme, but this has not yet been formalised. These countries are Albania, Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and the Ukraine. 

Figure 14 illustrates the intervention logic of CERV Strand 3. 

The  policy  aspects  of  implementation  are  the  responsibility  of  the  European  Commission’s 
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumer Affairs (DG JUST). The call  and funding process is 
managed by EACEA, the European Education and Culture Executive Agency. 

The total budget for the CERV programme 2021-2027 is €641.71 million in current prices plus a ‘top-
up’ of €800  million from fines the European Commission collects, i.e., a greater amount than the 
initial  budget, albeit  this is  at 2018  prices. Of  that €174.9  million  and up  to €191.4  million  are 
available for Strand 3 (Table 16). At least 65 % is to be earmarked to democratic participation and 
15 % to remembrance activities227.  

Table 16: CERV Strand 3 budget 2020-2027 

Budget available 

As a % of the total for CERV 

Financial envelope for the Programme 

€174 928 783 

‘Top-up’ 

Up to €191 440 000 

27.26 % 

23.93 % 

Source: Regulation 2021/692, Art. 7 

The  implementation of  CERV  is  based  on  two-year  work  programmes. This  is  an  innovation 
compared to the predecessor programmes which worked with annual programmes. The goal is to 
give stakeholders better visibility of forthcoming priorities and calls for proposals, and thus facilitate 
their planning. The budgets for the first four years of the current cycle are in  Table 17. The low 
budget for 2021  reflects a  late  start to implementation as the programme regulation was not 
adopted until April 2021. 

Table 17: Annual budget allocations for Strand 3, 2021-2024 (€ million) 

Total 

2021 

13.98 

2022 

39.67 

2023 

32.15 

2024 

55.67 

Source: Multiannual Work Programmes 2021-2022, 2023-2024 

Funding is  available for two-year actions, either as  project grants or as lump  sums for  smaller 
activities,  or  as  operating grants within  four-year Framework Partnership Agreements (FPAs). 
Organisations which are funded under these agreements have to reapply for funding each year, but 
the process is simpler and should be a formality if they have fulfilled the requirements of the FPA. 
As of June 2023, there had been no calls for tenders for FPA’s under Strand 3. The budget allocations 
for Strand 3 also include an allocation for technical support to European Citizens’ Initiative. 

Some funding is  earmarked for restricted calls, e.g., for the national contact points financed by 
Strand 3 and Strand 4. In the case of Strand 3, there are two direct contributions to UNESCO in 2023-
2024. One is for an action to reach the general public on the danger of Holocaust distortion and 
trivialisation and to train European educators, influencers, media, civil society organisations and 

227   A deviation from these percentages of 10 percentage points is allowed.  

90 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

stakeholders to recognise and counter Holocaust distortion and trivialisation. The  other is  for 
UNESCO’s ‘Routes of Enslaved Peoples: Resistance, Liberty and Heritage’ project. 

The work programmes also set out annual priorities and describe the content of forthcoming calls. 
There are perceptible shifts in focus from year-to-year, e.g., a focus in 2021-2022 228 was placed on 
the impact  of  COVID-19  and on  projects which  looked ahead to  the 2024  European elections. 
Networks of Towns were encouraged in 2021-2022 to propose ways to increase the turnout at the 
next  European elections  and  to  make  candidacies  more  inclusive.  In  2023-2024229,  there  are 
mentions of the legacy of colonialism and transnational migrations, a gender-balanced view of 
history,  and  the  Commission  Recommendation  on  protecting  journalists  and  human  rights 
defenders  who  engage  in  public  participation  from  manifestly  unfounded or  abusive  court 
proceedings 230. These aspects were not expressly included in the previous work programme.  

The Work Programme for 2023-2024 also sees the first call on the civic engagement of children with 
a call to ‘encourage children’s engagement and participation in the political and democratic life.’ 
The climate and the environment, including energy-related issues, will be taken into account in 
proposals on  Town-Twinning  and  Networks of  Towns.  The  2023-2024  Work  Programme also 
highlights the European Capitals of Inclusion and Diversity award which recognises the work done 
by cities, towns, or regions in Europe to promote inclusion and create discrimination-free societies, 
under this strand. 

Programme contact points in the Member States are available to disseminate information about the 
programme and help with inquiries. They are responsible for providing impartial guidance, practical 
information  and  assistance  to  applicants,  stakeholders  and  beneficiaries,  including  on  the 
application procedure, dissemination of user-friendly information and programme results, and 
inquiries for partners, training and formalities. However, there is no obligation for a Member State 
to set up a contact point and only 17 had done so by May 2022. Member States without a contact 
point at that date were Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, 
and Slovakia. However, according to data from EACEA, there were 18 contact points as of February 
2023 231. 

Regarding the monitoring of  the  programme, there are  monitoring indicators common to all 
strands, these are set in the Programme Regulation232 as the: 

  number of people reached by (a) training activities; (b) mutual learning activities and 
the exchange of good practices; (c) awareness raising, information and dissemination 
activities; 

  number  of  civil  society  organisations  reached  by  support  and  capacity-building 

activities; 

  number of transnational networks and initiatives focusing on European memory and 

heritage as a result of the programme intervention. 

228   Commission  implementing decision C(2021) 2583 final 

229   Commission  implementing decision C(2022) 8588 final 
230   Commission  Recommendation  (EU)  2022/758 
231   CERV  2021-2027 Programme – Contact Points 
232   Regulation (EU)  2021/692, Annex II 

91 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

There is also a Key Performance Indicator for DG JUST set by Eurobarometer related to Strand 3 
objectives, i.e., Citizens’ perception of democratic participation, ‘my voice counts’. The aim is to 
increase the 2019 percentage of 48 %. 233 

With  regards to  quantitative data on  implementation, data from  2021  provides some further 
information on the current state of the CERV programme.  

For Strand 3, 814  proposals were received of  which 438  were  successful. This corresponds to a 
success rate of 54 %. The number of applications submitted across all CERV strands totalled 2 675. 
As such, approximately 30 % of proposals were submitted under Strand 3. 234 

A table in Annex II provides a breakdown of the Strand 3 proposals submitted under the individual 
practices and their respective success rate compared to Strand 1 and Strand 4. The wide differences 
in success rates across proposal themes (for example, Citizens Remembrance proposals has had a 
much lower chance of being funded compared to Citizens Town proposals) appear to be a result of 
oversubscription for some calls, according to interview feedback. 

To illustrate the evaluation findings in detail, the following three CERV Strand 3 actions, i.e., the 
selected practices, were  analysed with a  focus on the four selected countries (Romania, Latvia, 
Hungary, and Ireland 235):  

  Citizens’ participation 
  European remembrance 
  Town-Twinning and Networks of Towns 

Outcomes of the document review, data analysis and interviews are presented in the respective 
CERV programme related sections of this report. 

6.2. Relevance assessment 

This assessment addresses the four relevance evaluation questions formulated for all programmes 
including the relevance of recent developments. Findings are based on a  document review on 
programme design, the calls for proposals, and the results of scoping interviews. 

The  overarching finding with  regard to relevance is  that the programme’s objectives are well 
designed to address national needs and are well-aligned with European Commission’s priorities, 
including policies on integration, civil engagement, and participation. 

233   Annual Activity Report 2021 – Justice and Consumers 
234   European Commission,  internal report ‘Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme – 2021-2022 implementation’ 
235   For the selection of MS see section 2.4 and Annex I (section AI.5). 

92 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

6.2.1. Programme design 
Digital transformation  
Digital transformation is highly relevant to the CERV programme, particularly for Strand 3. Even 
though it is not specifically mentioned in the 2023-2024 Work Programme (WP), 236 the programme 
supports and commits to different policies and strategies centering around digital transformation. 

In the CERV – Citizens’ engagement and participation – 2022 call for proposals, one of the priorities 
is funding ‘innovative democratic approaches and tools to help citizens make their voices heard and 
publicly exchange views on all areas of EU action, notably digital tools (‘e-democracy’)’237.  

Moreover, the CERV programme commits to supporting the priorities specified in the EU Citizenship 
Report  2020 238  and  the  forthcoming  EU  Citizenship  Report  2023 239.  These  reports  strongly 
emphasise  digital  transformation  as  a  means  of  empowering  citizens’  participation  in  the 
democratic process as one of the key elements of the report. 

The programme also commits to encouraging projects that collect citizens’ views and ensure a 
practical link with the policymaking process through digital technologies, showing citizens how to 
become engaged. For instance, the WP highlights the Conference on the Future of Europe, where 
one of the main priorities discussed and deliberated by citizens was digital transformation.  

Another key  element  of  the  programme is  to  ensure that  children’s  voices  are  heard  in  the 
policymaking process, justifying the funding for the EU Children’s Participation Platform 240. The 
platform is not only a digital tool to engage in policymaking, but it also creates strategies to reduce 
digital inequalities and develop the digital skills children need.  

Apart from engaging citizens  and  supporting them to develop  necessary skills for  the  digital 
transition, the programme also focuses on its impacts on citizens’ rights. The call for proposals to 
promote civil society organisations’ awareness of capacity building and implementation of the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights241 focuses on protecting fundamental rights in the digital age. This 
includes projects that aim to create guidelines, technical benchmarks, and tools for algorithm audits. 
These projects should also contribute to the practical application of the Artificial Intelligence Act242 
once it is adopted. Applicants are expected to develop a concrete tool or benchmark process in an 
area of their choice that demonstrates relevance for fundamental rights. The tool can be software, a 
benchmark  dataset,  a  simulation  environment,  or  a  procedure.  The  priority  is  to  protect 
fundamental rights by strengthening accountability for using automation where those rights are at 
stake. This includes addressing and combating bias and discrimination based on gender, ethnic and 
racial origin, and other grounds caused or intensified by artificial intelligence systems. 

It can be stated that Strand 3 has a high degree of relevance regarding this challenge, as it focuses 
on both citizen engagement and the protection of rights. In the communication of the Commission 
regarding 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade 243, it is stated that the 
ambition is to pursue digital policies that empower people and businesses to seize a human centred, 

236   Commission  implementing decision C(2022) 8588 final 
237   CERV-2022-CITIZENS-CIV,  p. 7 

238   EU Citizenship Report 2020. Empowering Citizens and Protecting Their Rights 
239   European  Citizenship: Report 
240   EU Children's Participation Platform (Webpage) 
241   Charter of Fundamental  Rights of the European  Union 
242   European  Commission  COM(2021) 206 final 
243   European  Commission  COM(2021) 118 final 

93 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

sustainable and a more prosperous digital future. Strand 3 allows for putting humans in the centre 
of the transition as its mission is to make European citizens active participants by engaging them in 
this process. 

Green transition 
The environment and the fight against climate change is a policy priority of the CERV programme, 
which highlights its relevance for the policy area alongside the digital transition. In fact, green and 
digital transitions are increasingly becoming more intertwined.  

This is sought to be achieved in Strand 3 by ‘Engaging citizens and communities in discussions and 
action related to  our climate  and environment’, which is  stated in  the WP  2023.  In  the  call  for 
proposals to foster citizens’ engagement and participation, it is stated that this priority should boost 
citizens’  and communities’ engagement in  discussions and actions related to the  climate  and 
environment. Switching to a  ‘green’ way of living  can only work if  citizens are fully  involved in 
designing the new policies. People are concerned about jobs, heating their homes and making ends 
meet. Therefore, they have to be able to engage in the policymaking process if the Green Deal is to 
succeed  and  deliver  lasting  change.  Civil  society  and  associations should  promote citizens’ 
dialogues that bring together citizens in all their diversity to discuss climate and green issues and 
propose solutions to decision-makers244. In 2023 and 2024, a specific focus will be put in bringing 
citizens together to discuss actions on the climate and the environment, including energy-related 
issues,  solidarity  and  sharing  best  practices,  and  thus  contributing  to  increasing  citizens’ 
engagement in society and ultimately to their active involvement in the democratic life of the Union. 

Apart from digital transformation, another aspect that the Conference on the Future of Europe 
highlights is the fight for environmental justice. In fact, the latest panel hosted in December 2022 
by the Commission focused on ‘allowing citizens to provide their input on how to step up action to 
reduce food waste in  the EU’ 245. There is general mention of the Green Deal  insofar as the CERV 
Regulation states that the ‘Programme ought to support activities that respect the climate and 
environmental standards and priorities of the Union and the ‘do no harm’ principle of the European 
Green Deal’ 246. 

Regarding the number of related projects, there is a total of 78 projects that were funded under the 
Call  ‘Citizens’ engagement and participation’ that make direct reference to supporting relevant 
activities. 

Another important aspect is that the WP  2023  commits to providing technical support to the 
European Citizens’ Initiative, which has a variety of calls and projects related to the green transition. 
This also showcases the programmes’ relevance in tackling this challenge. 

Overall, it can be stated that the Strand 3 is relevant to the green transition challenge, by ensuring 
the participation and engagement of citizens in this field. It highlights the importance of bottom-
down  approaches regarding  the  development of  policies,  as  it  seeks  to  involve  grass-roots 
organisations in the process and aims to enable towns to engage citizens and communities in 
discussions and actions on the climate and the environment, including addressing energy-related 
issues, social solidarity and migration. 

244   Call-Fiche_cerv-2022-Citizens-Civ 
245   Conference  on  the  Future  of  Europe  follow-up:  Commission  hosts  first  European  Citizens’  Panel  on  food  waste  

reduction – European  Food Banks  Federation – FEBA (eurofoodbank.org) 

246   Regulation (EU)  2021/692, Art. 34 

94 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Post-pandemic recovery 
The COVID-19 pandemic has tested European societies and economies. It has also disrupted citizen’s 
rights and participation in democracy. As such, addressing the effects of the pandemic has been 
recognised as one of the priorities of the programme, stating that it will explore ‘how the COVID-19 
pandemic  has  affected  the  democratic  debate  and  the  enjoyment of  fundamental rights’247. 
Consequently,  the effects of  the  pandemic have become  an intrinsic aspect of  many calls  and 
proposals.  

Several projects under Strand 3 relate to post-COVID efforts including the projects: COVIDemocracy 
in the Baltics 248; Encouraging Women Participation in Times of Pandemic249; and the impact of the 
COVID-19 pandemic on diverse democratic perspectives through gender perspective250. 

The  programme  design  for  Town-Twinning’s  call  for  proposals  incorporates  post-pandemic 
recovery efforts. This programme promotes citizen exchanges between different countries through 
Town-Twinning, providing them with practical experience of the Union’s diverse heritage which 
includes the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights that ‘there may be a general, but not 
exclusive,  reflection  on  any  impact  the  COVID-19  pandemic  may  have had  on  life  within  the 
applicants’ local communities, on the way in which their communities function and on the forms 
that civic participation and solidarity took in the applicants’251 towns under the COVID-19 pandemic 
and how these forms could become sustainable in the future’.  

Furthermore, the call for support from the Council of Europe includes the pandemic consequences 
by  developing a  series of seminars on racial  and ethnic  stereotypes.  These  seminars will  bring 
together journalists, civil society organisations, and minority group representatives. According to 
the 2021 Impact of the coronavirus crisis on Roma and Travellers report252, the COVID-19 pandemic 
has often fuelled  anti-Roma rhetoric in  the media and social networks, a sentiment sometimes 
echoed by public authorities as well. To combat this issue, a broad communication campaign to 
fight antigypsyism and anti-Roma discrimination is proposed. It includes a  series of  awareness-
raising campaigns and events to fight stereotypes and prejudice, antigypsyism and discrimination 
and promote cultural diversity and mutual understanding, and foresees a series of seminars and 
workshops on racism and ethnic stereotypes bringing together journalists, media representatives 
and representatives of public authorities focused on different ethnic/racial groups. 

Although post-pandemic recovery challenges are less present in the design of the programme, CERV 
remains  relevant.  Similarly,  along  with  the  digital  and  green  transition and  democratic  life, 
protecting the most vulnerable groups from the  consequences of the  pandemic is  one of  the 
programme’s priorities. 

Russian aggression on Ukraine  
CERV  ensures that  in  2023  a  particular focus  is  given  to  projects  aiming  at  addressing the 
consequences of  the  Russian aggression on  Ukraine  regarding the  protection of  democratic 
freedom and the enjoyment of fundamental rights for all, and in particular for people in the most 
vulnerable situations, such as women and children. These latest developments have proven the 

247   Call-Fiche_cerv-2022-Citizens-Civ,  p. 7 
248   Funding  and Tenders opportunities – project details 

249   Funding  and Tenders opportunities – project details 
250   Funding  and Tender opportunities – project details 
251   CERV-2023-CITIZENS-TOWN-TT,  p. 8 
252   At a Glance – The Impact of the Coronavirus  Crisis on Roma and  Travellers 

95 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

relevance of the strand, as it has made clear that ‘Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a war against 
democracy itself’ 253, and that European democracy cannot be taken for granted.  

An  important aspect  regarding Strand  3  is  that  the  Russian aggression on  Ukraine  and  its 
consequences  ‘also  emphasise  the  importance  of  a  critical  reflection  on  the  past  and  the 
transmission of memory to future generations to tackle historical distortion and ensure European 
remembrance to avoid repeating past mistakes. Despite every effort to stop violence and hatred 
against groups at risk, vulnerable groups and women and children, continue to be  the first to 
suffer.’ 254 

Regarding  the  protection of  children’s  rights,  the  call  on  rights  of  the  child  and  children’s 
participation states that ‘this priority will aim at addressing mental health disorders experienced by 
children, which could be linked for instance to family circumstances, socio-economic vulnerabilities 
exacerbated during crisis, children in alternative care, victims of violence or of discrimination. This 
will  also cover activities addressing the mental health problems affecting migrant and refugee 
children, notably unaccompanied and separated children, including those who fled  the  war in 
Ukraine’ 255.  

Moreover, tackling historical distortion and encouraging intergenerational work will be a key focus 
in  the  Work Programme 2023  by  supporting ‘projects that commemorate and educate about 
defining experiences in modern European history. These include the causes and consequences of 
authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, resistance against these regimes, the Holocaust and other 
mass  crimes,  democratic  transition  and  (re)-building  democratic  institutions,  the  legacy  of 
colonialism, transnational migration, and European integration’ 256.  

EU strategic autonomy 
Strand 3 is deeply rooted in EU democratic values. It aims to help people make their voices heard and 
increase inclusion and democratic participation in line with  the Commission’s political priorities, 
including those specified in the EU Citizenship Report 2020 and the European democracy action plan. 

