COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the 'AgoraEU' programme for the period 2028-2034, and repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/692 and (EU) 2021/818 and Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Erasmus+ programme for the period 2028-2034, and repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/817 and (EU) 2021/888
Date: 2025-07-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, artistic creation, audiovisual industry, civil society, cultural pluralism, education policy, equal treatment, fundamental rights, participatory democracy, sport, youth policy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.7.2025  SWD(2025) 551 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document   Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the 'AgoraEU' programme for the period 2028-2034, and repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/692 and (EU) 2021/818              and                Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Erasmus+ programme for the period 2028-2034, and repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/817 and (EU) 2021/888 {COM(2025) 550 final} - {SEC(2025) 547 final} - {SWD(2025) 550 final}  
 
 
This  impact  assessment  (IA)  focuses  on  EU  funding  supporting  the  policy  areas  of  cross-
border education, training, solidarity, youth, media, culture and creative sectors, values, 
and  civil  society.  It  aims  to  assess  the  most  important  policy  choices  underpinning  the 
legislative proposals for programmes under the next multiannual financial framework (MFF). 

Based  on  the  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluations  of  the  current  funding  instruments  for  the 
period 2021-2027, this impact assessment also considers the ambition, set out in the Political 
Guidelines, which envisions the new long-term EU budget to be more focused, simpler, more 
impactful, and articulated through fewer programmes. 

Policy  aspects  are  considered  in  the  analysis  of  the  context,  the  problem  definition  and  the 
objectives, informing the choices on funding architecture. Given that the structure of the next 
MFF will significantly differ from the current one1, this impact assessment does not include 
budgetary scenarios at this stage.  

In addition to the results of the mid-term evaluations of the current programmes and the final 
evaluations  of  preceding  programmes,  this  IA  builds  on  the  spending  review  exercises, 
various sectorial reports, studies and research. It also reflects the outcomes of the Open Public 
Consultation  (OPC),  which  gathered  5,845  valid  replies,  as  well  as  other  stakeholders' 
consultations organised by the Commission as part of this exercise.  

Problems 

The  starting  point  for  this  impact  assessment  is  the  analysis  of  the  current  challenges  and 
problem  drivers  in  the  policy  areas  covered  within  the  cluster.  In  line  with  the  political 
guidelines  for  the  MFF  exercise,  and  in  particular  with  the  objective  of  building  a  policy-
based budget, policy aspects are considered in the analysis of the problem definition and the 
objectives, in turn informing the architectural choice of future funding programmes. 

The  analysis  identified  that  the  EU  budget  has  an  unachieved  potential  to  help  address  the 
challenges affecting the policy areas in this cluster. It led to the definition of three problems 
affecting  the  EU  financial  intervention:  two  of  them  relating  to  policy  content,  the  third 
concerning challenges affecting the design and implementation of the financial intervention. 

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

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

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

Each  problem  is  then  further  explained  through  a  series  of  drivers,  which  describe  specific 
aspects  of  the  problem  and  detail  the  main  issues  to  be  addressed  through  EU  financial 
intervention. The impact assessment also illustrates how such problems and drivers are likely 

1 Communication on The road to the next multiannual financial framework (COM/2025/46 final). 

1 

 
 
 
to  persist  without  EU  financial  support,  by  analysing  them  through  the  lens  of  the  set  of 
megatrends identified by the European Commission’s Competence Centre on Foresight2. 

Objectives 

The response that future funding EU instruments may offer to address these problems is then 
articulated  in  general  and  specific  objectives.  In  particular,  the  IA  associates  one  general 
objective to each of the three problems identified:  

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

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

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

Each  general  objective  is  then  further  articulated  in  specific  objectives,  which  describe  to  a 
higher level of granularity the contribution that EU financial intervention can make to achieve 
the overall objective(s). 

The necessity and added value of EU action 

The policy areas covered by this IA are firmly anchored in the EU Treaties, which provide the 
legal  bases  for  EU  action  through  financial  interventions.  The  EU  budget  in  these  areas  is 
crucial  to  the  foundations  of  the  EU,  it  drives  progress  across  all  Member  States  and  is 
particularly  necessary  to:  (1)  address  transnational  and  common  challenges;  (2)  achieve 
systemic impact by filling gaps and ensuring a European approach; and (3) enhance coherence 
between internal and external policies.  

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the added value of EU action is shown with regard 
to:  (1)  Nurturing  a  sense  of  EU  citizenship,  solidarity  and  belonging;  (2)  Ensuring  high 
standards across the EU; (3) Supporting and reinforcing the Single Market and improving fair 
access  across  the  EU;  and  (4)  Adding  value  through  better  delivery.  The  added  value  and 
impact need to be interpreted in the context of available budgetary resources.  

