ARBEJDSDOKUMENT FRA KOMMISSIONENS TJENESTEGRENE RESUMÉ AF RAPPORTEN OM KONSEKVENSANALYSEN Ledsagedokument til Forslag til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning om oprettelse af AgoraEU-programmet for perioden 2028-2034 og om ophævelse af forordning (EU) 2021/692 og (EU) 2021/818 og Forslag til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning om oprettelse af Erasmus+-programmet for perioden 2028-2034 og om ophævelse af forordning (EU) 2021/817 og (EU) 2021/888

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}
Offentligt
KOM (2025) 0550 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2025
1
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).
2
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.
3
– 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.
4
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.