As such, Strand 3 covers a significant portion of the strategy by promoting citizens engagement and 
participation in the democratic life of the Union, exchanges between citizens of different Member 
States, and raising awareness of the common European history. It upholds EU’s democratic values 
by fostering the active participation of individuals and civil society in democratic processes, which 
are crucial for the future of Europe and democratic societies. Furthermore, Strand 3 indicates a 
strong commitment to  strengthening European identity  and  values,  as  the  legacy  of  recent 
European history is a crucial pillar of the values the EU.  

The strand addresses citizen engagement and participation by developing activities that will focus 
on debating the future of Europe. Debates on citizens’ societal engagement, independent election 
observation, including  monitoring by  citizens,  and  innovative approaches and  tools  are  also 
included to help citizens make their voices heard and publicly exchange views on all areas of EU 
action. The programme will  particularly encourage projects that collect  citizens’ views but also 
ensure a  practical link with  the policymaking process, thus showing citizens how  to engage in 
practice. The WP 2023 also mentions the Conference on the Future of Europe, a citizen-led series of 

253   A new push for European  democracy (Webpage) 
254   Annex to Commission  implementing decision C(2022) 8588 final, p. 5 
255   Ibid, p. 49 
256   Ibid, p. 8 

96 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

debates and discussions that ran from April 2021  to May 2022  and enabled people from across 
Europe to share their ideas and help shape our common future. 

Strand 3 further focuses on the Commission priority of ‘A new push for European democracy’. Under 
the sixth priority – ‘a Europe fit for the digital age’. Recently, the Commission adopted the 2022 
Strategic Foresight Report. The Report highlights that the EU aims at accelerating both green and 
digital transformation, ultimately strengthening the EU’s resilience and open strategic autonomy257.  

The relevance of the Strand in this area is clear as it touches on the promotion of EU values through 
citizen engagement and participation, on the protection of human rights, and on the development 
of resilience to make the Union more robust and ready to face current social, economic, and political 
challenges. 

6.2.2. Early implementation  
This section of the assessment is based on the data available on call and project level as well  as 
findings from the interviews.  

For the Europe fit for the digital age priority, online democratic participation can be identified as a 
cross-cutting issue relevant to  many CERV  funded projects  under Strand 3.  Stakeholders also 
mentioned the strong emphasis on this priority, agreeing that both the digital and green transition 
are well embedded in the projects. In some countries, such as Romania, there are certain projects258 
that even combine both priorities.  

The  green transition,  as mentioned above, is  well  embedded in  the  programme. A total of  78 
projects were  funded under the  Call  Citizens’ engagement and participation that make direct 
reference to supporting relevant activities. Many (more than ten) of these make direct reference to 
green transition topics including (inter alia) ‘Active citizen for people and planet’. 

Although the programme’s objectives do not directly mention the post-pandemic recovery and the 
challenges of the Russian aggression on Ukraine, they are still included in the projects and have 
been taken into consideration during implementation. 

Stakeholders have reported a decrease in applications due to the pandemic, but the numbers are 
slowly increasing as different technologies are incorporated into the projects. The implementation 
of the programme in Romania in 2021 was difficult due to the severity of the pandemic and the 
emergence of new challenges. Several projects under Strand 3 relate to post-COVID efforts including 
the  projects:  COVIDemocracy  in  the  Baltics;  Encouraging  Women  Participation  in  Times  of 
Pandemic; and The impact of  COVID-19  pandemic on  diverse democratic perspectives through 
gender perspective. 

Projects that include the remembrance component, which addresses wars and their impacts as well 
as  totalitarian regimes, are aligned  with  the  challenges created by  the Russian aggression on 
Ukraine. This aspect of the projects is very well regarded, as this is the only programme that tackles 
this issue, which has become highly relevant in these times. 

For Ireland, Brexit has had a lot of implications for the implementation of the programmes since the 
UK was a leading partner for Ireland prior to Brexit. However, Brexit has also had unexpected positive 
implications.  As  the  new  most  prominent  English-speaking  country,  there  was  significant 
opportunity for Irish organisations to partner with other countries.  

257   European  Commission  COM(2022) 289 final 
258   Funding  and Tender opportunities – project details 

97 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

For the EU  strategic autonomy  priority,  there is no  mention in  the CERV objectives, strands or 
priorities. However, there is a general reference in the Regulation. 

6.2.3. Lessons learnt  
At the programme level, the main objectives of the CERV programme are not directly related to the 
main EU  challenges within  the  scope of  the study. However, the  challenges identified  are still 
relevant and/or tackled by the CERV programme either at a cross-cutting level, at the individual 
CERV programme Strand level and/or at the project level. DG JUST takes into account EU’s strategic 
priorities and mandates of the Commission and Parliament. Hence the main challenges of this study 
are in some way equally part of the overall political programme scope since the implementation of 
EU  strategies  around  climate  change,  digitalisation,  autonomy,  and  others,  are  part  of  the 
democratic dialogue promoted by CERV. However, the CERV programme is designed as a bottom-
up programme. This implies a certain level of flexibility in implementation.  

The  research has identified a  number of  ways in  which  the CERV  Strand 3  programme  tackles 
relevant challenges. For example:  

  One of the CERV programmes’ primary objectives is to foster democratic engagement. 
Ergo, as part of project activities to reach this objective, participation across all of the 
challenges identified are relevant – including green and digital transition topics.  

  The green transition is an objective mentioned in the Citizen engagement strand since 
it  encourages project proposals that work to engage ‘citizens and  communities in 
discussions and action related to our climate and environment; there is a growing 
interest of  civil  society and associations in discussing climate and  green issues and 
proposing solutions to decision makers.‘ 259 

  The initial analysis of the CERV Strand 3 projects shows that a significant number of 
projects are relevant to the three main challenges identified, i.e.,  to climate change, 
digitalisation, and addressing consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

  In  terms of  challenges beyond the  three key  issues identified,  the  CERV  Strand 3 
programme is closely linked to the European Democracy Action Plan and challenges 
related to disinformation.  

The CERV Strand 3 programme has taken into account the main EU challenges – as far as they are 
within  the programme scope. The scoping interviews in particular also support the claim that 
relevant national challenges are addressed. An example are grass roots organisations operating in 
EU countries, where the space for civil society is narrowed or obstructed and for which CERV support 
is principally important.  

According to the CIVICUS Monitor 260, civic space is “narrowed” in 12 countries across Western Europe 
(Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and the 
United Kingdom) and “obstructed” in one (Hungary). However, Member State analysis indicates that 
in countries where civil society is obstructed, actual evidence of implementation of Strand 3 of CERV 
is challenging to locate as this obstruction discourages civil society organisations from participating 
in the programme. The European Commission has explicitly incorporated some main challenges 
within the programme. For example, COVID-19 and post-pandemic effects were incorporated as a 
reference in the programme for the 2023/24 programming period.  

259   CERV  Work Programme 2021-2022, p. 43 
260   https://ecnl.org/focus-areas/european-level-policies   

98 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Other challenges, like the Russian aggression on Ukraine are, however, not directly addressed but 
could theoretically be incorporated through the remembrance component which addresses the 
issues of wars and its impacts and totalitarian regimes. 

According to stakeholders a lag in the implementation of the programme can be observed, which 
is due to the relatively late adoption of the CERV programmes in 2021. As a result, the programme 
is at the very beginning of its implementation.  

6.3. Coherence assessment 

Strand 3 of the CERV programme has a distinctive quality that enhances its coherence with the 
different policies and  priorities. As its main  aim is  to make people’s voices heard and increase 
democratic participation, it  can adapt to  the needs of  current political, economic, and societal 
challenges. It  has the  potential to  provide  resources to make  this participation happen while 
developing the programme in close collaboration with those working on the ground.  

Regarding the specific  policy  objectives  of  the  European Commission priorities, the degree of 
coherence can be observed as described in the section below.  

6.3.1. Programme design 
European Green Deal 
The programme is coherent with this objective, as it works toward ‘Bringing citizens together to 
discuss actions on the climate and the environment, including energy-related issues, solidarity and 
sharing best practices, and thus helping to increase citizens’ engagement in society and ultimately 
to their active involvement in the democratic life of the Union’ 261. It states that people are concerned 
about jobs, heating their homes and making ends meet. Therefore, they must be able to engage in 
the policymaking process if the Green Deal is to succeed and deliver lasting change. Some of the 
specific  policies that are linked to the programme are the New  European Bauhaus262 and more 
generally the Green Deal.  

A Europe fit for the digital age 
CERV works heavily to achieve this objective. As stated in the work programme, it aims to ‘protect 
fundamental rights by strengthening accountability for the use of automation where rights are at 
stake, including through approaches for addressing and combatting bias and multiple/intersectional 
discrimination based on gender and on other grounds including ethnic and racial origin, caused or 
intensified by the use of artificial intelligence system’263. Apart from this, the right to personal data 
protection is critical in delivering the ‘European way for the digital society’, which is human-centred 
and ensures full respect of fundamental rights. Some specific policies linked to the programme are 
Europe’s Digital Decade policy towards 2030 264 and European Digital Rights and Principles265.  

261   Commission  implementing decision C(2022) 8588 final, p. 55 

262   https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/about/about-initiative_en 
263   Commission  implementing decision C(2022) 8588 final, p. 20 
264   European  Commission  COM(2021) 118 final 
265   European  Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade 2023/C 23/01 

99 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

An economy that works for people 
Through practices like the Networks of Towns, communities can engage in projects that focus on 
their local communities, how they function, and how civic participation and solidarity are expressed. 
One example can include projects addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and how interventions could 
become sustainable in the future. Projects may also draw inspiration from, or be related to, the New 
European Bauhaus initiative in developing a sustainable future for all. Specific policies linked to the 
programme are The European Pillar of  Social  Rights 266, the European Social Fund (ESF) 267, and 
NextGenerationEU 268. 

A stronger Europe in the world 
To  strengthen EU’s  role  as  a  global  leader  while  ensuring  the  highest  standards of  climate, 
environmental and labour protection, Strand 3 supports the UNESCO’s project ‘Routes of Enslaved 
Peoples: Resistance, Liberty and Heritage’ 269. This is one of UNESCO’s global priorities. Moreover, the 
programme also supports many projects related to the Russian aggression on Ukraine and all of the 
issues deriving from it 270. A specific policy linked to the programme is EU solidarity with Ukraine 271. 

Promoting our European way of life 
EU core values are at the centre of the third Strand. Some project calls involve the support of Civil 
Society Organisation that are active at  the  local,  regional, national and  transnational levels in 
promoting and cultivating human rights, thus also strengthening the protection and promotion of 
Union values. Apart from this, there are specific calls that work towards protecting human rights 
against hate speech and hate crimes272. Specific policies linked to the programme are the proposed 
New Pact on Migration and Asylum273 and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 274. 

New push for European democracy 
As  enshrined in  the  EU  Treaties, the  EU  Charter of  Fundamental Rights (the  Charter), and in 
international human rights conventions, the CERV acts as a key instrument to protect and promote 
human rights and values. It supports the implementation of the EU antiracism action plan for 2020-
2025 275, the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025 276, the EU Roma strategic framework on equality, 
inclusion and participation277, the EU Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish Life 

266   The European  Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan 
267   European  Social Fund 

268   https://next-generation-eu.europa.eu/index_de   
269   Commission  implementing decision C(2022) 8588 final and for the project see https://www.unesco.org/en/routes-

enslaved-peoples 

270   Funding  and Tender opportunities – project details 
271   https://eu-solidarity-ukraine.ec.europa.eu/index_en   
272   See e.g. for Protecting EU values and rights by combating  hate speech and hate crime CERV-2023-CHAR-LITI-SPEEC H; 
European Remembrance – 2023 CERV-2023-CITIZENS-REM  and the call for proposals  to promote equality and  to fight 
against  racism, xenophobia  and discrimination CERV-2023-EQUAL 

273   New Pact on Migration and  Asylum of the EU (Webpage) 

274   European  Regional Development Fund 
275   European  Commission  COM(2020) 565 final 
276   European  Commission  COM(2020) 698 final 
277   European  Commission  COM(2020) 620 final 

100 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

2021-2030 278, the 2020-2025 Gender Equality Strategy279, and the 2021-2030 strategy for the rights 
of persons with disabilities 280. 

6.3.2. Early implementation  
This section of the assessment is based on the data available on call and project level as well  as 
findings from the scoping interviews.  

For the Europe fit for the digital age priority, there are 33 projects that mention Europe’s Digital 
Decade  policy  programme 2030  and  European Digital  Rights and  Principles. 281  Most  of  these 
projects aim to develop innovative democratic approaches and tools (notably digital ‘e-democracy’ 
tools) to help citizens make their voices heard and to publicly exchange views on all  areas of EU 
action are also encouraged282.  

Regarding the green transition, as mentioned above, it is well  embedded in the programme. 33 
projects mention the New European Bauhaus in total and two projects mention the Green Deal. 

Regarding the priority ‘an economy that works for people’, there were 28 projects that mention The 
European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights,  33  projects  that  mention  ESF,  and  21  projects  mention 
NextGenerationEU. Scoping interviews with national authorities showed that even though the 
projects could have a positive impact on the economy and promote inclusivity in the long run, CERV 
does not directly mention this priority. 

Interviews with Member State representatives show that the programme is more concerned with 
strengthening the common values within the European Union rather that promoting them outside 
EU borders. There are, however, 19 projects that mention EU solidarity with Ukraine, which falls 
under this priority. 

Information from national representatives confirmed that the  EU  values  are  key  to  the  CERV 
programme. Regarding the specific projects, 26 mention the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, 28 
mention the Migration and Integration Fund, and 20 the European Regional Development Fund. 

Strand 3 Project example – Romania 

Romanian municipalities are partners in the Strategic and Human Rebirth project in  the local 
European community, funded under Strand 3 of the CERV programme, call for proposals CERV-
2022-CITIZENS-TOWN, which operates through CERV Lump Sum Grants. This project’s partners 
are located in Croatia, Italy, Poland, and Spain. The start date of the project was December 1st, 
2022, and its end date will  be November 30th, 2024. The project aims to establish a network of 
communities that will facilitate the sharing of knowledge and promote public, social, and labour 
policies at the local, regional, and European levels. The goal is to enhance citizen cohesion by 
promoting equality, offering opportunities for cultural enrichment, and fostering exchanges 
between citizens of different countries within the European Union. The project consists of 12 

278   Towards  an  EU  free from  antisemitism.  EU  Strategy  on Combating  Antisemitism and  Fostering  Jewish Life  (2021 – 

2030) 

279   European  Commission  COM(2020) 152 final 
280   European  Commission  COM(2021) 101 final 
281   These and the following project identifications are based  on the Portal Funding and  Tender opportunities. 
282   For examples see e.g. My Participation Revolution; Digital Civic Participation v2.0 or Opening Avenues;  Empowering 

Participation 

101 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

events (seven on-site and five online) and involves seven partners based in four other European 
countries. The events will invite various stakeholders to participate in the project. 

Source: Funding&Tenders database and study interview 

The analysis at the level of selected Member States highlighted that the European Democracy is the 
most coherent and tightly linked priority to the programme, and represents one of its main focuses. 
Overall, across Member States, there are  20  projects that mention EU  strategic autonomy, 17 
projects mention gender, 31  projects  mention the  EU  Roma strategic framework on equality, 
inclusion  and  participation, 29  projects mention EU  Strategy on combating antisemitism and 
fostering Jewish life,  22  projects mention the EU anti-racism action plan 2020-2025,  21  projects 
mention the EU  Youth Strategy 2019-2027, 21  projects mention LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-
2025,  and 15  projects mention Horizon Europe. Romania and Ireland, for instance, have several 
projects that aim at strengthening civic spaces and promoting citizen participation. 

Strand 3 Project example – Ireland 

The Irish Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) receives an Operating Grant under 
Strand 3. The grant was worth €241 157 as of January 2022. The Institute is an independent, not-
for-profit organisation with charitable status and aims to provide a forum for all those interested 
in EU and International affairs to engage in debate and discussion, and to evaluate and share 
policy options. The IIEA acts as a forum for dialogue, a catalyst for new ideas and a source of new 
policy options. Its work programme under this operating grant consists of a  minimum of 70 
events and 16 research publications, in addition to blogs, infographics and other materials aimed 
at disseminating information to citizens. This overall programme of work will be sub-divided into 
ten key  policy areas for Ireland and  the EU,  and is  designed to cover the broadest possible 
spectrum of EU policy areas, and communicate them to as diverse an audience as possible in 
Ireland and  the  EU.  The work  programme covers the following key areas: EU  Affairs; UK-EU 
relations; France and Germany; Justice and  Home  Affairs; Geopolitics; Health; Digital  Policy; 
Economics and financial governance; transatlantic relations; and a Young Professionals Network 
event series. 

Source: Funding&Tenders database and study interview 

6.3.3. Lessons learnt  
At this early stage of the programme implementation, it can be concluded that Strand 3 both has 
the potential to be involved in a wide range of policy topics and is also coherent with the priorities 
of the Commission at project level.  

CERV has a strong societal focus, which is clearly related to European values and the programme has 
contributed to European social wellbeing.  

At this stage, programme objectives and overall design are able to respond to changing external 
conditions. It is sufficiently open and flexible to allow for the introduction of new topics and themes 
within the wider objective of promoting democratic values.  

Despite this overall coherence, the implementation faces some challenges. Changes in the reporting 
and financial requirements, including introducing a new grant management system only available 
in English, have caused concern among CERV beneficiaries. 

102 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

6.4. Effectiveness assessment 

The analysis of the effectiveness of the CERV programme is based on the following information 
sources: 

  The CERV websites on the servers of the European Commission283 and the EACEA284 
  The European Commission Funding and Tender opportunities portal285  
  The Programme Statement on CERV 286 
  Interviews with MA of selected countries 

The CERV project results website 287 provides results for projects selected in 2021. Because Strand 3 
is the successor for Europe for citizens in 2021, its results for that year will be presented under its 
previous name. For the 2022 project results, the analysis focuses on the selected practices in the four 
Member States Romania, Latvia, Hungary, and Ireland. Furthermore, the evaluation focus is on the 
early implementation. 

6.4.1. Programme launch 
Between 2021  and 2022, there were 66  calls for proposals. Out of 2 675 proposals received, 814 
(30 %) were for the third strand of the programme, which is focused on citizen engagement and 
participation. Compared to the other strands of the CERV programme, the success rate for Strand 3 
is among the highest with 55 %. For the third strand, the success rate for Citizens’ Remembrance 
calls is 27 %, while Town-Twinning and Networks of Towns calls have a success rate of 81 % (2021-
2022).  