Policy options 

In order to address the challenges described in the previous section, considering that they are 
likely to persist in the future and that EU intervention in this field is needed and adds value, 
the IA contemplates three alternative options for the architecture of future EU funding. 
Additional options, which were considered yet discarded at an early stage, are also presented 

2 14 megatrends have been identified by the Commission’s Megatrends Hub. 

2 

 
 
 
– namely the discontinuation of EU funding; the merger of the Justice programme andother 
merging configurations.  

The options were designed through a series of criteria3 identified through an initial mapping 
and analysis of components and implementation aspects of the current programming period’s 
EU funding instruments supporting the relevant policy areas.  

The  first  option  represents  the  baseline,  continuing  existing  programmes  as  stand-alone 
(option  1  -  Continuity).  The  second  option  proposes  two  programmes,  each  of  them 
primarily  supporting  one  of  the  two  policy-driven  problems  and  corresponding  general 
objectives (option 2 – objective-based consolidation). The third option proposes one single 
programme,  supporting  the  implementation  of  all  policies  areas  covered  under  this  cluster 
(option 3 – Full integration). The Justice programme remains standalone in all scenarios, due 
to reasons related to its legal basis. 

After  the  presentation  of  the  three  policy  options,  the  IA  offers  an  analysis  of  their  main 
potential impact across the most relevant social (e.g. contribution to democratic and societal 
resilience; contribution to social inclusion and cohesion, impact on citizens’ personal, social, 
civic  and  professional  development),  economic  (e.g.  competitiveness;  employability)  and 
environmental  dimensions.  In  addition,  it  presents  a  costs  and  benefits  analysis,  and  the 
options’  impacts  on  digitalisation,  fundamental  rights  and  equality.  It  also  analyses  the 
options’ contribution to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).  

In  addition  to  the  impacts  analysis,  the  IA  also  includes  a  comparison  between  the  three 
options  based  on  the  Social  Multi-Criteria  Evaluation  (SMCE)  model,  which  was 
considered  appropriate  to  this  specific  exercise  due  to  the  large  scope  and  diversity  of  this 
cluster’s  interventions.  Through  the  SMCE,  the  three  options  are  compared  along  four 
dimensions, namely their effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality. For each 
of  these  dimensions,  a  set  of  objectives  were  agreed  upon,  reflecting  the  priorities  outlined 
under General Objectives 1, 2 and 3. The impact of the three options was then scored against 
a set of 39 agreed indicators, using the following range: --- (the most negative), --, -, =, +, ++, 
+++ (the most positive).  The scoring was based on an expert assessment, relying on results of 
current  evaluations,  spending  reviews,  political  guidelines  and  policy  reports,  studies,  OPC, 
and  independent  sectoral  reports  and  surveys.  The  ranking  was  obtained,  under  the 
assumption  that  all  indicators  have  the  same  weight,  by  applying  the  SOCRATES  model.4  
The  robustness  of  the  results  obtained  was  verified  through  local  and  global  sensitivity 
analyses, despite some limitations in the data availability for the triangulation of the results. 
Annex 4 of the IA provides further explanation of the above methodology and the ranking of 
the policy options. 

Preferred option 

3  Aspects  used  for  comparison  included:  the  political  context,  IA  problem  drivers,  legal  basis,  competence/subsidiarity,  third  countries 
participation, implementation modes, governance, internal architecture, target groups, branding, and funding. 
4 See Tool #62 of Better Regulation. To obtain a policy ranking consistent with the information contained in the impact matrix, the analysis 
applied a non-compensatory mathematical aggregation rule. 

3 

 
 
 
The  outcome  of  this  comparison  results  in  demonstrating  that  option  2  (“objective-based 
consolidation”)  offers  better  potential  compared  to  the  other  options  considered.  In 
particular, it allows for stronger coordination, flexibility, and a more impactful use of the EU 
budget – while preserving a clear focus with policy goals. In short, option 2 offers the optimal 
balance between simplification and policy relevance.  In addition, this option responds to the 
greatest  extent  to  the  requests  expressed  by  stakeholders  and  the  public,  namely  better 
accessibility  to  funding, flexibility  of  resource  allocation,  as  well  as  the  maintenance  of  the 
visibility of well-established brands under this cluster.  

The  success  of  the  initiative  will  be  monitored  through  the  performance  framework  for  the 
post 2027 budget. 

4