On Tuesday 19 September, the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture (CULT) will examine draft reports on the implementation of four EU programmes: Erasmus+, Creative Europe, the European Solidarity Corps (ESC) and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV).
Despite their successes, they have all suffered from the delay in adopting the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the succession of crises within the EU and persistent administrative complexity.
Erasmus+
The text by Milan Zver (EPP, Slovenian) describes a difficult start to the programming period for Erasmus+ (https://aeur.eu/f/8ms ). The reason: the delay in adopting the MFF, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic and the consequences of the war in Ukraine.
Although the programme has a budget of €26.51 billion for 2021-2027, double that of the previous period, this increase has coincided with “surging inflation”. “The great potential of Erasmus+ requires sufficient funding in the future to continue with its far-reaching impact on individuals and societies across Europe and beyond”, he defends.
Beneficiaries also complain of a lack of flexibility, indicating that in some cases national funding is easier to obtain. What’s more, the complex procedures involved in obtaining funding effectively exclude smaller organisations.
With regard to the general management of Erasmus+, Mr Zver deplores “the slow advancement of digital tools foreseen to support the programme’s implementation”.
Finally, while Erasmus+ is “undoubtedly one of the most successful European brands”, the rapporteur lists a series of recommendations, including clarifying the conditions for obtaining a mobility grant and providing more funding for sport and adult education.
Creative Europe
Massimiliano Smeriglio (S&D, Italian) looked at the implementation of Creative Europe (https://aeur.eu/f/8mu ). The programme has a budget of €2.44 billion for 2021-2027, an increase of 68% compared with 2014-2020.
Despite the succession of crises, “the early implementation of the programme has been fairly effective overall”, according to the rapporteur.
In particular, he praised the programme’s “responsiveness to unforeseen challenges”, with the extension of deadlines for calls for applications, the integration of new priorities to respond to crises, and an increase in the budget and cofinancing rates. In turn, however, he points out that “the substantial increase in the budget will be partially absorbed by high inflation” and will call for possible adjustments to the envelope between now and 2027.
As for the management of the programme, he advocates continuing to simplify the process of obtaining funding, pointing out that the administrative burden is still too great for small organisations.
European Solidarity Corps
With regard to the European Solidarity Corps (https://aeur.eu/f/8mw ), the rapporteur, Michaela Šojdrová (EPP, Czech), points out that its budget of €1 billion for 2021-2027 remains “relatively modest”.
Not only have volunteering opportunities aroused great interest among young people, but they are also opting for long-term stays, which are more expensive than short-term ones. Given this phenomenon, coupled with the rise in inflation, the number of people who can be supported with the available budget is lower than forecast, she explains.
In addition to an increase in the budget, she calls for greater visibility for short-term activities and, more generally, for better communication on the ESC, which is confused with Erasmus+. She suggests, for example, declaring 2025 the European Year of Volunteering.
CERV
Finally, Łukasz Kohut (S&D, Polish) examined the ‘Citizen Engagement and Participation’ strand of the CERV programme (https://aeur.eu/f/8mz ), which falls within the remit of the Committee on Culture (CULT). For 2021-2027, it has a budget of €357 million, out of the CERV’s €641.71 million.
In addition to the delays in adoption, the rapporteur notes that the Covid-19 pandemic led to a drop in applications and affected implementation due to operational problems. He also notes that the application procedure for the programme may be an obstacle to the participation of smaller entities, and deplores the lack of a good communication strategy. (Original version in French by Hélène Seynaeve)