For the call  CERV-2021-CITIZENS-REM, 95 proposals were received. Ten were inadmissible and/or 
ineligible, and one was withdrawn by its coordinator. Out of the 84 proposals, only 27 were chosen 
for funding, amounting to a total of €4 503 005. Since the available budget was €4 515 000,  the 
remaining funding (€11 995) was insufficient to support other projects. The funding threshold was 
80.5, and the overall threshold was 70. The 28 proposals falling in between the funding threshold 
and the overall threshold were rejected due to a lack of budget availability.  

In summary, only 27 out of the 84 applications were chosen for funding, which accounts for 32.1 %. 
Meanwhile, due to budget limitations, 28 applications (33.3 %), were not granted funding. Lastly, 29 
applications  (34.5 %),  did  not  meet  the  required  threshold for  consideration. Out  of  the  95 
applications that were submitted, 27 (28.4 %) were chosen for funding, 28 (29.5 %) fell short of the 
available budget, 29 (30.5 %) did not meet the threshold, ten (10.5 %) were deemed ineligible, and 
one (1.1 %)  was withdrawn. For Town-Twinning and Networks of  Towns proposals, all rejected 
proposals (23 %) were turned down based on budgetary reasons.  

In 2021, 116 project beneficiaries signed a grant agreement for the Town-Twinning and Networks 
of Towns calls and 27  for the Citizens Remembrance calls In  2022.  The effects of the COVID-19 
pandemic  recovery can  be  observed,  as  182  additional  project  beneficiaries  signed  a  grant 

283   DG JUST  CERV  programme website 

284   EACEA  CERV  programme website 
285   Funding  and Tender opportunities 
286   Programme Statements – Citizens, Equality,  Rights and Values Programme 
287   CERV  Projects & Results 

103 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

agreement  for  the  Town-Twinning  and  Networks  of  Towns  calls  and  34  for  the  Citizens 
Remembrance calls. 288 

According to the latest iteration of the Multiannual Work Programme, for 2021, the total budget of 
the CERV’s third strand amounted to €13 977 154, which corresponds to 15 % of the total amount 
earmarked for the whole programme289. For the same year, and for the third strand, only 2 % of this 
budget has been paid out to the beneficiary projects 290. The budget earmarked to the third strand 
increased to €39 671 295 in 2022 291 (20 % of the total CERV programme budget for the year), and in 
2022, 48 % of the third strand’s budget had been paid out292. 

Interviewees reported a delay in implementing the programme. Since the CERV programme was 
adopted only in 2021, it is still at the very beginning of the implementation phase. The desk research 
results indicate that the number of completed Strand 3 projects is small. However, an exact number 
of closed projects is not available. The European Commission also stated that final reports produced 
by beneficiaries are too few to assess results, in particular at the strand level.  

For Ireland, there was a large issue with the programme's lunch. Since 2021, there has been no NCP 
for  Ireland because it  is  the responsibility of the  Department of Foreign Affairs to appoint an 
organisation to act on its behalf. At the end of the previous organisation's operation, the Russian 
aggression  on  Ukraine  began,  which  resulted  in  the  Department  being  overwhelmed  with 
managing the influx of Ukrainian refugees and thus failing to appoint an NCP. Consequently, the 
launching of the programme was not very effective. Had there been an NCP, there would have been 
more national promotions and events tailored to the Irish audience, which was not the case.  

6.4.2. Programme management and responses to changing external 
conditions 

The first year of the programme (2021) was challenging for CERV implementation, in particular due 
to the transition between two multiannual financial frameworks, the very late adoption of the CERV 
programme regulation (28 April 2021) and the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic. DG JUST 
achieved, in their own assessment, a satisfactory level of implementation for the CERV programme, 
providing funding to grassroots organisations, to EU networks and IT systems, and for several key 
activities in support of policy and legislative developments.  

To prevent significant delays in implementation, several measures were taken by DG JUST in 2021. 
The work programme and call documents were developed in  conjunction with the Multiannual 
Financial Framework and CERV regulations. Additionally, targeted communication activities were 
initiated immediately after adopting the CERV regulation. The first CERV civil dialogue week was 
held from May 25th  to May 28th,  2021,  which  presented the programme and upcoming calls for 
proposals to stakeholders and potential beneficiaries. The event included a high-level panel with 
Commissioner  Reynders  and  hands-on  technical  sessions,  attracting  approximately  1000 
participants. 

According to national stakeholders, the programme was still dealing with the effects of the COVID-
19 pandemic in 2022. The pandemic had a negative impact particularly on NGOs, for instance in 
terms of their available budget. Stakeholders of one Member State analysed for this study even 

288   European Commission,  internal report ‘Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme – 2021-2022 implementation’ 
289   Commission  implementing decision C(2021) 2583 final, p. 9 
290   European Commission,  internal report ‘Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme – 2021-2022 implementation’ 
291   Commission  implementing decision C(2021) 2583 final, p. 9 
292   European Commission,  internal report ‘Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme – 2021-2022 implementation’ 

104 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

reported that NGOs faced challenges to manage their core tasks. As a result, they found it ever more 
difficult  to engage  in  projects with  new  ideas  and solutions. Thus, to participate in  the  CERV 
programme, many NGOs first need an enhanced capacity.  

The Europe for Citizens programme 2014-2020 (Strand 3) was severely affected by the COVID-19 
pandemic. As a  result, some projects experienced delays in  their implementation. Despite this 
setback, interviewees believe that the overall performance of the projects should not be affected. 
Some projects successfully adapted by transforming their in-person events into online or hybrid 
meetings while  maintaining the  planned themes and  content to minimise  the impact  on  the 
schedule.  However,  for  specific  projects,  this  was  not  feasible,  and  these  projects  had  to  be 
postponed until it was safe to hold physical meetings to ensure high-quality results. 

6.4.3. Programme objectives addressed during early implementation  
In  2021,  the  Europe  for  Citizens  programme  2014-2020  played  an  overall  positive  role  in 
encouraging civic participation and democratic engagement while strengthening the mutual sense 
of  belonging and  supporting collective understanding and identification with Europe, thereby 
helping to support the European integration process in the longer term.  

Regarding the selected practices for Strand 3, interviewees discussed the strengths and weaknesses 
of each. For the third selected practice, Town-Twinning focuses on small-scale projects that allow 
citizens to explore the cultural diversity of the European Union. Meanwhile, Networks of Towns aims 
to foster long-term cooperation between municipalities and their citizens through various thematic 
and policy-related activities on a  larger scale 293. The interviewees explained that Town-Twinning 
could be considered the first phase, with the historical component of the programme inherited from 
historical ways of fostering European citizens, while the Networks of Town the second phase. While 
it has larger projects, its mechanisms are very similar. 

The small-scale and grassroots nature of the Town-Twinning practice has both its strengths and 
weaknesses. On the one hand, it allows for significant initiatives and serves as the only direct link 
between the Union and citizens. However, this can also be a weakness as there may be a digital gap 
among participants, and participation relies on elected officials’ motivation. Additionally, there may 
be  a  lack  of  administrative capacity to  effectively deal  with  an  EU  programme, leading to low 
numbers of applications.  

The Network of Towns practice operates with a larger budget and consortium, catering particularly 
to towns with  experience in  EU  projects. One of the main focuses is  on the green transition, a 
significant aspect of Strand 3. The interviewees have recognised this practice as the most successful 
among the three. In Romania, the ongoing project called Green IT Your Work 294 is aligned with the 
green and digital priorities and aims to engage young people in discussions about Europe’s digital 
future.  

The EU remembrance practice has a distinctive quality as the only one focused on this particular 
issue. The interviewees explained it received significant support from major EU platforms, and the 
current  political  discussions highlight  the  significance  of  the  topic.  This  practice  contributes 
significantly to  the objectives of  the CERV programme. The number of applications received is 
increasing.  

Although some interviewees feel that the programme is still in its early stages, several areas were 
identified as having room for improvement. These include increasing the programme’s visibility, 

293   JUST  – Call for proposals  on Town-Twinning  and  Networks of Towns  (europa.eu) 
294   Funding  and Tender opportunities – project data 

105 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

adjusting the monitoring indicators, and enhancing collaboration with other relevant EU funding 
programmes and initiatives. National authorities from the selected countries expressed that they 
could only give very limited insights into achievements at this stage in the implementation process. 
They  have  implemented  the  programme as  foreseen  in  the  programming by  the  European 
Commission, and were able to spend all of the earmarked resources. 

6.4.4. Challenges for programme and project managers 
The programme’s performance has been  affected by internal and external factors. The internal 
factors are mainly related to issues with the application process. National authorities repeatedly 
mentioned the challenges national agencies and participating organisations face in managing the 
web portal. These challenges were not related to the programme’s objectives or design but to the 
Funding and Tender opportunities portal. This issue was particularly problematic in Strand 3, where 
small-scale organisations with limited ICT resources have been applying. 

There is also a lack of data regarding the application process. National authorities expressed that 
information on applications is not sufficiently available. Obtaining a clear view of the application 
process requires a breakdown by country rather than only accumulated numbers across Europe.  

Another issue that national authorities identified was the limitation regarding the communication 
strategy of the Strand. For example, it was mentioned that the programme does not have a logo 
that they can use on their informative brochures and leaflets.  

Common external factors relate to the impact of external shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, 
the Russian aggression on Ukraine, and the challenge of involving public entities and stakeholders 
in planned activities. 

The  Latvian contact point mentioned an example  of  the types of  challenges they face  in  the 
implementation processes of projects. The project, ‘Baltic Train’ on remembrance, was led by an 
Estonian University with a Latvian University participating. According to an interviewee, the Latvian 
University removed itself from the project because it became too complicated and a burden for 
them to continue. Because additional information was not shared with the contact point, it had no 
means of obtaining greater detail on precisely what had happened and why. 

Hungarian stakeholders reported that they face financial and administrative obstacles throughout 
the CERV programme. Additionally, the government’s unwillingness to engage in social dialogue 
and hostility towards civil society discourages participation in these programmes. 

Irish stakeholders mentioned the changes in the application process when CERV was created, and 
that the new application platform represents a severe challenge for applicants. The interviewee 
stated that the  change from the editable PDF  to the new  application channel has significantly 
impacted the number of  applications they receive. Because most grants have a  relatively small 
budget, applicants do  not deem  it  worthwhile going  through such a  complicated application 
process. It has also hindered the participation of smaller communities that do not have the necessary 
resources or digital knowledge.  

6.4.5. Lessons learnt  
The early implementation of the CERV programme can be cautiously deemed as effective. 

The programme’s launch suffered delays. It was adopted in 2021, and most of the projects are still 
at the beginning of their implementation. The calls were launched, while final reports have not yet 
been submitted. Even though the number of applications has suffered a decrease because of the 
pandemic, they are now picking back up.  

106 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

COVID-19  has  not only  had an  impact on  the  applications but also on  implementation. Many 
projects suffered from operational issues, however, introducing ICT tools allowed for most projects 
to be carried out.  

Stakeholders expressed that the only way to assess the implementation so far is through process-
based  analysis rather  than  through impact  analysis.  In  this  regard, they  explained  that  the 
programmes had been implemented as foreseen in the programming documents by the European 
Commission and that they were able to spend all earmarked resources.  

The programme is highly valued for its unique topics, particularly its remembrance aspect. It is also 
seen as a bottom-up programme that seeks to work with grass-roots organisations, allowing for 
good engagement between authorities and citizens. However, the programme application process 
requires significant review, as it  was  considered as a  challenge for small-scale organisations to 
participate. Specifically,  the  application portal is  not considered user-friendly and demotivates 
organisations from applying – especially smaller organisations with fewer staff. 

The programme is lacking a good communication strategy at the programme-level, and national 
authorities mentioned that it is difficult to create awareness of the programme.  

Participants having questions during their project’s implementation need more guidance. In some 
cases the contact points cannot help, because the requirements are outside of their scope of work. 

107 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

7. Cross-analysis of the four programmes and lessons learnt 

The following sections briefly review the main findings of the analysis of the four programmes in a 
comparative  manner  for  each  of  the  three  evaluation  dimensions,  i.e.,  relevance,  external 
coherence and effectiveness following the  same structure as the assessment of the  individual 
programmes.295 Where adequate, a differentiation between the design of  the programmes and 
their early implementation is provided. 

7.1. Relevance assessment 

The objective of the relevance assessment was to identify the degree to which the programmes 
tackle the overarching EU challenges and possibly additional national challenges and to assess how 
far  the  change of  challenges could  be  considered or  may have  affected  the relevance  of  the 
programmes. Changing conditions and new challenges have evolved, especially due to the COVID-
19 pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine, which allows for a particular emphasis on the 
latter relevance assessments. In turn, these events have emphasised the previously identified need 
to strengthen EU strategic autonomy.  

7.1.1. Key findings 
Each programme has different foci within the five overarching EU challenges. None addresses all of 
them equally (see Table 18 and Table 19), neither in the design nor the early implementation phase. 
This is not least due to the main objectives of most of these programmes, for which the overarching 
challenges are frequently relevant in a cross-cutting sense or may be tackled by a certain number of 
projects. This  implies  partly generic  references in  the  programmes’ design documents to the 
overarching EU challenges that are not always equally mirrored in their early implementation. 

Table 18: Relevance assessment for the programmes’ design 

Challenges 

Erasmus+ 

Creative Europe 

European 
Solidarity Corps 

CERV Strand 3 

Digital transition 

Green transition 

COVID-19 
pandemic effects 

High 

High 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

High 

Rather high 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Rather low 

Russian aggression  

Moderate 

Low 

EU strategic 
autonomy 

Source: own representation 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

None 

None 

High 

Digital  and  green  transition  challenges are frequently considered as twin transition. They are more 
equally  relevant  across the  four  programmes than the  other three  challenges.  However,  the 
relevance of the digital transition during the early implementation seems to be less considered by 
the  ESC  and  CERV  Strand  3.  Only  the  Erasmus+ programme explicitly  has  digital  and  green 
transitions among its main priorities, which are translated accordingly into the work programmes 
and mirrored in the early implementation. The Creative Europe programme addresses the digital 

295   The analysis  of this chapter is fully based on the previous chapters rather than additional sources.  

109 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

transition as a strong transversal topic. It demonstrates how green challenges can be tackled with a 
funding programme. CERV Strand 3  is  an  example  of  a  more generic  reference  to  these two 
challenges, especially the digital transition e.g., related to online democratic participation.  

Table 19: Relevance assessment for the programmes’ early implementation 

Challenges 

Erasmus+ 

Creative Europe 

European 
Solidarity Corps 

CERV Strand 3 

Digital transition 

High 

High 

Rather low 

Rather low 

Green transition 

Rather high 

Rather high 

Rather high 

High 

COVID-19 
pandemic effects 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Russian aggression  

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

EU strategic 
autonomy 

Source: own representation 

High 

Rather low 

None 

None 

High 

COVID-19  pandemic  challenges are  the  most equally  considered EU  challenge  across the four 
programmes, albeit less prominent than the digital and green transition. This holds true for both, 
the programmes’ design and early implementation. Although challenges rooted in the pandemic 
occurred already during the development of the programmes, programme design references are 
mostly visible in the annual work programmes. Contributions of the four programmes to tackle 
these challenges range from general to very specific actions:  

  The  early implementation of the Erasmus+ programme was highly affected by the 
impacts  on  mobility  opportunities and  contributes (within  the  selected  practices) 
mainly indirectly to the recovery process, e.g., through skills needed for recovery.  

  The Creative Europe programme was immediately affected by the disruptive impacts of 
the pandemic. During early implementation these challenges were  only considered 
through the Culture Strand despite its original impact on all strands. 

  In line with its humanitarian aid objectives, the ESC programme contribution focuses on 

support for health and social care system challenges. 

  Contributions  from  Strand  3  of  the  CERV  programme  are  visible  in  relation  to 

participation and democracy subject to limited fundamental rights.  

The challenges related to the Russian aggression on Ukraine and EU strategic autonomy are most 
diverse in terms of their relevance to the four programmes, both in programme design and during 
early implementation. The tendency towards a low relevance of the Russian  aggression  on  Ukraine 
in the design is at least partially related to the timing of its onset, which allowed this challenge to 
only be considered as of the 2023 annual work programmes. With the exception of Strand 3 of the 
CERV programme, all assessed programmes have considered this new challenge, mostly through 
specific projects. This demonstrates an increasing relevance of the Russian aggression on Ukraine 
for most of these programmes as they can respond to new challenges. This happens, however, with 
a time-lag due to the necessary programming amendments. An example from a call for proposals 
of the Erasmus+ programme illustrates how challenges can be combined to increase their relevance 
without risking neglecting one challenge  at  the benefit  of  another: specific funding  has been 
allocated to international EU partnerships with Ukrainian higher education institutions with a focus 
on digital environment education.  

110 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

EU strategic autonomy  is not a newly emerging challenge, however, awareness of this challenge has 
been triggered not least through the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine. 
Thus, it is not surprising that this challenge is of relatively high relevance, and is included already in 
the design of three of the four programmes. The only exception is the ESC programme. Despite its 
potential contributions to strengthening European values, only a generic reference to European 
democracy is made. The relevance of this challenge is the highest within the Erasmus+ programme 
and Strand 3 of the CERV programme, though with different foci: 

  For the  Erasmus+ programme an increasing relevance was identified  for European 
identity  and  democracy as  well  as  economy and  entrepreneurial skills,  which  are 
important to counteract a potential dependence on other countries. 

  Strand  3  of  the  CERV  programme  predominantly  tackles  disinformation  related 

challenges. 

Besides these overarching EU  challenges, the  assessment also reviewed to  what  extent  these 
programmes tackle national challenges in  selected Member States. The analysis confirmed that 
programmes with a completely centrally managed implementation approach do not tackle specific 
national challenges. For example, culture-specific challenges of individual Member States are not 
considered by the Creative Europe programme.  

In the analysed Member States the Erasmus+ programme is often used as a serious co-contributor 
to  address certain  national challenges,  e.g.,  internationalisation of  the  higher  and  vocational 
educational  establishments in  Bulgaria  and  Spain  and  youth  civic  engagement in  Lithuania. 
Inclusion in the labour market is also a very prominent aspect of Erasmus+ projects that tackle 
related national issues, for instance youth unemployment in Spain.  

While not a purely national challenge, the European Solidarity Corps gained additional awareness 
in Poland in light of the high number of Ukrainian refugees entering the country. As most refugees 
entered the EU via the Polish border (whether they stayed in the country or moved on to other 
Member States), several projects were set up to provide assistance to Ukrainian refugees in Poland. 

