The New Erasmus+ Takes Shape: Challenges and Priorities

The Erasmus+ program is poised for a major transformation, focusing on inclusion, volunteerism, and democratic participation

This article was produced in collaboration with Europiamo, an organization founded and run by young people to promote the opportunities Europe offers to young people. Article by Elena Spampinato.

Erasmus+ 2028–2034: A New Regulation, an Important Step

The year 2028 will mark a new beginning for European programs. Starting January 1, 2028, Erasmus+, Europe’s best-known program, will also adopt new regulations. Negotiations are underway to define its content, and the new Erasmus+ program is expected to be adopted by 2027.

The debate on Erasmus+ is of particular importance to our country. Italy is the second most popular destination in Europe, after Spain, and one of the leading countries in terms of the number of outgoing participants: in 2024 alone, Erasmus+ mobility activities involving Italy as the country of origin or destination included more than 280,000 participants.

Any change in the program’s structure, funding, or governance will have an impact on the activities of a large number of young people, schools, universities, and nonprofit organizations.

The European Commission’s proposal, dated July 2025 and analyzed in one of our dedicated articles, introduced significant changes to the structure and management of Erasmus+.

Since then, negotiations have begun within the European Parliament, consultations have been held with civil society organizations, the Parliament’s internal committees have issued their opinions on the new regulation, and an in-depth study has been conducted on the challenges and prospects of Erasmus+. The culmination of this process was the vote on the report by the European Parliament’s CULT Committee, presented in draft form on June 3 by rapporteur Bogdan Zdrojewski (EPP) and approved on September 29. The Council, on the other hand, issued its position on the substance of the program (excluding financial aspects) in May, while the Irish Presidency of the Council presented a new “negobox”—that is, a new proposal for negotiations on resources for the new programming cycle—on October 10. Heads of state and government discussed this at the European Council meeting on October 15–16 without yet reaching an agreement: the stated goal remains to finalize the multiannual budget by the end of 2026, but divisions among member states remain significant.

As we reach a turning point in the development of the Erasmus+ 2028–2034 program, we offer today an analysis of the content of the CULT Committee’s report on Erasmus+, along with some reflections on how to prepare for the future of the program and the future of European programming.

Erasmus+: A Tool for the Job Market—But Not Only That

The compromise amendments approved in the CULT Committee’s report convey a fundamental message: the Erasmus+ program cannot be reduced solely to the goal of strengthening the EU’s competitiveness and addressing labor market gaps—a central aspect of the Commission’s original proposal.

The CULT Committee emphasizes that Erasmus+ must retain a dual nature: on the one hand, a structural tool for strengthening democracy and youth participation, reinforcing the sense of European identity and the EU’s shared values; on the other hand, a functional tool for fostering strategies for innovation, the Union of Skills and the labor market, particularly in its strategic sectors.

This same message has been taken up by various sectors of civil society and is also relevant in other areas. In a new European policy framework focused on competitiveness, the ability to maintain this dual focus—linked to social and environmental issues and the EU’s founding values, but also to competitiveness—will be a cornerstone in working on European projects.

Erasmus+: A Space for Volunteering and Inclusion

One of the main changes in the new Erasmus+ program is the integration of the European Solidarity Corps (ESC) volunteering activities into the program. This aspect is confirmed and reinforced in the Parliament’s proposal, as it could create a single point of access and simplify the program’s management. To avoid the risk that volunteering might be subsumed under learning mobility and lose its distinct character, it is proposed to explicitly include the term “volunteering” in the definition of Erasmus+, thereby ensuring greater visibility and protection for it. It also paves the way for potential synergies with national initiatives, such as the Universal Civil Service in Italy. The approved text also provides for separate monitoring and reporting for solidarity activities and sets the age limits at 18–30 years for volunteering and 18–35 years for humanitarian volunteering.

Finally, Parliament proposes taking another step forward in inclusion policies—an area that Erasmus+ has progressively strengthened by involving (especially in Italy) a growing number of people with fewer opportunities. The approved text specifically calls for at least 20% of mobility participants to be people with fewer opportunities and for grant amounts to take into account differences in the cost of living, housing, and inflation. It also provides for the introduction of the concept of “structural and territorial disadvantage,” which broadens the definition of people with fewer opportunities beyond existing economic, social, and geographic barriers.

Erasmus+: Toward Simpler Management and More Effective Monitoring

Another crucial point, supported by both the European Commission’s proposal and that of the CULT Committee, is administrative simplification, aimed at ensuring that more structured organizations are not favored at the expense of smaller ones with fewer administrative and technical capabilities.

In this regard, both the focus on digitizing procedures and the extensive operational decentralization of Erasmus+—along with the role of the National Agencies—are reaffirmed; however, there is a recognized need to establish a system for monitoring and engaging stakeholders that ensures effective oversight of the program’s overall performance. To this end, the CULT text introduces an annex of indicators on participation, inclusion, and simplification; limits the use of delegated acts; and strengthens Parliament’s oversight over decisions that the Commission would have preferred to leave to its annual work programs.

The Parliament’s report proposes strengthening cooperation with regional and local authorities, which are considered key actors in the implementation of inclusion policies. It also reaffirmsthe program’sinternational scope through cooperation with third countries and the strengthening of ties with long-standing partners such as Switzerland and the United Kingdom, which will rejoin Erasmus+ as early as 2027.

Erasmus+: A Budget Still Being Finalized

On the financial front, the debate is still ongoing. The European Parliament is requesting 47.4 billion euros for Erasmus+ at current prices, compared to the 40.8 billion proposed by the Commission. This is the figure that the plenary had already approved on April 28, in the interim report on the multiannual budget, and which the CULT Committee confirmed on September 29, having reduced its initial request of approximately 58 billion. On the other hand, the latest negotiating proposal from the Irish Council Presidency—while containing no further cuts compared to the Cypriot proposal from June— stands at 39.1 billion: 4.1% less than the Commission’s proposal.