Particularly the challenges arising from the COVID-19  pandemic and the Russian aggression on 
Ukraine have changed the external conditions  in multiple ways. The comparison above shows that 
the four programmes have been able to respond to these newly arising needs, which indicates a 
common strength. Within their frameworks the programmes reacted quickly by either adding a new 
dimension, amending budget allocation, or developing dedicated calls, among other measures.  

Apart from tackling newly arising challenges, changing external conditions could also reduce the 
overall  relevance  of  the  programmes. However,  this  was  not  confirmed  for  any  of  the  four 
programmes. All programmes were found to still be relevant, not least with regard to the continued 
challenges that  already existed  prior to  the  development of  the  2021-2027  programmes. The 
assessment shows however, that the degree of flexibility varies between the programmes.  

7.1.2. Lessons learnt 
The  findings across programmes enable lessons and  recommendations to be  drawn for future 
lessons  and 
implementation  processes.  They  also  complement  programme  specific 
recommendations detailed in the previous chapters. The main lessons learnt are as follows:  

  While the ‘twin challenges’ are principally relevant for all four programmes, in some cases this 
is a rather generic relevance at least in terms of the programme’s design. This is often mirrored 
in the early implementation by less emphasis placed on the ‘twin challenges’ in corresponding 
programmes. Thus, such generic references to challenges should be  mainly used to draw 

111 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

attention  to  specific  issues,  and  should  be  complemented with  specific  and  concrete 
approaches (e.g., the greening of the Creative Europe programme is a case of good practice).  
  The  future  design  of  the  annual  work  programmes  can  be  better  aligned  to  actual 
implementation expectations. Not every programme could or should contribute equally to all 
five overarching challenges. However, it could be beneficial to emphasise a few challenges, 
for example one to three, that are the most important in the respective programme. This has 
the potential to provide better guidance for the implementation and to help increase the 
positive impacts related to these challenges.  

  Considering national challenges can help to better embed activities not only in the EU context, 
but also to that of EU Member States. Acknowledging potentially different national needs 
without neglecting EU-wide needs could be beneficial, however, this relies on a combination 
of central and decentral implementation mechanisms.  

  New challenges do not necessarily require an extensive revision but a thorough reflection of 
how to create synergies. The more frequent (sudden) challenges become, the more important 
it will be to create such synergies in view of limited resources, and to avoid ad-hoc changes in 
programmes that are counter-productive to their overall strategic objectives. This can be a 
useful tool or approach to activate the comprehensive power of the programmes. 

  The annual work programmes (in contrast to multi-annual programme plans) seem to be a 
good tool to facilitate quicker reactions to changing external conditions. In terms of relevance, 
the annual approach to fine-tune the programmes’ design seems to be adequate in times of 
change, without focusing too much on upcoming changes through even shorter planning 
periods. 

  Not all challenges that are at the heart of the programmes seem to be sufficiently considered 
by the programmes themselves, e.g., EU values by the ESC programme. This may require a 
better reflection on challenges. Furthermore, a more future oriented perspective anticipating 
challenges resulting from trends could help to further improve the programmes’ readiness. 
An example is the Creative Europe programme, which could enhance its transformative power 
for the cultural and creative sectors by anticipating future development scenarios.  

7.2. Coherence assessment 

The  coherence  assessment  focused  on  external  coherence,  meaning  coherence  between  a 
programme and EU policies. The objective of the coherence assessment was to evaluate the links of 
the four programmes with key EU  policy documents. In particular, the analysis focused on the 
coherence with the six  Commission priorities 2019-2024, the Recovery Plan for Europe (2020) as 
main answer to the challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic and specific policies linked to 
either of the four programmes. The assessment considered the links from both perspectives, i.e., in 
how far the programmes are considered by these key policies and vice versa.  

7.2.1. Key findings 
All four programmes show a high degree of coherence with all  six Commission priorities. Within 
these  priorities,  however, the  links  vary  considerably. The  following  figure  illustrates this  by 
highlighting the policies that show coherence with more than one of the assessed programmes. The 
bigger the letters, the more programmes demonstrate links to the policy. 

The New European Bauhaus is the only policy that is related to all four programmes. For any other 
policies  subsumed  under  the  European  Green  Deal  coherence  was  identified  by  only  one 
programme at a time. The only other priority with less commonalities across the programmes is ‘A 
stronger Europe in the world’. For the latter, coherence with the EU Solidarity with Ukraine policy 
was identified for the Creative Europe programme and Strand 3 of the CERV programme. 

112 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Figure 15: Coherence across programmes with the six Commission priorities 

Note: The larger the letters, the more programmes show coherence with the mentioned policy under 
the respective Commission priority. Only policies are listed for which a coherence with at least two of 
the four programmes could be identified. 
Source: own presentation. 

For the remaining four priorities between one to three policies show coherence with three of the 
assessed programmes. Coherence across them is the highest for the priority ‘An economy that works 
for the people’, for which five policies are coherent with at least two programmes.  

For the Recovery Plan for Europe (2020)  no common policies apart from the NextGenerationEU 
package were identified across the four programmes, which was already identified as a common 
policy under the priority ‘An economy that works for the people’. 

Apart from the overlapping coherence findings for the policies subsumed under either of the six 
European Commission priorities 2019-2024, the cross-analysis focused on the overarching priorities 
as outlined in the following tables. Table 20 illustrates to which extent each of the four programmes 
is considered by the priorities, i.e., is expected to contribute to achieving overarching Commission 
objectives. The direct mention of the four programmes is quite low across the six  priorities. The 
existing links strongly vary between the programmes. 

113 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table 20: The four programmes in key policy documents 

Key EU policies 

Erasmus+ 

Creative 
Europe 

European 
Solidarity Corps 

CERV 
(Strand 3) 

A European Green Deal 

None 

Rather low 

Rather low 

A Europe fit for the digital age 

Moderate 

An economy that works for people 

A stronger Europe in the world 

High 

Low 

None 

None 

Low 

Promoting our European way of life 

Moderate 

Rather low 

None 

Moderate 

None 

None 

New push for European democracy 

High 

Rather low 

Rather high 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

High 

Source: own representation 

Erasmus+ is the programme that is referred to by far the most frequently in policy documents of the 
European  Commission priorities,  which  may  illustrate  its  long-standing implementation and 
awareness. Moreover, this may also be linked  to its overall complexity with  numerous types of 
activities designed to support various objectives.  

In contrast, references to the CERV programme is very limited. It is only directly referred to in various 
policies subsumed under the priority ‘New push for European democracy’, which is certainly the 
priority with the strongest direct links. However, with its objectives on civil rights and participation 
one could expect some direct references of the CERV programme for instance in policy documents 
subsumed under the priorities ‘Promoting our European way of life’ and/or ‘A stronger Europe in 
the world’. The  Creative Europe programme is also rarely mentioned in  the overarching policy 
documents of the six priorities. Instead, this programme is deeply embedded in specific EU cultural 
policies.  

Comparing  the  references  to  the  four  assessed  programmes  according  to  each  of  the  six 
Commission priorities shows that the priority ‘New push for European democracy’ refers by far more 
often to these programmes than any other priority. This seems to mirror the thematic foci of these 
programmes  that  are  mainly  linked  to  social  and  cultural  and  less  to  technological  and 
environmental issues.  

In several cases for which ‘none’ is indicated in Table 20 indirect links are still visible, e.g., through 
pointing to priorities that are the subject of a programme. For example, the European Digital Rights 
and Principles declaration does not refer to the CERV programme, but the policy’s aim to protect 
citizens’ rights in the digital transition is coherent with this programme. 

The following comparative coherence assessment does not systematically differentiate between 
design  and  early  implementation, as  differences  are  less  pronounced than  for  the  relevance 
assessment. Instead, the analysis focuses on the comparison between the policies’ reliance on either 
of the four programmes (Table 20) and the programmes’ planned and implemented links to the 
main policies and priorities (Table 21).  

Overall, the coherence analysis indicates that all  programmes contribute to all  six  Commission 
priorities 2019-2024. In most cases, the contribution in the programme’s design is mirrored in the 
early implementation through dedicated calls and or projects that refer to one or more policies 
under the respective priority. For nearly all cases (cells in  Table 21) the coherence assessment is 
higher than the mentioning of the programmes in the priorities (Table 20).  

While relatively high coherence of the Erasmus+ programme with all six priorities may have been 
expected in view of its above described complexity and mentioning in most of the priorities, the 

114 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

coherence findings for Strand 3 of the CERV programme may be more surprising. This programme 
was hardly considered as a source to contribute to five of the six priorities, however projects and, 
more rarely calls, target all priorities to a significant extent.  

Table 21: Coherence of the four programmes with key policy documents 

Key EU policies 

Erasmus+ 

Creative 
Europe 

European 
Solidarity Corps 

CERV Strand 3 

A European Green Deal 

A Europe fit for the digital age 

An economy that works for people 

High 

High 

High 

Moderate 

Rather low 

High 

High 

Rather high 

Rather high 

Rather low 

Moderate 

Rather high 

A stronger Europe in the world 

Moderate 

Rather low 

Rather low 

Moderate 

Promoting our European way of life 

New push for European democracy 

Source: own representation 

High 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Rather high  

Moderate 

High 

High 

In particular, the coherence of the programmes with the policies of the twin transition, i.e., under 
the ‘European Green Deal’ and ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’ is relatively high, which is in line with 
the relevance assessment (section 7.1) of the corresponding challenges. The coherence of the four 
programmes is the lowest for the priority ‘A stronger Europe in the world’. While this is in line with 
the very rare links of  this  priority to either of  the  four programmes, one could  argue that the 
programmes’ policy coherence is not entirely aligned to the considerable relevance assigned for 
most programmes to the related challenge ‘EU strategic autonomy’.  

7.2.2. Lessons learnt 
Few direct references in policy documents under the six Commission priorities 2019-2024 indicate 
that either  the potential of  these programmes to contribute to overarching priorities may be 
underestimated or the awareness of these programmes is, or was not, equally developed across 
Commission services when outlining the priorities and their corresponding policy documents. This 
may also mirror the different track-record of the four programmes, with Erasmus+ being well-known 
and established, whereas other programmes have been developed more recently. At the same time, 
the coherence of the programmes towards policies under the six priorities is much more strongly 
developed, which confirms their potential to contribute to the overarching EU policy agenda.  

  Combining  these  observations leads  to  the  conclusion  that the  development of  future 
European Commission priorities beyond 2024 should reflect the potential of and expectations 
towards the whole  variety of EU  programmes more thoroughly. In other words, the first 
objective  of  these  programmes is  to  bring  people  together to  support EU  values  and 
overcome national borders (in one or another context). This can then be complemented with 
an additional layer of objectives related to challenges to enhance programme content and 
create synergies. 

  At the same time, these observations also indicate an increasing complexity of EU funding 
instruments that becomes more difficult to grasp. Thus, rather than further extending funding 
opportunities and setting up new programmes, it may be time for consolidation. Not every 
topic requires a specific call or initiative. Many of these policies can be addressed by means of 
updated priorities in the annual work programmes. 

  While  the coherence in  the design of  the programmes and their early implementation is 
confirmed, this does not directly imply similarly high effective contributions to the policies’ 

115 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

objectives (i.e., beyond the programmes’ objectives). This could only be assessed through an 
analysis  of  ‘goal  effectiveness’,  ‘efficiency’  and  ‘EU  Added-Value’ that  cannot  yet  been 
performed at the current stage of implementation. However, coherent design is a necessary, 
but  not  sufficient,  condition  to  ensure  corresponding contributions to  overarching  EU 
objectives.  
Since these analyses will provide useful insights on the coherence effects only at a very late 
stage, systematic monitoring of the programmes’ contributions to the priorities could be an 
interim step that (1) delivers earlier insights while the programmes can still be adjusted and 
(2)  provides  valuable  information for  later  (ex-post)  evaluations. The  Erasmus+  annual 
reporting results on contributions to the programme’s transversal priorities may give food for 
thought in this direction, as e.g., the Annual Report 2021 provides monitoring links to the 
European Green Deal and the Digital Education Action Plan as part of the priority ‘A Europe fit 
for the digital age’ 296. 

  Project  information on  the  programmes’ early  implementation suggest  a  considerable 
coherence  with  the  six  priorities  and/or  selected  policies  within  them.  However, 
corresponding references in the calls tend to be less frequent. Mentioning the policies more 
systematically in calls could be beneficial for the uptake by projects. 

  The comparison of relevance and coherence assessments indicates some weak links, e.g., 
when challenges are considered highly relevant but coherence with the corresponding EU 
policies is less pronounced. This may call for further fine-tuning of the programmes’ expected 
contributions to EU policies. 

7.3. Effectiveness assessment 

The effectiveness assessment is focused on the early phase of the programmes’ implementation and 
thus allows for only tentative insights. The objective of the effectiveness assessment was to evaluate 
the  uptake  of  the  programme and  the  extent  to  which  programmes focus  on  their  guiding 
objectives.  This  also  explored  the  programmes’ ability  to  overcome  specific  implementation 
challenges and to develop first success stories that could inspire future implementation. Overall, it 
is worth highlighting that any findings on the early implementation’s effectiveness should be taken 
with caution, which is not least due to the challenges the programmes faced during programme 
design and early implementation. Due to the limited comparability of the early implementation data 
across the programmes, any comparison of the programmes’ uptake has to be treated cautiously.  

7.3.1. Key findings 
The effectiveness of the programmes’ launches varied. Apart from Strand 3 of the CERV programme, 
the launches were considered to have been mostly effective following the delayed adoption of the 
programmes’ regulations. For the Erasmus+ programme the commitment matched the earmarked 
funds for the year already in 2021.  The launch of the Creative Europe programme was similarly 
effective with some limitations experienced due to structural programme changes during the early 
implementation. Expectations regarding the European Solidarity Corps programme were relatively 
low due to the COVID-19 pandemic challenges and the low level of previous experience with the 
programme prior to 2021. However, in 2021 approximately 88 % of the earmarked budget, and in 
2022 nearly the entire budget, had been committed297.  

296   Erasmus+  Annual Report 2021, pp.  87-96 
297   Based  on  European  Commission,  internal  report  ‘Citizens,  Equality,  Rights  and  Values  programme  –  2021-2022 

implementation’ 

116 

 
 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

The CERV programme’s launch suffered more significantly from delays, which is not only visible in 
the low budget commitments in 2021 and 2022 compared to the earmarked budgets (2 % and 48 % 
respectively in Strand 3) but also in operational issues of the projects, for example, due to financial 
constraints  of NGOs. In  line  with  partially much higher earmarked budgets in  2022,  increasing 
commitments have been achieved in 2022 compared to 2021.  

Figure 16: Comparison of success rates for selected types of action across the four 
programmes (highest and lowest rates for 2021 and 2022 combined) 

Highest success rate

Lowest success rate

KAA – Volunteering, Traineeships, 
Jobs and Solidarity Projects 
83 %

KAB – networking activities, 
quality and support measures 
79 %

Citizen engagement and 
participation
54 %

Equality
14 %

KA3 – Support for policy reform
80 %

Media Strand
60 %

SPO – KA2 –
Cooperation among 
organisations and 
institutions
22 %

Cross-sectoral strand
23 %

90 %

80 %

70 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

CERV

ESC

Erasmus

Creative Europe

Source: EC, 2023. 

Success rates also vary, not only between the four programmes, but also within the programmes for 
the different types of actions or across strands. High variations of the success rates are visible for 
directly managed Erasmus+ actions, ranging between 22 % and 80 % and for the Creative Europe 
programme, ranging between 23 % and 62 %. Only the European Solidarity Corps programme, at 
EU average, demonstrates a much lower variation between key actions. Apart from applications that 
were  rejected  due  to  quality  reasons, this illustrates significant differences in  the  demand by 
programmes, strands and key actions.  

At  this  stage it  is  not  entirely possible to  assess the extent to  which  the  effects  during early 
implementation are in line with the programmes’ objectives and the likelihood of achieving the goals 
in the remaining programming period. The above detailed uptake provides a tentative indication on 
the potential of  the programmes, however does not mirror actual effects achieved. In  addition, 
stakeholder observations suggest that actions for which the uptake was lower than planned can also 
represent successes. One example are Small-scale VET partnerships in Erasmus+, an action that has 
been introduced more recently. Even for the relatively new European Solidarity Corps programme, 
an increasing interest could be observed. This suggests that the programmes’ objectives can still be 
achieved if they manage to continuously attain the interest of their main target groups, although 
some caution may be raised in view of administrative burdens (see further below). 

117 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

The limited progress of project implementation further limits the potential for presenting individual 
success stories. Positive effects can be observed mostly at a more general level, such as the widening 
of perspectives and the opportunities created for experimental activities (e.g., in the Creative Europe 
programme). In some cases, specific actions have more potential for visibility than others. Examples 
are the European Capitals of Culture and European film industry support under the Creative Europe 
programme which  receive  worldwide  attention. Similarly,  a  relatively  good  uptake of  newly 
introduced measures, such as the capacity building measures for sports and VET in Erasmus+, can 
be considered successful because they have been designed for a yet unmet demand. Despite the 
challenges connected to setting up a new programme, the European Solidarity Corps programme 
setup  presents  success  in  awareness  raising  mechanisms  concerning  volunteering  and  for 
addressing people with special needs, both of which can be linked to the explicit  mentioning of 
‘solidarity’ at programme level rather than within actions.  

The combination of direct and indirect management of the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps 
programmes is  considered to  allow  for  effective  implementation and  to  respond to  external 
challenges. Good communication channels across the programme are particularly important. They 
seem to be  better established for the Erasmus+ programme with its long-standing experience, 
whereas a newer programme like the European Solidarity Corps may need more time to further 
develop sufficient communication channels, especially between the EC and national agencies. The 
CERV programme illustrates the limitations of a purely centrally managed programme. Due to the 
limited capacities and tasks of the contact points their potential support to beneficiaries is not 
always sufficient.  

As outlined above (section 7.1.1)  all  four programmes have been able  to respond to changing 
external conditions. Generally, programme managements effectively amended work programmes, 
clarified or modified relevant rules and shared the information with their counterparts (e.g. national 
agencies).  However, at  least  in  the  Media  and  Cross-Sectoral Strands  of the  Creative  Europe 
programme it was not equally possible to effectively involve Ukrainian partner organisations to the 
same  extent  as  in  the  Culture  Strand. This  may  be  partly grounded in  a  lack  of  visibility  of 
accompanying measures in the programme documents.  

Apart  from  issues  arising  from  changing  external  conditions, the  programmes faced  further 
challenges. Several of  these are linked  to the administrative  burden, information availability at 
national level, the use of information and communication technology (ICT) tools and budget issues 
arising from the recently higher inflation rate. Fewer challenges refer to other communication issues 
or a lack of awareness. The programmes are frequently considered as being highly complex in their 
administration, which is especially burdensome for small organisations or newcomers.  

Since  these  programmes frequently target small organisations, the  observed challenges bear 
considerable risks for the programmes’ results in the medium- to long-term. In particular, a lack of 
functionality of the application and data entry tools was often raised, which has negative effects on 
the mobilisation of applicants. Frequently, small organisations may simply refrain from applying, 
thus limiting the potential variety of resources and creativity available to achieve the best results 
possible.  

7.3.2. Lessons learnt 
Findings across the programmes lead to certain lessons and recommendations, not only for their 
future implementation, but also for future programme development . These cross-cutting lessons 
complement programme specific lessons and recommendations:  

  In many cases (with the exception of the Creative Europe programme) a lower earmarking of 
budgets in the first year of programme implementation seems appropriate, because of the 

118 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

often delayed adoption of regulations. Under the particular conditions in 2021, it prevented 
the  programmes  from  early  implementation  pressure.  However,  an  enhanced  early 
implementation would have been  positive for beneficiaries and their contributions to the 
programmes’ objectives and EC goals. Thus, defining realistic goals may be the better guide 
to the budgetary planning.  
Nevertheless, such delays imply ‘cyclic’ spending, which can also be a problem, because it 
leads to disruptions in funding flows. This suggests that programmes should aim for more 
continuous spending better continuity between programming periods. 

  Differences in the demand by programmes, strands and key actions are significant. This may 
indicate the need for more detailed budget planning, especially within the programmes to 
potentially  achieve  a  more  balanced  uptake  across actions  or  strands throughout the 
programming period. This contributes to a more efficient use of resources and can possibly 
speed up approval processes. In addition, this may help to obtain a similar level of quality of 
approved proposals across programmes, strands and key actions.  

  Different success rates may, however, also mirror certain priorities or may be linked to other 
causes, e.g., among those newly developed actions not yet well known. In these cases budget 
reallocation  considerations should  be  accompanied  by  additional  activities,  e.g.,  better 
information and awareness raising of new actions. A review to determine whether certain 
conditions are counterproductive for achieving a higher number of applications could also be 
considered (e.g., whether the administrative burden is limiting the demand, or the variety, of 
applicants). Assessing these burdens requires detailed and in-depth insights per  type  of 
action. 

  An effective implementation also depends on sufficient budgets for beneficiaries. The recent 
inflation in  2022  and 2023  increasingly threatens this. Applicants are  discouraged if  they 
consider the available budget as being insufficient from the start, which seems to occur more 
frequently in recent years. This calls for budget amendments at project level, which may also 
imply further amendments of the overall programme budgets, or adjustments at the level of 
project and programme outcomes.  

  The example of the relatively new European Solidarity Corps programme illustrates the need 
for further promotion to improve awareness of the programme’s opportunities. The same 
holds for newer types of actions of the other programmes. These delays in the awareness 
should be  considered when introducing new elements, among others, in the programme 
plans. 

  In such cases, awareness raising can be highly complex, particularly if new target groups are 
to  be  addressed that may otherwise lack any  knowledge of,  or  experience in  accessing, 
relevant EU  programmes. Extensive communication channels from  EU  level  via  national 
authorities and umbrella organisations are necessary to attract potential applicants. 

  Programme amendments may  sometimes need  more  attention as  the  example  of  the 
involvement of Ukrainian partner organisations shows. A lack of visibility in changed processes 
and participation possibilities limits programme effectiveness and can create uncertainty thus 
hampering the expected success. 

  A  transfer of experience  between programmes on proven structures and communication 
channels and routines can be beneficial when setting up a new programme. Therefore, it could 
be  useful  to  enhance  cross-fertilisation  of  communication  and  coordination  across 
programmes. 

  Better communication includes sufficient data and information availability not only at EU but 
at Member State level. Programmes with decentralised actions should always be able to access 
data on applications from their country in order to better target their own communication 
efforts.  

119 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

  Last but not least, there is a significant need to reduce the administrative burden, especially in 
view of the capacities typical for small organisations. If this is not generally possible in the 
ongoing programming period, e.g., as the use of ICT tools has been decided, programmes 
could consider this aspect through specific calls. For example, Creative Europe could have 
specific calls targeting only small organisations, requesting in these cases a much lower level 
of documentation. Such calls would reduce the entrance barrier for small organisations and 
especially newcomers. In addition, increasing the support and the support capacity provided 
by  EC  and  national agencies  seems  to  be  necessary for  applicants and  beneficiaries  to 
overcome some of the (currently) unavoidable administrative burden.  

120 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

REFERENCES 

‘A New European Agenda for Culture – SWD(2018) 267 Final | Culture and Creativity’. Accessed 18 
April 2023. https://culture.ec.europa.eu/node/182. 

Fédération 

AEF Europe. ‘État des lieux des mobilité hybrides dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur 
en 
https://www.erasmusplus-
fr.be/index.php?eID=tx_securedownloads&p=71&u=0&g=0&t=1690992177&hash=5aa2ddad06c1
b9f1a80b2c9b431517cb632f0c0a&file=fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/AEF/Publications/Publi
cations_2021-2027/Rapport_final_-_AEF_Europe_-_Mobilit%C3%A9_hybride_DEF_V2.pdf. 

Wallonie-Bruxelles’, 

2023. 

Amann, Sylvia. ‘From Reaction to Action –  Collaborative Transformation  Policies in  Culture and 
Beyond 
2023. 
Future-Oriented 
http://creativeflip.creativehubs.net/wp-
content/uploads/2023/01/CREATIVE_FLIP_Transformation_Policies_FINAL.pdf. 

Action’, 

Making 

Policy 

and 

for 

‘Better 
11/swd2021_305_en.pdf. 

Regulation  Guidelines’, 

2021. 

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-

Bianchi,  Guia,  Ulrike  Pisiotis,  and  Giraldez,  Marcelino  Cabrera.  ‘GreenComp  The  European 
Sustainability Competence Framework’, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2760/13286. 

C(2021)  2583  final.  ‘Commission implementing decision of  19.4.2021  on  the  Financing of  the 
Citizens,  Equality,  Rights and  Values  Programme and  the  Adoption of  the  Multiannual  Work 
Programme 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-
04/1_en_annexe_acte_autonome_part1_v8.pdf. 

2021-2022’, 

2021. 

for 

C(2022) 8588 final. ‘Annex to the Commission implementing decision of 1.12.2022 on the Financing 
of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme and the Adoption of the Multiannual Work 
Programme 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-
12/c_2022_8588_1_en_annexe_acte_autonome_cp_part1_v2.pdf. 

2023-2024’, 

2022. 

for 

———. ‘Commission implementing decision of 1.12.2022 on the Financing of the Citizens, Equality, 
Rights and Values Programme and the Adoption of the Multiannual Work Programme for 2023-
2024’, 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-
03/C_2022_8588_1_EN_ACT_part1_v2.pdf. 

2022. 

COM(2020)  152  final.  Communication from the  Commission to  the  European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Union 
of  Equality:  Gender  Equality  Strategy  2020-2025 
(2020).  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:152:FIN. 

565 

COM(2020) 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-
09/a_union_of_equality_eu_action_plan_against_racism_2020_-2025_en.pdf. 

Anti-Racism 

Action 

final. 

Plan 

‘EU 

2020-2025’, 

2020. 

COM(2020) 620  final. ‘EU Roma Strategic Framework for Equality, Inclusion and Participation for 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-
2020 
01/eu_roma_strategic_framework_for_equality_inclusion_and_participation_for_2020_-
_2030_0.pdf. 

2030’, 

2020. 

– 

COM(2020) 
2020-2025’, 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-11/lgbtiq_strategy_2020-2025_en.pdf. 

Strategy 

Equality 

‘LGBTIQ 

final. 

698 

2020. 

COM(2021)  101  final.  ‘Communication from the  Commission to the  European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Union 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

of  Equality:  Strategy for  the  Rights  of  Persons with  Disabilities  2021-2030’,  2021.  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2021%3A101%3AFIN. 

COM(2021)  118  final.  ‘Communication from the  Commission to the  European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 2030 
Digital  Compass:  The  European  Way  for  the  Digital  Decade’.  Accessed  1  June  2023. 
https://eufordigital.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2030-Digital-Compass-the-European-way-
for-the-Digital-Decade.pdf. 

COM(2021) 206 final. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying 
down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain 
union 
legislative 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206. 

(2021). 

acts 

COM(2021)  572  final.  Communication from the  Commission to  the  European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. New EU 
Forest 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0572. 

Strategy 

(2021). 

2030 

for 

COM(2021)  573  final.  ‘Communication from the  Commission to the  European Parliament, the 
council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. New 
European Bauhaus Beautiful, Sustainable, Together’. Accessed 1 June 2023. https://new-european-
bauhaus.europa.eu/system/files/2021-09/COM%282021%29_573_EN_ACT.pdf. 

COM(2022) 289 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council. 2022  Strategic Foresight Report Twinning the green and  digital transitions in the new 
geopolitical 
(2022). 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0289&qid=1658824364827. 

context 

COM(2022)  457  final.  Proposal for a  Regulation of the European Parliament and of  the Council 
establishing a common framework for media services in  the  internal market (European Media 
Freedom  Act)  and  amending  Directive  2010/13/EU  (2022).  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0457. 

COM(2020)  274  final.  ‘Communication from the  Commission to the  European Parliament, the 
Council,  the  European Economic  and  Social  Committee and  the  Committee of  the  Regions. 
European Skills Agenda for  Sustainable Competitiveness, Social Fairness and  Resilience’, 2020. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0274. 

Council of Europe. ‘Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the 
Member States, Meeting within the Council – Fostering Engagement among Young People as Actors 
of  Change  in  Order  to  Protect  the  Environment, 
(2022/C  159/07)’,  2022.  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022XG0412(01)&from=FR. 

Council  of  the  European Union.  ‘Resolution of  the  Council  of  the  European Union  and  the 
Representatives  of the  Governments of  the  Member  States Meeting  within  the  Council  on  a 
Framework for European Cooperation in the Youth Field: The European Union Youth Strategy 2019-
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
2027, 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2018.456.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2018%3A456
%3AFULL. 

456/01)’, 

(2018/C 

2018. 

Council Resolution on the EU Work Plan for Culture 2023–2026 2022/C 466/01 (2022). https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022G1207%2801%29&qid=1671635488811. 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Creative Europe. ‘The Situation of Artists and the Cultural Recovery in the EU’. Accessed 18 April 
2023.  https://creative-europe.lu/publication/the-situation-of-artists-and-the-cultural-recovery-in-
the-eu/. 

EAC. 

DG 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/ps_db2023_esc_h2.pdf. 

‘Programme  Statements  – 

European  Solidarity  Corps 

(ESC)’, 

2023. 

DG  EAC,  and  DG  Connect. 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/ps_db2023_creative_europe_h2.pdf. 

‘Programme  Statements  –  Creative  Europe’,  2023. 

EAC, 

DG 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/ps_db2023_erasmus_h2.pdf. 

‘Programme 

Statements 

EMPL. 

and 

DG 

– 

Erasmus+’, 

2023. 

JUST. 

‘Annual  Activity  Report  2021 

DG 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/annual-activity-report-2021-justice-and-
consumers_en.pdf. 

and  Consumers’,  2022. 

Justice 

– 

DG  JUST, DG  EMPL,  and DG  SG. ‘Programme Statements – Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values 
Programme’, 2023. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/ps_db2023_cerv_h2.pdf. 

Directorate-General for Communication (European Commission), and Kantar. ‘European Citizenship: 
Report’. 
2023. 
Office 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2775/757642. 

Publications 

European 

Union, 

the 

LU: 

of 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth. ‘Erasmus+ Annual Report 2021’. LU: Publications Office of 
the European Union, 2022. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/635340. 

———. ‘Erasmus+ Annual Report 2021: Statistical Annex’. LU: Publications Office of the European 
Union, 2022. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/63555. 

———.  ‘European Framework for Action  on  Cultural  Heritage’. LU:  Publications Office  of  the 
European Union, 2019. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/949707. 

———. ‘Stormy Times: Nature and Humans : Cultural Courage for Change : 11 Messages for Action 
for and from Europe : Executive Summary’. LU: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/424. 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth. ‘European Solidarity Corps: Annual Report 2018 2019’. LU: 
Publications Office of the European Union, 2020. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/331137. 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Thomas Kruger, Alexandre Mohamedaly, Veronika Muller, 
Adriana Rodriguez, Toms Feifs, and Bert-Jan Buiskool. ‘Greening the Creative Europe Programme: 
2023. 
LU: 
Final 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/625636. 

Publications  Office 

European  Union, 

Report’. 

the 

of 

‘CERV 

EACEA. 
2021-2027 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-
02/CERV%20Contact%20Points%2015%20Feb%202023b_0.pdf. 

Programme  –  Contact  Points’, 

15 

February  2023. 

European Commission. ‘2021 Annual Work Programme – “Erasmus+”: The Union Programme for 
Education, 
https://erasmus-
plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-09/2021-erasmus-annual-work-programme-c2021-
1939_1.pdf. 

Training, 

Sport’, 

Youth 

2021. 

and 

———. ‘2021 Annual Work Programme for the Implementation of the European Solidarity Corps 
Programme’, 2021. https://youth.europa.eu/sites/default/files/c20212390_-_13_04_2021.pdf. 

———.  ‘2022  Annual  Work  Programme –  “Erasmus+”: The  Union  Programme for  Education, 
https://erasmus-
Training, 

Erasmus+’, 

Youth 

Sport 

2021. 

and 

| 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-11/erasmus-annual-work-programme-c2021-
7862_en.pdf. 

———. ‘2023 Annual Work Programme for the Implementation of Pilot Projects and Preparatory 
Actions 
2023. 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-03/2023-awp-pilot-projects-preparatory-
actions-C%282023%291704-200323.pdf. 

Education, 

Culture’, 

Youth, 

Sport 

Area 

and 

the 

of 

in 

———. ‘2023 Annual Work Programme for the Implementation of the European Solidarity Corps 
Programme’, 
2022. 
https://youth.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023_annual_work_programme.pdf. 

———. ‘Amendment of 2022 Annual Work Programme for the Implementation of the European 
Solidarity 
2022. 
https://youth.europa.eu/sites/default/files/c20221311_of_08_03_2022.pdf. 

Programme’, 

Corps 

———. ‘Amendment of the 2023 Annual Work Programme “Erasmus+”: The Union Programme for 
Education, 
https://erasmus-
plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-03/erasmusplus-awp-review-mar23_en.pdf. 

Training, 

Sport’, 

Youth 

2023. 

and 

———.  ‘Commission Communication: The SME  Strategy for a  Sustainable and Digital  Europe, 
COM(2020) 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1593507563224&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0103. 

Final’, 

2020. 

103 

———. ‘Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 of 27 April 2022  on Protecting Journalists 
and Human Rights Defenders Who Engage in Public Participation from Manifestly Unfounded or 
Abusive Court Proceedings (“Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation”)’. OJ L. Vol. 138, 27 April 
2022. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2022/758/oj/eng. 

———. Commission staff working document Accompanying the document Communication from 
the  Commission to the  European Parliament, the Council,  the  European Economic and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions Digital Education action Plan 2021-2027 Resetting 
(2020).  https://eur-
education  and  training  for  the  digital  age,  SWD(2020)  209 
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020SC0209&qid=1647943853396. 

final 

———.  Communication from  the  Commission to  the  European Parliament, the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A New  European 
Innovation  Agenda,  COM(2022) 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0332&from=EN. 

(2022). 

final 

332 

———.  ‘Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the COUNCIL, THE 
European Economic and Social  Committee and the Committee of  the Regions on  a  European 
Strategy 
2022. 
https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-01/communication-european-strategy-for-
universities.pdf. 

Universities, 

COM(2022) 

Final’, 

for 

16 

———.  Communication from  the  Commission to  the  European Parliament, the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on achieving the 
European 
2025 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0625. 

Education 

(2020). 

Area 

by 

———.  Communication from  the  Commission to  the  European Parliament, the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions On the European 
(2020).  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
democracy  action  plan,  COM(2020)  790 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A790%3AFIN&qid=1607079662423. 

final 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

———. ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, 
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The 
European  Green  Deal’.  Text.  Brussels,  12  November  2019.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0640. 

———. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, 
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A 
New  Industrial Strategy for Europe, COM(2020)  102  final  (2020).  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1593086905382&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0102. 

———. 
partnerships.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-01/mip-2021-c2021-6189-erasmus-annex_en.pdf. 

Indicative  Programme’,  2021.  https://international-

‘ERASMUS+  Multiannual 

‘EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030  Bringing  Nature  Back  into  Our  Lives’,  2021. 

———. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/31e4609f-b91e-11eb-8aca-
01aa75ed71a1. 

———.  ‘EU  Citizenship Report 2020.  Empowering Citizens and  Protecting Their  Rights’, 2020. 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-12/eu_citizenship_report_2020_-
_empowering_citizens_and_protecting_their_rights_en.pdf. 

———. 
Aid’, 
https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/thematic/consensus_en.pdf. 

Humanitarian 

Consensus 

‘European 

on 

2017. 

———. 
https://youth.europa.eu/sites/default/files/european_solidarity_corps_guide_2021_v2.pdf. 

‘European  Solidarity  Corps  Guide  –  2021  Call,  Version  2(2021)’,  2021. 

———.  ‘Implementation Guidelines –  Erasmus+ and  European Solidarity Corps Inclusion  and 
Diversity 
https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-
09/implementation-inclusion-diversity_apr21_en.pdf. 

Strategy’, 

2021. 

———. ‘New European Bauhaus Progress Report, COM(2023) 24 Final’, 2023. https://new-european-
bauhaus.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/CP-003%20-
%20Report%20from%20the%20Commission%20%28EN%29%20Part%201.pdf. 

———. ‘Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard. Thematic Analysis – Culture and Creative Industries’. 
Brussels, 
https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/recovery-and-resilience-
scoreboard/assets/thematic_analysis/scoreboard_thematic_analysis_culture.pdf. 

2022. 