Expressed in 2025 prices—that is, adjusted for a conventional annual inflation rate of 2%—the figures are as follows:

On paper, therefore, even the Commission’s proposal is worth about 30% more than the two current programs combined, according to calculations by the European Parliament’s research service. However, these calculations use a standard inflation rate of 2% per year, whereas prices have risen much more sharply in recent years, and the new program will also have to fund new initiatives. For this reason, leading organizations in the sector believe that the Commission’s proposal does not actually represent an increase, and that with less than the 47.4 billion allocated by Parliament, Erasmus+ would not even be able to meet current demand.

This upward trend is linked to the program’s expanding ambitions and growing demands from civil society organizations, which make the program’s actual financial capacity rather limited and create a recognized imbalance between its objectives and the available funds, as highlighted by a recent European Parliament study. The merger of the European Solidarity Corps into Erasmus+ will further accentuate these dynamics.

The CULT Committee proposed reintroducing sectoral earmarking—that is, fixed allocations by sector of intervention—which civil society organizations strongly advocate for, in order to ensure stability and transparency and avoid the risk of internal competition for funding. The text approved by CULT sets the following minimum quotas: 74.6% for education and training (of which: 35% for higher education, 21.5% for vocational training, 15.5% for K-12 education, and 5.2% for adult education), 15% for youth and volunteerism, and 4.1% for sports.

Erasmus+: Reactions from Civil Society

The CULT Committee’s report is full of proposals that reflect the views expressed by civil society organizations in the debate on Erasmus+. However, many questions remain unanswered.

The first issue is the budget: the amount approved by Parliament—47.4 billion—is, for civil society, the minimum threshold. Back in June, the Lifelong Learning Platform (LLLP), which coordinates the Erasmus+ Coalition together with the European Youth Forum, highlighted that the budget level proposed by Parliament is essential to maintaining the current level of activities. On October 5, the two organizations, on behalf of the coalition’s 88 European networks, sent an open letter calling for the budget not to fall below this threshold under any circumstances: a figure, they note, far below the 130 billion suggested by the Draghi report and even lower than the 60 billion requested by European universities. With approximately 2% of the EU budget, the letter emphasizes, Erasmus+ yields a tenfold return on every euro invested. However, the Irish “negobox,” currently set at 39.1 billion, remains far from this threshold.

CULT’s proposal to reintroduceearmarking (allocations tied to specific sectors) is generally viewed as a positive sign, but reactions to the proposed allocation have varied depending on individual perspectives. Even regarding the June draft, the Lifelong Learning Platform believed that it would penalize theeducation and training sector—a defining component of Erasmus+—and called for maintaining at least the current allocation of 79.7% (calculated to include the European Solidarity Corps): the final text’s 74.6% falls short of that. The European Youth Forum (another coordinating organization of the Erasmus+ Coalition) emphasized the importance of safeguarding the youth sector and its allocation (14.2% in the draft), which, starting in the next seven-year period, will include the volunteering component and the European Solidarity Corps: the final text raises it to 15%, the threshold long sought by youth organizations. In contrast, the share allocated toAdult Learning (from 5.8% to 5.2% of the education and training budget): a worrying figure for anyone working with NEETs and migrants, especially in Italy.

The Erasmus+ Coalition Italy network also presented a comprehensive package of proposals and requests, among which we would like to highlight the following:

• The introduction of operating grants for intermediary organizations—that is, multi-year funding for civil society organizations that make Erasmus+ accessible at the local level, moving beyond an approach based exclusively on individual projects;
• Greater synergy between the ESC and the Universal Civil Service, by strengthening coordination between the two programs, simplifying their administrative procedures, recognizing their respective accreditations, and introducing common operational tools;
• Greater attention to promoting universal access to the program, by addressing “structural or situational barriers” through shared criteria, measures specifically designed for inland areas, and greater integration with cohesion funds;
• The introduction of clearer and more unambiguous definitions of “youth organization” and “youth-led,” to ensure that resources allocated for youth participation actually reach youth-led organizations.

Erasmus+: How to Prepare for the Future

Nothing is certain yet, and the negotiations are not over. The CULT Committee’s text is expected to be voted on by the Parliament’s plenary session in November; only then can negotiations with the Council begin. According to the rapporteur himself, agreements on the financial aspects will be postponed until early 2027, pending the overall agreement on the multiannual budget. It is therefore too early to provide definitive answers, but if this remains the direction of the program, it is already possible to identify some priorities and ideas to prepare for the future:

• Prepare for a single point of access for mobility and volunteer work, planning activities in a more integrated manner, with synergies at the local and European levels—while safeguarding the distinct nature of volunteer work compared to internships or paid work;
• Build more stable networks and partnerships, promoting long-term initiatives and facilitating mentorship relationships between larger, more established organizations and smaller ones in project management;
• Take action to demonstrate the ability to engage people with fewer opportunities—including people with disabilities, NEETs, and migrants—through targeted initiatives to reach young people in rural and remote areas, and by collaborating with local authorities, schools, municipalities, cooperatives, and social services;
• Invest in “skills” in sectors that are strategic for the EU—such as AI literacy, digital citizenship, media literacy, and financial literacy—by integrating them into educational activities. At the same time, organizations will be called upon to strengthen youth participation in democracy and the promotion of European values;
• Invest in financial transparency, good governance, and internal participation. With increasingly high standards for evaluation and accountability, organizations will need to be prepared to manage resources from different programs.

The future of Erasmus+ has not yet been decided. There is still an opportunity to contribute to its evolution, both by promoting change within one’s own organization and by joining networks such as the Erasmus+ Coalition.