———. ‘Reflection Paper. Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030.’ Luxembourg: European Union, 
2019. 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-02/rp_sustainable_europe_30-
01_en_web.pdf. 

———.  ‘Shaping  Europe’s  Digital  Future’. Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2020. 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-02/communication-shaping-europes-digital-
future-feb2020_en_4.pdf. 

———. 
plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-04/ErasmusplusProgramme-Guide2023-v3_en.pdf. 

Erasmus+  Programme  Guide 

(Version  3)’, 

https://erasmus-

2023. 

‘The 

Plan’, 
of 
———. 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/european-pillar-social-rights-action-plan_en. 

European 

Action 

Rights 

Social 

Pillar 

‘The 

2021. 

———.  ‘Towards an  EU  free  from antisemitism. EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and 
Fostering  Jewish  Life  (2021  –  2030)’,  2021.  https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-
07/cafjl_antisemitism-strategy-doc-en.pdf. 

European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade 2023/C 23/01, OJ C § 
(2023). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOC_2023_023_R_0001. 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

European Education and Culture and Executive Agency (EACEA). ‘Citizens, Equality, Rights and 
Values Programme (CERV) Call for Proposals Citizens’ Engagement and Participation (CERV-2022-
CITIZENS-CIV)’, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-
2027/cerv/wp-call/2022/call-fiche_cerv-2022-citizens-civ_en.pdf. 

2021. 

———. ‘Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (CERV) Call for Proposals. Town Twinning 
https://www.eacea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-
(CERV-2023-CITIZENS-TOWN-TT)’, 
03/Call%20Document%20CERV-2023-CITIZENS-TOWN-TT.pdf. 

2022. 

European  Parliament.  ‘EU  Strategic  Autonomy 2013-2023:  From  Concept  to  Capacity’,  2022. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2022)733589. 

Gassmann, Philip, and Marie Gouttefarde. ‘Greening the European Audiovisual Industry. The Best 
Strategies and Their Costs’, 11 June 2021. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/greening-
european-audiovisual-industry. 

IDEA  Consult, Martina Goethe-Institut,  Sylvia Amann, and Joost Heinsius. ‘Cultural and Creative 
Sectors in Post-COVID-19 Europe. Crisis Effects and Policy Recommendations’. Research for CULT 
Committee. European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies,. Brussels, 
2021. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/652242/IPOL_STU(2021)652242_EN.
pdf. 

‘In the Face of War, a Year of Action in Ukraine – UNESCO Digital Library’. Accessed 18 April 2023. 
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384454?posInSet=1&queryId=ab48a271-17be-
44cb-b6d4-fd88e6042248. 

JOIN(2021) 30 final. Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank 
The 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021JC0030. 

Gateway 

(2021). 

Global 

Joint communication to the European Parliament and the Council.  Towards an EU  strategy for 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
international 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=JOIN%3A2016%3A29%3AFIN. 

relations 

cultural 

(2016). 

Joint Research Centre (European Commission), Stefan Muench, Eckhard Stoermer, Kathrine Jensen, 
Tommi Asikainen, Maurizio Salvi, and  Fabiana Scapolo. ‘Towards a  Green  &  Digital  Future: Key 
Requirements for Successful Twin Transitions in the European Union’. LU: Publications Office of the 
European Union, 2022. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/977331. 

Jugend für Europa. ‘Das Europäische Solidaritätskorps. The power of together. Infobroschüre für 
Fachkräfte  der 
Jugendarbeit  und  aus  dem  Engagementbereich.  2021-2027’,  2023. 
https://www.jugendfuereuropa.de/ueber-jfe/publikationen/das-europaeische-solidaritaetskorps-
the-power-of-together.4269/. 

Lecerf, Marie. ‘At a Glance – The Impact of the Coronavirus Crisis on Roma and Travellers’. European 
Parliament 
2021. 
Parliamentary 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/690524/EPRS_ATA(2021)690524_E
N.pdf. 

European 

Research 

Service, 

– 

Leyen, Ursula von der. ‘Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024. A Union 
That 
2019. 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-04/political-guidelines-next-
commission_en_0.pdf. 

Europe’, 

Agenda 

Strives 

More. 

My 

for 

for 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Proposal for a Council recommendation on learning for environmental sustainability, COM(2022) 11 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
final 
(2022). 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0011&qid=1647944342099. 

Regulation (EU)  2021/523  of  the  European Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24 March  2021 
establishing the InvestEU Programme and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017, 107 OJ L § (2021). 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/523/oj/eng. 

Regulation  (EU)  2021/692  of  the  European Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28 April  2021 
establishing the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) 
No 1381/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  Council  Regulation  (EU) 
No 390/2014, 156 OJ L § (2021). http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/692/oj/eng. 

Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 Establishing 
Erasmus+: The Union Programme for Education and Training, Youth and Sport and Repealing 
Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013. Accessed 24 April 2023. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/817/. 

Regulation  (EU)  2021/888  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  May  2021 
establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 
(2021). 
and 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/888/oj/eng. 

relevance),  202  OJ 

(Text  with 

(EU)  No 

375/2014 

EEA 

L 

§ 

Regulation  (EU) 2021/818  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 May  2021 
establishing  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  (2021  to 2027)  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1295/2013 
(2021). 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/818/oj/eng. 

relevance), 

(Text 

with 

EEA 

189 

OJ 

L 

§ 

Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States 
meeting within  the  Council  on a  framework for European cooperation in the  youth field:  The 
European  Union  Youth  Strategy  2019-2027,  (2018/C  456/01),  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2018.456.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2018%3A456
%3AFULL. 

SALTO Participation  &  Information Resource Center,  ed.  ‘SALTO-YOUTH –  Youth Participation 
Strategy’. 
https://www.salto-youth.net/downloads/4-17-
4089/20200929_ParticipationStrategy_Online_Final_02.pdf. 

26  May 

Accessed 

2023. 

Service Civique. ‘Fiche d’aide à La Lecture Du Guide Du Corps Européen de Solidarité 2023 – ESC30’, 
2023. 
https://www.corpseuropeensolidarite.fr/sites/default/files/2023-
01/230110_ESC%2030%20PDS%202023%20VF.pdf. 

The Member States. ‘Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’. European Parliament 
and  Council  of  the  European  Union,  26  October  2012.  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT. 

———. ‘Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’, 7 June 2016. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12016E/TXT&from=EN. 

Union Work Plan  for Sport (1  January 2021-30  June  2024),  (2020/C  419/01)  (2020).  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42020Y1204(01). 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

I Annex I – Methodological details 

AI.1 Relevance assessment: EU and national challenges  

The global economy finds itself at a crucial turning point. Together with the present climate crisis, 
the consequences of the global pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine have brought up 
old  patterns and changed the world  in  the last  three years. In  addition, one  can  observe the 
emergence  of  a  ‘new  global  map  of  political  and  economic  relationships’298 –  one  in  which 
geopolitics is  increasingly influencing the  global  economy This has  important implications for 
Europe, which will define the years ahead. 

The five overarching challenges can be detailed as follows: 

  The EU digital transformation  corresponding to technological progress that is needed to 
safeguard Europe’s productivity and competitiveness in the context of demographic 
change. Related specific challenges are: 

  accessibility (broadband networks, internet platforms) 
  leaving behind places and vulnerable groups  
  digital transformation of jobs, education and training, new need for skills 
  create fair conditions and frameworks for Platform economy, social media 
  fight cybercrime  
  transformation and new opportunities (risks) for culture, media, conservation, 
heritage 
  AI and Metaverse as gamechangers (education, work, services etc.) 

  The  green  transition  challenge  responding to  the  threats of  climate  change  and 

biodiversity loss. Related challenges are:  

  need to reduce CO2 emissions, increase energy efficiency, promote renewable 
energy 
  develop sustainable forms of living, working, transport, travelling, settlements, 
production etc.  
  enhance environmental protection and climate adaptation and environmental 
education 

  The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic  and the post-pandemic recovery bring 
more challenges than merely the need for an economic recovery package and besides 
going digital and green. The consequences also accentuate the need to ‘Make it Strong’, 
targeting the young people as well as the culture and arts. National needs deriving from 
this challenge have been identified in the Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRP). Specific 
challenges are:  

loss  of 

jobs  especially 

  interrupted  economic  activity, 
hospitality/tourism/transport sectors 
  interrupted supply chains, shortage of resources, goods etc.  
  troubled health systems, access to health services, lack of qualified workers in 
health and care 
  negative psychological effects of pandemic measures and lockdowns on vul-
nerable groups such as elderly, mentally ill, children and the youth, migrants etc. 

in  cultural  and 

298   Christine  Lagarde,  President  of  the  ECB,  Keynote  speech  at  the  Peterson  Institute  for  International  Economics, 

Washington,  D.C.,  22 April 2022. 

A-1 

 
 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

  The EU has responded strongly to the unprovoked Russian aggression on Ukraine. Since 
its start in February 2022, the EU, its Member States and its financial institutions have 
mobilised around €69 billion to support Ukraine’s overall economic, social and financial 
resilience. 299 Specific challenges are/were: 

  displacement of people and refugee inflows in EU Member States 
  need  for  solidarity with  Ukraine, increased  involvement of  Ukraine  into  EU 
Programmes, Ukraine as an EU candidate country, humanitarian aid and relief 
action in Ukraine  
  energy supply at risk, high energy prices, more energy poverty 
  interrupted food supply, food supply chains (less important for EU countries) 

  The need to achieve EU strategic  autonomy  in strategically important policy areas has 
become apparent. This is not only about military and economic interests, but also about 
values. The  EU  is  not  only perceived  as  an  economic but  also  a  normative power 
recognised for its core values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Specific 
challenges are: 

  need to support and ‘export’ EU values, democracy, citizen engagement, humans 
rights, rule of law  
  dealing with disinformation  
  IT  (critical)  supply chains and  technology autonomy, support of technology-
based start-ups, EU-based technology companies  
  European public goods 

These challenges can be transposed into thematical areas as inspired by the JRC report ‘Towards a 
green and digital future’ 300. 

Table A.1: Thematic areas of EU and national challenges 

Thematic areas 

The need to… 

Social 

Technological 

… ensure just transitions 
… increase societal commitment to the need to change 
… ensure privacy and ethical use of technology 

… implement innovation infrastructure 
… build a coherent and reliable technology ecosystem 
… ensure data availability and security 

Environmental 

… avoid rebound effects 
… reduce the environmental footprint of production and new technologies 

Economic 

… create enabling markets 
… ensure diversity of market players 
… equip labour with relevant skills 

Political 

… implement adequate (democratic) standards 
… ensure policy coherence 
… channel investments 
Source: own representation based on JRC (2022). 

299   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/FS_22_3862  
300   Towards  a Green & Digital Future: Key Requirements for Successful  Twin Transitions  in the European  Union 

A-2 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

AI.2 Coherence assessment: Priorities and related objectives and 
policies 

The  following  table  provides an overview  of  the  pre-identified potentially relevant related EU 
policies. For some policies the potential relevance for one or more of the four programmes was 
indicatively assumed prior to the analysis (bold in the table). 

Table A.2: European Commission Priorities 2019-2024, Recovery Plan for Europe and 
related EU policies 

Commission 
Priorities 

Related EU policies 

A European Green 
Deal 

A Europe fit for the 
digital age 

An economy that 
works for the people 

‘Fit for 55’ – delivering the EU’s 2030 climate target on the way to climate 
neutrality  
Revision of the Regulation on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and 
removals from land use, land use change and forestry 
Amendment to the Renewable Energy Directive to implement the ambition of the 
new 2030 climate target 
Proposal for a Directive on energy efficiency (recast) 
FuelEU Maritime – green European maritime space 
ReFuelEU Aviation – sustainable aviation fuels 
Revision of the EU Emission Trading System 
Social Climate Fund  
EU Biodiversity Strategy 
New European Bauhaus  

Space 
Security and Defence 
Trade 
Education and digital skills 
European Research Area 
Reform support for the digital transition 
Recovery Plan for Europe 
Cohesion Policy and the Digital Age 
European Digital Rights and Principles 
International Relations 

Recovery Plan for Europe (2020) (NextGenerationEU) 
Updated (2021) EU industrial strategy (transition pathways) 
SME Strategy 
Building capacity and supporting SMEs in their transition to sustainability 
Programme for ‘digital volunteers’ to allow young skilled people and experienced 
seniors to share their digital competence with traditional businesses 
Digital Innovation Hubs 
Reducing regulatory burden and improving market access 
SME internationalisation beyond the EU 
Standardisation and SMEs 
European Entrepreneurial Regions 
Innovation and Research  

A-3 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Commission 
Priorities 

Related EU policies 

European Skills Agenda, European Year of Skills 2023  
EIT Culture & Creativity  
European Pillar of Social Rights  
Working conditions of platform workers 
Capital Markets Union 

EU’s Development Policy 
European Neighbourhood 
EU enlargement 
Africa-EU partnership  
European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO)  
Security and Defence 
Trade Policy 
International cooperation 

A stronger Europe in 
the world 

Promoting our 
European way of life 

New push for 
European democracy 

Education and training  
Judicial cooperation 
Rule of law 
Fighting child sexual abuse 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 

EU Rural Action Plan and Long-term vision for rural areas 
Combatting discrimination 
Rule of Law  
Countering disinformation 

Recovery Plan for 
Europe 2020 

All EU policies 

Source: own representation based on The European Commission’s priorities 2019-2024. 

A-4 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

AI.3 Effectiveness assessment: Questions – data – methods 

Below table summarises the guidance for a consistent effectiveness assessment approach across the 
four programmes. When adequate, details in the matrix are adjusted to programme specific aspects 
and characteristics. 

Table A.3: Evaluation matrix for effectiveness 

Evaluation questions 

Indicator/required information 

Methods  

How effective has been the 
launch of each programme 
and its uptake i.e. the reaction 
by applicants? 

How effective are the direct 
and indirect management in 
supporting the programme’s 
objectives? 

To what extent have the 
objectives of the programme 
been addressed during the 
early implementation? How 
likely is it that practices will 
contribute to the attainment 
of programme goals in the 
next years? 

Are the effects produced 
during the early 
implementation in line with 
the programme’s objectives? 

•  No. of implementation activities 

•  Quantitative analysis of 

(calls, procurement processes, prizes, 
etc.) 

implementation activities per 
programme  

•  No. & type of applicants or 

response/reaction) 

•  Has the implementation of each 

programme and its activities been 
successful according to programme 
objectives and according to initial 
expectations? 

•  Qualitative analysis of the 
activities, as far as possible 
(samples of calls, projects, 
practices)  

•  Interviews to programme 
managers (EU, selected 
countries) 

•  Opinion about the effectiveness (e.g. 
adequateness, lack of errors) at the 
level of programme managers 

•  Interviews to programme 
managers (EU, selected 
countries) 

Per objective in each programme:  
•  No. of implementation activities 

(calls, procurements etc.)  

•  No. of applications or responses to 
each implementation activity  

•  No. of selected projects (participants 
etc.)  to each implementation activity  

•  Review of a sample of 

implementation activities and 
selected projects (participants etc.) 
per objective in each programme 
•  Looking for good practice examples 
to show a meaningful contribution to 
programme objectives 

•  Quantitative analysis of 

implementation activities per 
objective in each programme 

•  Interviews to programme 
managers (EU, selected 
countries) & stakeholders 
•  Assessment of contribution to 
programme goals in the future 

•  Sampling of projects 
•  Qualitative analysis of the 
activities, as far as possible 
(samples of calls, projects, 
practices)  

•  Interviews to programme 
managers (EU, selected 
countries) & stakeholders 

Has the programme been able 
to respond to needs arising 
from the change of external 
conditions? 

What have been/are specific 
challenges in the early 
implementation of each 
programme? 

•  Identifying changes in programme 
design or early implementation due 
to changes in the context 

•  Identifying developments of the 

annual work programmes 

•  Review of annual work 

programmes  

•  Interviews to programme 
managers (EU, selected 
countries) & stakeholders 

•  Challenges identified by programme 

managers & in the analysis of 
previous questions 

•  Interviews to programme 
managers (EU, selected 
countries) & stakeholders 

What are success stories of the 
early implementation of each 
programme? 

•  Success stories identified by 

programme managers & in the 
analysis of the previous questions 

•  Interviews to programme 
managers (EU, selected 
countries) & stakeholders 

Source: own representation.  

A-5 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

AI.4 Selection of practices 

AI.4.1 Erasmus+ 

Complementing the  overall  selection  criteria,  for  the  selection  of  practices  of  the  Erasmus+ 
programme the following eight criteria have been considered: 

  they consider different types of participation, i.e. individual and collective; 
  this implies also a consideration of different target groups;  
  different levels of education should be considered; 
  the level of previous experience varies, i.e. firmly established and new on practices;  
  some ore more popular and others are less known (designed for harder to reach target 

groups); 

  they address wider and more specific and topical policy areas/aims; 
  coverage of different Key actions of the Erasmus+ programme; 
  inclusion of insights from previous evaluations. 

Table A.4: Erasmus+ programme practice selection 

Practices by strand 

Links to 
challenges 
and policies 

Level of 
education/ 
Target group 

KEY ACTION 1: Learning mobility of individuals 

Indicative number 
of projects in the 
sample MS based 
on Erasmus+ 
Result Platform 301  

Justification 

Mobility of higher 
education students 
and staff 

Twin 
transition/ 
Ukraine war/ 
EU Strategic 
autonomy/ 
An economy 
that works for 
people 

The longest standing and 
by far the most popular of 
Erasmus+ practices 

Higher  

849 

KEY ACTION 2: Cooperation among organisations and institutions 

Small-scale 
Partnerships in 
vocational 
education and 
training 

Twin 
transition/ 
Ukraine war/ 
An economy 
that works for 
people/ 
Promoting 
our European 
way of life 
(Inclusion) 

Vocational 
education 
and training 
(VET) 

39 

Programming period 
aimed at widening access 
to the programme to 
small-scale actors and 
individuals who are hard 
to reach 
Lower grant amounts, 
shorter duration and 
simpler administrative 
requirements 

301   Funding&Tender  database 

A-6 

 
 
 
                                                             
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

AI.4.2 Creative Europe 

Complementing the overall selection criteria, the selection of  practices of  the Creative Europe 
programme has been guided by five criteria: 

  a combination of big and small calls/number of selected projects; 
  combining new and well-established calls; 
  coverage of all three strands; 
  including different target groups, i.e. cultural organisations, key stakeholders, networks, 

creative industries; 

  practices  have  a  potential  related  to  future  topics  (innovation,  quality  media, 

democracy, sustainability, …). 

Deviating from the rule of two practices per programme, three practices were selected for Creative 
Europe to allow coverage of all programme strands.  

Table A.5: Creative Europe programme practice selection 

Practices by strand 

Links to challenges and 
policies 

Related potential 
good practices 
projects 

Justification 

Cultural strand 

European 
Cooperation Projects 
Medium Scale 

Transversal to all 
cultural related 
challenges and policies 

Total of 44 projects 
funded – still to be 
screened 

New dimension of cooperation 
projects which gained 
considerable interest from 
applicants and possibility for a 
wider understanding of topical 
uptakes 

Media strand 

Innovative tools and 
business models 

Creative Industries 
Development Etc. 

Total of 31 projects 
funded – still to be 
screened 

What are innovation related 
topics in Creative Europe from 
the point of view of the 
applicants. 

Cross-sectoral strand 

Rapid Response 
Mechanism 

Russian aggression 
International solidarity 
and partnerships 
Etc. 

Total of 2 projects 
funded – still to be 
screened 

Update in the programme to 
react on changing frameworks 
and to understand better how 
flexible the programme can be 

AI.4.3 European Solidarity Corps 

Complementing the overall selection criteria, the selection of practices of the European Solidarity 
Corps (ESC) programme has been guided by four criteria: 

  different size of practice in terms of number of projects in the sample MS (based on 

information of the ESC platform); 

  roughly proportional share in the number of projects between the sample MS; 
  combination of new and well-established topics; 
  policy relevant link to EU-level trends and priorities. 

A-7 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table A.6: ESC programme practice selection 

Practices 

Community 
development 

Links to challenges 
and policies 

Primary mission of 
the ESC; ESF+; 
NextGenerationEU 

Digital skills and 
competences 

Digital transition 

AI.4.4 CERV Strand 3 

Indicative number of 
projects in the 
sample MS as per the 
ESC platform 

Justification 

195 

40 

The highest number of projects 
are under this topic and have 
been since 2018  

New topic which is closely linked 
to the current European 
Commission priorities 

Complementing the overall selection criteria, for the selection of practices of the CERV programme 
three criteria have been considered: 

  balance  of  funding earmarked in the  first two  years of  the  programme (to ensure 

sufficient information/number of projects upon which to draw an analysis); 

  include different target groups; 
  proposed practices have a potential related to current socioeconomic and geopolitical 

trends. 

Deviating  from  the  rule  of  two  practices  per  programme, three  practices  were  selected  to 
adequately cover the needs of the CULT Committee. 

Table A.7: Practice selection of Strand 3 of the CERV programme  

Practices  

Links to challenges 
and policies 

% of funding earmarked 
to this topic of the total 
Strand budget in the 
2021-22 WP 

Justification 

Citizens participation 

European 
remembrance 

Town-Twinning and 
Networks of Towns 

NextGenerationEU  
Disinformation 
Cross-cutting 
issue/policy 

Russian aggression 
on Ukraine  
EU Strategic 
autonomy 
Disinformation 

EU Charter  
Cross-cutting 
issue/policy 

37 % 

22 % 

34 % 

Balance of funding  
Wide relevance of the calls  
Fundamental importance of 
citizens participation to the 
EU 

Emerging trends and 
geopolitical events affecting 
the new programme period 

Balance of funding  
Wide relevance of the calls  

A-8 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

AI.5 Selection of Member States  

AI.5.1 Erasmus+ 

The selection of Member States (MS) takes into account the provisional uptake of the budget for 
each MS (based on 2021 implementation reports) and incorporates considerations on their size and 
geography, including the division between EU-14 and EU-13. In addition, these MS use different 
management structures to deliver Erasmus+. Apart from the size of countries, the following table 
provides an overview of the selection criteria per MS. 

Table A.8: MS selection criteria for the Erasmus+ programme 

Member State  

Geographic Coverage/ 
EU-14/EU-13 

Early uptake of budget 
based on 2021 
implementation report 

Lithuania  North East-EU-13 

Moderate uptake 

Spain  South-EU-14 

High uptake 

Belgium  West-EU-14 

High uptake 

Managing structures 

Two authorities by target 
groups 

Two authorities by target 
groups 

Regional and thematic 
division of authorities 

Bulgaria  South East-EU-13 

Moderate uptake 

One authority 

Source: own presentation based on Erasmus+ annual report 2021 and Erasmus+ National Agencies 

AI.5.2 Creative Europe 

The selection of MS for a further analysis related to national policies and priorities in view of Creative 
Europe  programme implementation takes into  account  different  degrees of  advancement of 
cultural policies, which is mirrored in the variety of recovery instruments for the sector, and should 
differentiate by degree of urbanisation due to different abilities of cultural institutions to participate 
in  the  Creative  Europe programme.  Together with  the  joint  criterion for  all  programmes the 
following criteria have been applied: 

  geographic coverage of different parts of the EU territory, 
  different range of recovery instruments available for the Cultural and Creative Sectors 

in EU MS, 

  cultural participation in EU MS by degree of urbanisation. 

Alternative options for MS  selection referring for example  to  cultural employment levels were 
excluded  as  being  less  specific  for  the  Creative  Europe  implementation.  EUROSTAT  data 
demonstrates a significant difference of cultural participation from urban and rural territories while 
e.g.  cultural employment is rather an expression of cultural policies and industries priorities in 
different MS. A further indicator for specific frameworks in rural areas in view of the Creative Europe 
programme is the fact that most of the current (rural, regional) European Capitals of Culture provide 
specific training for local cultural organisation. Many of those express difficulties to access this EU 
funding programme. Furthermore, building a selection of different MS on the cultural policy models 
applied would be  difficult to argue as the policy frameworks and related practices rely often on 
historic  (decentralised/centralised)  backgrounds  not  linked  to  EU  governance.  The  proposed 
reference in view of the use of the cultural dimension of the NextGenerationEU framework also allows 

A-9 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

to further reflect on the specific crisis-related response capacities of cultural policies. This links directly 
to the evaluation area ‘adaptability to changing frameworks’ of the Creative Europe programme. 

Table A.9: MS selection criteria for the Creative Europe programme 

Member State 

Geographic Coverage/ 
EU-14/EU-13 

Recovery Instrument 
with Culture 

Cultural Participation in Urban/ 
Non-Urban areas 

Sweden   North-EU-14 

Croatia  South-EU-13 

Austria  West-EU-14 

Estonia  North East-EU-13 

NO 

YES 

YES 

NO 

Highest urban participation 

Low non-urban participation 

High urban and high non-urban 
participation 

High urban and low non-urban 
participation  

Source: own presentation based on European Commission, ‘Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard. Thematic 
Analysis – Culture and Creative Industries’; and Culture statistics – Cultural participation by degree of 
urbanisation 

AI.5.3 European Solidarity Corps 

The selection of MS for a further analysis related to national policies and priorities in view of the ESC 
programme  implementation  takes  into  account  different  volunteering  trends.  These  trends 
illustrate the extent to which volunteering is historically embedded or to which the Programme has 
made a contribution in increasing volunteering activities in a MS, while at the same time indirectly 
mitigating the unemployment levels and favouring the transition to permanent employment. This 
is complemented with a criterion on MS having mostly a high number of projects in the ESC. This 
ensures that the selected MS sufficiently represent the different projects under the ESC, for instance, 
the variety of topics of the projects. Furthermore, due to the higher number of projects in three of 
the four MS, they can provide a more thorough insight into the intricacies of the programme leading 
to more robust findings.  

Table A.10: MS selection criteria for the European Solidarity Corps  

Member State 

Geographic Coverage/ 
EU-14/EU-13 

Volunteering trend in the country to be 
analysed 

Germany   North-EU-14 

Continuously high  

Italy   South-EU-14 

Rise in volunteering as a tool to promote the 
transition from studying to working 

Mostly high 
number of 
projects*  

High – 162  

High – 129 

France   West-EU-14  

Poland   East-EU-13 

As volunteering is deeply embedded in French 
culture, the number of volunteers is stable 
over the years. 

Low – 21  

Unusually high rate for Eastern European 
country to be explained (e.g. religious 
tradition) 

Highest 
number – 246  

* Project numbers for calls in 2021 & 2022 according to https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/projects/search 
(10 March 2023) 

Source: own presentation based on European Economic and Social Committee, ‘New Trends in the 
Development of Volunteering in the European Union’, 2021; and https://youth.europa.eu 

A-10 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

AI.5.4 CERV Strand 3 

The MS selection for the CERV programme adds two criteria to the joint criterion for all analysed 
programmes. The first considers the situation of the civic space. Including MS with open and narrow 
civil spaces allows to explore different social and political contexts in which the CERV programme – 
and the programme beneficiaries – operate. This criterion is as such an important ‘baseline’ that 
contextualises the implementation and support obtained from CERV. This baseline is important 
when assessing (e.g.) effectiveness and relevance, since the outcomes depend at least partly on the 
specificities of the beneficiary countries. The other programme specific criterion assesses the extent 
to which the civil society organisations (CSO) can be considered to be more or less developed. This 
focuses on the beneficiary organisations – as opposed to the context in which they operate.  

Table A.11: MS selection criteria for the CERV programme 

Member State  

Geographic Coverage/ 
EU-14/EU-13 

Situation of civic space* 

CSO landscape* 

Latvia   North East-EU-13 

Romania  South East-EU-13 

Ireland  West-EU-14 

Hungary  East-EU-13 

Narrowed 

Narrowed 

Open 

Obstructed  

Limited 

Developing 

Developed 

Difficult 

Source: own presentation based on https://monitor.civicus.org/country/, 
https://civicus.org/index.php/es/component/tags/tag/hungary and Mary P. Murphy, ‘Civil Society in the 
Shadow of the Irish State’, Irish Journal of Sociology 19, no. 2 (1 November 2011): 170–87 

A-11 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

II Annex II – Complementary information on the assessments 

The following sections complement the key findings described in chapters 3 to 6 for each of the four 
programmes. 

AII.1 Erasmus+ 

AII.1.1 Supplementing information on the relevance assessment 

Table A.12: Erasmus+ programme specific challenges  

Main EU Challenges 

Erasmus+ programme specific challenges 

Digitised economy 
–  digital transformation of jobs, education and training 
–  wide deployment of artificial intelligence and robotics 
–  new jobs including new job opportunities in the silver and care economies 
–  need for an unparalleled shift in skill sets  
Digital divide 
–  digital skills gap 
–  digital Accessibility 
Distance and online learning and teaching 
–  lack of digital capacity and of distance learning systems 
–  lack of adequate pedagogical methods and insufficient guidance and skills 

Digital Transformation 

of educators and youth workers 

–  lack of robust online learning support and guidance 
AI and Metaverse as gamechangers 

Economy 
–  resource-efficient, circular and climate neutral economy 
–  competitiveness of businesses  
–  Local/Global Just Transition 
Biodiversity 
Society  
–  change of a lifestyle 

Green Transition 

Economy 
–  a serious strain on the economy, labour market, social, health and 

education and training systems of Member States 

–  various impacts on different industries and economy in general (e.g. supply 

chains) 

–  various effects on labour markets  
Education systems  
–  challenges in organizing education activities online and ensuring equal 

access 

–  possible structural barrier to learning and skills development 
–  impact on the career opportunities employment prospects, earnings 
Society  
–  the vulnerable are disproportionately affected (e.g. Digital Divide) 

Pandemic Consequences 

A-12 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Main EU Challenges 

Erasmus+ programme specific challenges 

Russian Aggression and 
Geopolitical Context 

–  need for support from various new and existing target groups, such as: 
unemployed persons, parents, teachers, students and social workers 

Work-life balance 
–  balancing learning with their working and caring responsibilities (mainly 

adult education) 

Socio-economic and educational consequences of the Russian aggression of 
Ukraine  
An unprecedented number of refugees 
Continuity of Education 
Reskilling 
Integration into labour market 

EU values and democracy 
–  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 

–  limited participation in democratic life as a result of lack of relevant 

EU Strategic Autonomy 

participatory skills  

–  intercultural understanding 
Economy 
–  reshoring to Europe production of industries considered truly critical, such 

as pharmaceuticals and semi-conductors 

Source: own representation.  

A-13 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

AII.1.2 Supplementing information on early implementation  

Between 2021 and 2022, a total of 9 172  proposals were submitted for calls under Erasmus+ key 
actions under direct  management.  The majority of the proposals (32 %) concerned the action on 
cooperation for innovation and exchange of  good practices. The  success rate of  the submitted 
proposals is however one of the lowest for this key action (29.6 %). 

Figure A.1: Erasmus+: Proposals received and success rate 

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

 500

 0

2 944

2 572

1 732

816

687

871

656

1 485

1 191

1 082

JMO – Jean 
Monet Activities

127

41

13

KA1 – learning 
mobility of 
individuals

556

508

312

129

66

KA2 –
Cooperation for 
innovation and 
the exchange of 
good practices

KA3- Support for
policy reform

SPO – KA2 –
Cooperation 
among 
organisations  and 
institutions

SPO – KA3 –
Support  to policy 
development and 
cooperation

Submitted

Successful (eligible)

Successful (total)

Source: own representation based on EC, 2023 

Additional to  the  projects  related  to  direct  management, under  KA  1  –  learning  mobility  of 
individuals and KA 2 – Cooperation for innovation and exchange of good practices the majority of 
projects is linked to indirect management. This amounts to 33 505 projects under KA 1 and roughly 
5 242 projects under KA 2. The highest budgetary spending (direct and indirect combined) is related 
to the key action ‘learning Mobility of Individuals’ with €1 499 123 707.00  and €2 132 133 099.00, 
respectively in 2021 and 2022.  

A-14 

 
 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Figure A.2: Erasmus+: Total budget programme per key action (2021, 2022) 

JMO – Jean Monet Activities

KA3- Support for policy reform

€ 52 718 621

€ 52 187 497

€ 124 779 967

€ 159 042 147

KA2 – Cooperation for innovation and the 
exchange of good practices

€1 045 586 367

€ 995 035 456

KA1 – learning mobility of individuals

€2 132 133 099

€1 409 123 707

Source: own representation based on EC, 2023 (all fund sources including EU voted budget and assigned 
revenues) 

2022

2021

A-15 

 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

AII.2 Creative Europe 

AII.2.1 Supplementing information on the relevance assessment 

The following tables describe the culture-specific EU challenges and the detailed findings. 

Table A.13: Digital transformation 

Related Culture-Specific Challenges 

Observations from the Assessment 

The European Way of Digitalisation 
Digital Divide 
Rules-Based Digital Economy 
Digital Accessibility 
Digital and Interlinked Green 
Challenges 
Digital Business Models  
Culture in the Metaverse 
AI in Culture Production 
Cultural Diversity and the Digital 
World 
Digital Audiences and Societal/ 
Health Effects 

The Creative Europe programme is strong in addressing 
opportunities offered by the digital world, and also raises 
awareness in view of digital audiences.  
Some (more recent) calls refer to areas like Artificial Intelligence 
and the Metaverse. However, in view of these fields with 
considerable disruptive power, these topics seem to underplay in 
the context of the programme. 
The rules-based digital economy is mainly tackled in view of the 
media frameworks and the working environment of journalists 
which is justified as rather regulations and not funding is 
required for this field of policy action. 
The Programme is less explicit in addressing the interlinked 
digital and green challenges, the global implications including 
related cultural diversity as well as the societal and health effects 
of digital practices. 

Source: own representation.  

Table A.14: Green transition 

Related Culture-Specific Challenges 

Observations from the Assessment 

Raising Awareness with Culture 
Action 
Contribute to Change of Lifestyle of 
Europeans 
Overcoming Governance Silos 
Cultural Policy and Action Equally 
Involved in Global Initiatives 
A Circular Economy In/With Culture 
Measure What You Value 
Sustainability of Culture Climate 
Networks 
Culture and Biodiversity 
Territorial Segregation 
Local/Global Just Transition 

Source: own representation. 

The programme encourages the applicants to further investigate 
the potential of raising awareness with culture action. 
Creative Europe also furthers the greening of the cultural and 
creative sectors. This is linked to the greening of the Creative 
Europe programme itself. The programme could become a 
reference example for green funding. 
Measuring the negative impacts of cultural practices on the 
climate is another topic which was taken up by the programme. 
Furthermore, activities are under way to consider the 
establishment of a green label. 
The programme could further address related green topics like 
the territorial segregation which links inter alia to frameworks 
which ensure a local and global just transition. Strategic cross-
sectoral cooperation settings in many green topics could be of 
considerable added value on the level of work programmes, calls, 
and projects. (Overcome silos) This element becomes already 
visible on the project level with e. g. artistic projects addressing 
water or landscape challenges (Culture Strand). 

A-16 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Table A.15: Post-pandemic recovery challenges 

Related Culture-Specific Challenges 

Observations from the Assessment 

The European Approach to a Social 
Market Economy 
Endangered Parts of the CCS 
Persisting Social Divide 
Decent Earning for All Workers 
Public Employers 
Deployment of CCS (Cross-Sectoral) 
Innovation Forces, Societal Forces 
Broad Notion of Innovation 
International Cooperation and 
Solidarity 
Media in Democracy 
Recognise Intrinsic Value of Culture 
Culture as Essential 
Culture as Part of the EU Industrial 
Policy Framework 
Culture in NextGenerationEU 
Recognition of EU Added Value of 
Cross-Border-Cooperation 
Mobility Opportunities for Artists/ 
Cultural Workers 
European Status of the Artist 

The structural deficits in the cultural and creative eco-systems 
which became better visible in the context of the pandemic 
cannot be fully addressed with a support programme. However, 
the valuable simplification which were introduced in the Creative 
Europe programme cover not yet the full range of options of a 
funding programme. For example, decent payment and 
contracting frameworks for the freelancers and experts working 
for funded projects are options which are not yet addressed. 
The mobility of artists and workers is at the core of the 
opportunities offered by the Creative Europe programme and 
well covered in the related reference documents and projects. 
Furthermore, the programme is cross-border by nature and the 
added value of cooperation can be well demonstrated. It remains 
open to which extent related (qualitative) data is used for the EU 
cultural policy development. 
Culture and recovery are addressed in Creative Europe but 
remain too vague especially in the long run and for structural 
improvements in the eco-systems (e. g. in the Calls 2023 as well 
as in the Media and Cross-Sectoral Strands of the programme).  
The social and societal value of culture which was underused to 
cope with the effects of the pandemic remains limited to 
programme priorities. Enhanced cross-sectoral initiatives become 
less visible. 

Source: own representation. 

Table A.16: Russian aggression and  geopolitical context 

Related Culture-Specific Challenges 

Observations from the Assessment 

Preventing Destruction and Looting 
Assessing the Damage 
Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property 
Sustain Cultural Life and Artistic 
Production 
Refugee (Women) Artists 
Continuity of Education 
Key Equipment Provision 
Impacts on (Mental) Health 
Reliable Information 
Safety of Journalists 
Women in Culture/Arts 
Future of Cultural Diplomacy 
Culture(s) at Risk 
Cultural Diversity as Societal Resource 
Better Understanding of Culture and 
Conflict 

Source: own representation. 

The Creative Europe programme underuses the wider potential 
for challenging geopolitical contexts, but – especially in the 
Culture Strands – provides appropriate answers to support the 
Ukrainian artists and cultural workers as well as the UA heritage 
sector. The area of social inclusion and in that sense of 
contributing to the understanding of the added value of diverse 
society is another relevant element in the Culture Strand of the 
programme. 
The programme with the new calls and projects related to the 
safety of journalists covers an important element in the 
framework of changing geopolitical contexts. However, these 
measures are (so far) limited to actions inside the European 
Union Member States.  
The wider effects on culture and creative sectors in geopolitical 
crisis situations and contexts of war and aggression are not well 
addressed by the programme. This is illustrated with the fact that 
no broader initiatives in view of the growing number of refugee 
(women) artists are foreseen in the context of the analysed 
programme documents. The wider consideration of culture(s) at 
risk or the future of cultural diplomacy are also no topics covered 
so far.  

A-17 

 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table A.17: EU strategic autonomy 

Related Culture-Specific Challenges 

Observations from the Assessment 

The new media initiatives in the Cross-Sectoral Strand of the 
programme are important steps towards a new media culture as 
an important pillar of democracy. However, highlighting the 
cultural institutions as places of democracy and at the same time 
initiating their further democratisation (e. g. in view of cultural 
rights, transparency, access for all strata of the society) are 
underplayed in the programme. The priority ‘audiences’ could be 
for example enlarged. A funding programme like Creative Europe 
could (similar as for the green transition) act as a related 
accelerator. 
Furthermore, the mention of youth (however implicitly 
addressed e. g. related to audiences) seem to be limited to the 
European Year of Youth 2022. This fact seems to underplay the 
role the next generations will play for the strategic securing of 
the European model. 
The strategic autonomy questions impact also considerably the 
cultural and creative eco-systems e. g. raising energy costs or 
interrupted supply chains. The programme encourages not 
sufficiently related cross-sectoral initiatives and projects for 
transformation ready systems. 

(Cultural) Institutions as Places of 
Democracy 
A New Media Culture 
Global (Cultural) Citizenship 
Cultural (Participation) Rights 
Challenges to Democracy and Artistic 
Freedom 
Youth Dialogue 
Collaborative Transformation Policies 
and CCS Eco-Systems 
A Strategy Culture 

Source: own representation. 

AII.2.2 Supplementing information on the coherence assessment 

Table A.18: Overview of EU (cultural) policies 

Policy Objectives 

General 

Culture-Specific 

A European Green 
Deal 

A Europe fit for the 
digital age 

REPower EU 
Climate 
Energy 
Environment and oceans 
Agriculture 
Transport 
Industry 
Research and innovation 
Finance and regional development 

European Chips Act 
European Digital Identity 
Artificial Intelligence 
European data strategy 
European industrial strategy 
Contributing to European Defence 
Space 
EU-US Trade and Technology Council 

New European Bauhaus (as linked to 
creativity and aesthetics) 

Digital Services Act 
Digital Markets Act 
(as digital creative companies are part of 
the cultural and creative sectors/creative 
industries) 

A-18 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Policy Objectives 

General 

Culture-Specific 

An economy that 
works for people 

European Pillar of Social Rights Action 
Plan 
New Consumer Agenda 
Adequate minimum wages in the EU 
Working conditions of platform workers 
New Business Taxation Agenda 
Small and medium-size enterprises 
strategy 
Capital Markets Union 

A stronger Europe in 
the world 

Food security 
Global Gateway 
Global response to coronavirus 
EU-US trade and technology council 
Anti-Coercion instrument 

Promoting our 
European way of life 

New push for 
European 
democracy 

European Health Union 
New Pact on Migration and Asylum 
Strategy on the future of Schengen 
Europe’s Bearing Cancer Plan 
European Health Data Space 
EU agenda to tackle organised crime 
and on counter-terrorism 
European Security Union 
European Care Strategy 

European Citizens’ panel 
Conference on the future of Europe 
LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025 
Ending gender-based violence 
The EU Strategy on the Rights of the 
Child 
Strategy on the rights of persons with 
disabilities 2021-2030 
Rule of Law Mechanism 
Long-term vision for rural areas 

Recovery Plan for 
Europe 

NextGenerationEU 
National Recovery Plans 

Main EU Cultural 
Policies 

Source: own representation. 

NextGenerationEU (as co-implemented 
by Ministries of Culture) 

European Skills Agenda (as of the EU 
Pact for Skills for Cultural and Creative 
Industries and Sectors) 

EU solidarity with Ukraine 
Enhanced EU engagement with the 
Western Balkans 
A new agenda for the Mediterranean 
(as culture-specific support was/is 
available for the Ukrainian cultural 
sector, the cultural operators from the 
Western Balkans as well as for Med-
specific culture cooperation action) 

EU strategy on combatting 
antisemitism (as directly linked to 
European cultural heritage and History) 

European Democracy Action Plan 
European Media Freedom Act  
(as directly linked to the Cross-Sectoral 
Strand in Creative Europe) 

EU Work Plan for Culture 2023-2026  
A New European Agenda for Culture  
Towards an EU Strategy for 
International Cultural Relations  
The European Framework for Action on 
Cultural Heritage  

A-19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table A.19: Wider lessons learnt on the coherence between Commission Priorities and 
Creative Europe 

Policy Objectives 

General/Culture-Specific 

Lessons Learnt 

REPower EU 
Climate 
Energy 
Environment and oceans 
Agriculture 
Transport 
Industry 
Research and innovation 
Finance and regional development 
New European Bauhaus (NEB) (as linked 
to creativity and aesthetics) 

European Chips Act 
European Digital Identity 
Artificial Intelligence 
European data strategy 
European industrial strategy 
Contributing to European Defence 
Space 
EU-US Trade and Technology Council 
Digital Services Act 
Digital Markets Act 
(as digital creative companies are part of 
the cultural and creative sectors/creative 
industries) 

European Pillar of Social Rights Action 
Plan 
New Consumer Agenda 
Adequate minimum wages in the EU 
Working conditions of platform workers 
New Business Taxation Agenda 
Small and medium-size enterprises 
strategy 
Capital Markets Union 
NextGenerationEU (as co-implemented 
by Ministries of Culture) 
European Skills Agenda (as of the EU Pact 
for Skills for Cultural and Creative 
Industries and Sectors) 

Food security 
Global Gateway 
Global response to coronavirus 
EU-US trade and technology council 
Anti-Coercion instrument 
EU solidarity with Ukraine 

The European Green Deal (and related 
initiatives) seem to underplay the 
cultural dimensions of the required 
transformations. The Creative Europe 
programme documents are 
comprehensive in view of the different 
dimensions of required greening and 
mention throughout the links to the EU 
Green Deal. This policy priority has 
untapped potential for further cross-
sectoral initiatives far beyond the New 
European Bauhaus. 

The digital dimension of the Creative 
Europe programme is strong (e. g. 
related to the thematic priorities), but 
lacks of systematically highlighting the 
related policy initiatives in the 
programme documents. Those 
responsible for the EU digital policies 
seem not to refer explicitly to the 
Creative Europe Programme. 
Furthermore, a wide range of creative 
digital projects are implemented which 
could considerably contribute to this 
EC priority. There seem to be a 
potential for further cross-sectoral 
(information, experience) transfer and 
cooperation.  

The European Pillar of Social Rights 
Action Plan is well highlighted in the 
Creative Europe programme 
documents which is in line with the 
enhanced considerations on working 
conditions in the cultural and creative 
sectors. However, as none of the EU 
policy documents makes references to 
the Creative Europe programme, there 
seems to be further potential for 
highlighting links and common 
endeavours in view of an economic 
eco-systems that works better for 
people. 

The international and global policies 
are not specific-enough covered in the 
Creative Europe programme 
documents. The strong efforts related 
to the solidarity with the Ukraine seems 
to be too narrow in view of the 

A European Green 
Deal 

A Europe fit for the 
digital age 

An economy that 
works for people 

A stronger Europe in 
the world 

A-20 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Policy Objectives 

General/Culture-Specific 

Lessons Learnt 

Enhanced EU engagement with the 
Western Balkans 
A new agenda for the Mediterranean 
(as culture-specific support was/is 
available for the Ukrainian cultural 
sector, the cultural operators from the 
Western Balkans as well as for Med-
specific culture cooperation action) 

European Health Union 
New Pact on Migration and Asylum 
Strategy on the future of Schengen 
Europe’s Bearing Cancer Plan 
European Health Data Space 
EU agenda to tackle organised crime 
and on counter-terrorism 
European Security Union 
European Care Strategy 
EU strategy on combatting antisemitism 
(as directly linked to European cultural 
heritage and History) 

European Citizens’ panel 
Conference on the future of Europe 
LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025 
Ending gender-based violence 
The EU Strategy on the Rights of the 
Child 
Strategy on the rights of persons with 
disabilities 2021-2030 
Rule of Law Mechanism 
Long-term vision for rural areas 
European Democracy Action Plan 
European Media Freedom Act  
(as directly linked to the Cross-Sectoral 
Strand in Creative Europe) 

Promoting our 
European way of life 

New push for 
European 
democracy 

Recovery Plan for 
Europe 

NextGenerationEU 
National Recovery Plans 

importance of international exchange 
including in the area of culture and arts. 
Furthermore, actions which have been 
already taken e. g. for the better 
cultural development of the Western 
Balkans seem not to be taken into 
account by related major EU policies. 
Highlighting major EU 
internationalisation strategies should 
be also a priority in Creative Europe 
programme documents e. g. also in 
view of the thematic priority 
‘International dimension’. 

Values and cultural practices are 
strongly linked. Therefore, it is 
surprising that the related EC priorities 
and policies make no reference to the 
Creative Europe Programme. The 
Programme has e. g. a focus on 
inclusion which is not mentioned in the 
New Pact on Migration and Asylum. 
The Programme could be also ideally 
placed to encourage wider debates on 
European cultural values including the 
social and health dimensions of these 
policies – both are already high on the 
agendas of related EU cultural policies 
and well-visible from the engagements 
of the sectors. 

Reaching out to a wide range of citizens 
and connecting to a variety of 
audiences in Europe are cornerstones 
of the Creative Europe programme. 
Despite this fact the related EC 
priorities make no specific reference to 
the programme except related to the 
European Democracy Action Plan. 
Furthermore, the Creative Europe 
programme documents refers also to 
none of the policies except the 
European Democracy Action Plan 
(Cross-Sectoral Strand only). We 
consider that there could be substantial 
so far untapped potential for synergies 
related to common efforts for a new 
push for European democracy. 

The Programme documents mention 
recovery, but not specifically the 
Recovery Plan as such. We would like to 
consider this fact as a minor issue. 

A-21 

 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Policy Objectives 

General/Culture-Specific 

Lessons Learnt 

Main EU Cultural 
Policies 

EU Work Plan for Culture 2023-2026  
A New European Agenda for Culture  
Towards an EU Strategy for International 
Cultural Relations  
The European Framework for Action on 
Cultural Heritage  

Source: own representation. 

It is remarkable that the Creative 
Europe programme documents 
stopped referring to some major EU 
cultural policy documents like the EU 
Strategy for International Cultural 
Relations. The referencing of these 
documents e. g. in all Work Programme 
should be a common practice in order 
to ensure broad knowledge of e. g. all 
applicants about the existence of these 
policies and the related priorities. 

AII.2.3 Supplementing information on the effectiveness assessment 

Table A.20: Overview of number of calls and submitted and selected proposals, 2021-2023 

Overview 

Culture Strand 

Calls 

Submitted 

Selected 

European Cooperation Projects – Medium Scale – 2021 

European Cooperation Projects – Medium Scale – 2022 

European Cooperation Projects – Medium Scale – 2023 

Media Strand 

Innovative Tools and Business Models – 2021 

Innovative Tools and Business Models – 2022 

Innovative Tools and Business Models – 2023 

Cross-Sectoral Strand 

A Rapid Response Mechanism – 2022 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

n. a. 

n. a. 

n. a. 

52 

46 

n.a. 

2 

32 

27 

n. a. 

22 

11 

n. a. 

1 

Source: Own Calculations, based on the Funding and Tender opportunities portal, consulted on 15.04.2023 

Table A.21: Selected proposals and  MS coverage by project leaders 

Country Coverage 

Culture Strand 

European Cooperation Projects – Medium Scale – 2021 

European Cooperation Projects – Medium Scale – 2022 

Media Strand 

Innovative Tools and Business Models – 2021 

Innovative Tools and Business Models – 2022 

Cross-Sectoral Strand 

Selec
-ted 

32 

27 

22 

11 

AT 

HR 

EE 

SE 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

A Rapid Response Mechanism – 2022 

1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Source: Own Calculations, based on the Funding and Tender opportunities portal, consulted on 15.04.2023 

A-22 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

Table A.22: Thematic Priorities of the European Cooperation Projects – Medium Scale calls 

Thematic Priority 

Audience 

Social inclusion 

Sustainability 

New technology (2021)/Digital (2022/2023) 

International dimension 

Sector-specific priorities – book (publishing) sector 

Sector-specific priorities – music sector 

Sector-specific priorities – architecture 

Sector-specific priorities – cultural heritage 

Sector-specific priorities – fashion and design 

Sector-specific priorities – sustainable cultural tourism 

Cross-cutting issues – inclusion, diversity, gender equality, 
environment (2021/2022)/greening Creative Europe (2023) 

Source: European Cooperation Projects Calls for Proposals 2021-2023 

2021 

2022 

2023 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Table A.23: Thematic Priorities of the Innovative Tools and Business Models calls 

Thematic Priority/Actions Supported (Scope) 

2021 

2022 

2023 

X 

Promotion and marketing tools, including on line and through the 
use of data analytics, to increase the prominence, visibility, cross-
border access, and audience reach of European work. 

Subtitling or accessibility/discoverability/recommendation tools 

Business tools improving the efficiency and the transparency of the 
audio-visual markets 

Business models seeking to optimise the synergies and 
complementarities between the distribution platforms 

Business tools exploring new modes of production, financing, 
distribution or promotion enabled or enhanced by new technology 
(AI, big data, blockchain, etc. – 2021). (Metaverse, NFT – 2023) 

Innovative tools and business models improving the greening 
process of the audiovisual industry 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Source: Innovative tools and business models – Calls for Proposals 2021-2023 

Table A.24: Thematic Priorities of the Rapid Response Mechanism call 

Thematic Priority/Activities (Scope) 

European Democracy Action Plan (…) – Monitoring violations of press and media freedom 
and providing practical help to protect journalists under threat 

Design and manage a Europe-wide rapid response mechanism to support media freedom and 
journalists’ safety, covering all EU Member States 

Provide legal and practical support to journalists and other media practitioners in need. 

Organise advocacy missions to locations where journalists are under threat 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

2022 

X 

X 

X 

X 

A-23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Thematic Priority/Activities (Scope) 

Monitor the state of media freedom in the EU Member States and Candidate Countries 

Organise awareness raising campaigns in the field of media freedom and safety of journalists 

Ensure communication and dissemination activities 

Monitor and evaluate the action 

2022 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Source: Defending media freedom and pluralism – Rapid Response Mechanism – Call for Proposals 2022 

A-24 

 
 
 
Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus +, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Strand 3 

AII.3 CERV  

AII.3.1 Supplementing information on the relevance assessment 

Table A.25: CERV Strand  3 programme specific challenges  

Main EU Challenges 

CERV Strand 3 programme specific challenges 

Digital Transformation 

Digital policy can be considered a cross-cutting topic and a tool for 
implementation of CERV priorities. 

Green Transition 

Strong alignment both in the policy documentation and in project 
implementation. 

Pandemic Consequences 

Stronger alignment in policy docs but so far there are few projects with 
relevance to the pandemic consequences few (3) actual projects 

Russian Aggression and 
Geopolitical Context 

Weak or no link in the programme documentation and project analysis to 
date 

Strategic autonomy 

Weak or no link in the programme documentation and project analysis to 
date 

Disinformation 

Strong alignment both in the policy documentation and in project 
implementation 

Source: own representation.  

AII.3.2 Supplementing information on early implementation  

Figure A.3: CERV programme – applications submitted and awarded 

1 000

939

 900

 800

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100

 0

814

438

423

499

309

127

60

Submitted proposals –
Equality

Submitted proposals –
Citizen engagement 
and participation

Submitted proposals –
Daphne

Submitted proposals –
Union values

Source: own representation.  

Submitted

Awarded

A-25 

 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table A.26: CERV Strand  3 awarded proposals and success rates  

Citizen engagement and 
participation strand 

Citizen remembrance  

Citizens town 

Daphne (Strand 4) 

Union Values (Strand 1) 
Source: own representation.  

Awarded proposals 

Success rate 

60 

309 

86 

275 

27 % 

88 % 

20 % 

55 % 

A-26 

 
 
 
 
Q
A
-
0
3
-
2
3
-
2
6
0
-
E
N

-

N

initial  evaluation  of 

Ahead of  their forthcoming mid-term evaluation, this 
study  provides  an 
the 
implementation of  the  Erasmus +,  Creative  Europe, 
European Solidarity Corps, and Citizens, Equality, Rights 
and  Values Strand 3 funding programmes since their 
launch in late 2021. The evaluation focuses primarily on 
their  relevance,  coherence  and  effectiveness, with  a 
view  to identifying challenges and shortcomings, but 
also to highlight good practices and potential for future 
development.  The  research  shows  that  despite  the 
impact of events such as the COVID-19 health crisis and 
the geopolitical situation, these programmes have been 
successfully launched and  have demonstrated a high 
level  of  flexibility  and  resilience  in  a  fast  changing 
environment. 

This is a publication of the Ex-Post Evaluation Unit 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European 
Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of 
the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should 
not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament. 

ISBN 978-92-848-0845-8 | DOI:10.2861/425911 | QA-03-23-260-EN-N