Introduction

As the European Union has entered negotiations for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the European Students’ Union (ESU) welcomes the Commission’s recognition of the importance of education, citizenship and solidarity within the proposed framework. However, ESU stresses that the decisions taken now will shape the future of education, mobility, democratic participation and social inclusion across Europe. ESU is concerned that the proposal remains overly general and does not sufficiently confront the real budgetary, structural and political challenges facing learners and civil society today. In this context, ESU sets out its key priorities and expectations to ensure that the final MFF, and the programmes within it, deliver on their promises of accessibility, transparency and meaningful support for students, higher education institutions and civil society organisations. ESU calls on European institutions to place students at the centre of the MFF negotiations and to secure a financial framework that strengthens the European Education Area and leaves no learner behind.

Erasmus+ 

Budget of the program

ESU welcomes the retention of Erasmus+ as a stand-alone programme, safeguarding the integrity and impact of the programme. Nonetheless, with the new rendition of the Erasmus+ programme, there were also a lot of structural changes implemented, the most notable being the merger of the programme with the European Solidarity Corps (ESC). Integrating the ESC into the Erasmus+ programme risks diminishing the visibility and political priority of both programmes and downplaying the essential role of volunteering, which deserves a dedicated and clearly defined strand. 

At the same time, the European Commission is advertising an increase of 50% from the previous budget. However, this narrative is misleading. Taking the merger with the ESC and inflation into account, the proposed budget of 40.8 billion EUR does not represent a significant increase and far from sufficient to achieve the objective of the programme(s). Even further, the increase proposed is nominal only; in relative terms, the new Erasmus+ programme represents an even smaller share of the overall Multiannual Financial Framework than in the previous term. As it stands, the budgetary increase is insufficient in meeting all objectives of the programme: Simply being able to continue the current level of Erasmus+ with the same priorities as in the 2021-2027 would require a doubling of the budget for 2028-2034. In order to fulfil those goals set in the previous years which have not been able to be reached at the current level of the programme, a threefold increase would be necessary. As such, ESU joins the calls from the Mario Draghi report and demands a fivefold increase of the budget for 2028-2034 to account for the new initiatives put forward by the Commission. 

Structure of the programme

The new programme proposal introduces several structural novelties, some of which represent welcome improvements, while others pose significant challenges for the programme and its beneficiaries.

While ESU welcomes the proposed restructuring of Erasmus+ into two pillars and recognises that the structural change offers improvements such as greater flexibility, a clearer grouping of actions, and simplified access for beneficiaries, it also expresses its concern that the restructuring may risk reducing the visibility and effectiveness of certain key actions, particularly those related to policy development and youth participation. The second pillar, Capacity Building Support, effectively merges the former Key Actions 2 and 3, but lacks sufficient emphasis on policy development, which plays a distinct and essential role in driving systemic change and fostering democratic engagement. In the past, Erasmus+ enabled impactful policy-focused projects through strong cooperation between Member States and stakeholders. Without a clearly defined space for policy development and adequate incentives for Member States to pilot new initiatives, the programme risks losing its ability to address major challenges across educational sectors. ESU therefore insists that support to policy development must remain a distinct, visible and well-resourced component within the restructured Erasmus+ to safeguard its long-term relevance and impact. 

On the other hand, ESU strongly opposes the proposed removal of sector-specific earmarkings as well as the removal of sectoral partition in the new programme proposal. This novelty rids beneficiaries of their legal certainty and legitimate expectations, undermining the EU’s obligations on sound financial management, transparency, and budgetary specificity. Without predictable, earmarked budgets, students, institutions, and other beneficiaries cannot plan their activities, creating instability that will hinder implementation and risk directing funds only to sectors already capable of absorbing them, while neglecting those with greater needs. Erasmus+ should both scale up what works and address gaps, such as insufficient access to learning mobility for students, persistent inequalities in participation across higher education, and barriers faced by students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Sacrificing earmarking in the name of flexibility is a false trade-off that would ultimately make the programme less accessible and more chaotic for many beneficiaries. ESU stresses that there should at least be a multi-year sectoral allocation with defined minimum percentages, determined in close cooperation with the main representatives of Erasmus+ beneficiaries. Any unilateral decision by the European Commission on this matter would be unacceptable. 

Student mobility 

Student mobility is one of the core pillars of Erasmus+, yet the proposal fails to address its most urgent challenge: the persistent inadequacy of mobility grants. While the cost of living keeps rising, Erasmus+ support has not kept pace, limiting access for students who cannot rely on additional financial resources. With the merger with the European Solidarity Corps, the expansion of the programme and inflation, Erasmus+ would require a substantial and realistic budget increase that the current proposal fails to deliver. ESU therefore calls for mobility grants that reflect the realities of students, actual study costs, and ensure that everyone can participate in the programme on equal terms, without financial barriers.

Support to Civil Society Organisations

Support to civil society organisations has long been ensured through instruments such as Operating Grants, which have been essential for European networks to function, provide expertise and act as reliable social partners in EU policy-making. Civil society strengthens democratic governance, improves outreach to students and learners, ensuring that Erasmus+ remains accessible and inclusive. ESU is deeply concerned that the current proposal weakens this role by failing to secure stable organisational support, reducing clarity on cooperation mechanisms and removing sectoral structures that previously ensured predictability. These changes risk limiting the participation of smaller or newcomer organisations and weakening the support of the existing ones.

ESU calls for the expansion of Article 6 of the legal framework to explicitly guarantee support for European Networks and to commit to reducing administrative burdens linked to applying and reporting. Ensuring stable organisational support is essential for civil society to continue acting as a strong partner in EU governance and safeguarding democratic participation. Without this, the capacity of European networks to contribute meaningfully to policy developments and implementation processes will be significantly diminished.

Scholarships in strategic fields

The financial burden of pursuing higher education stands as the primary obstacle to creating a genuinely accessible Higher Education system. EUROSTUDENT shows fee policy already steers enrolment, only 36% of students in natural sciences pay fees compared with 54% in business. In line with this premise, ESU has always been a big supporter and active advocate for increasing scholarships and social support for students, and therefore, we welcome a proposal to launch new scholarships for students. This being said, we also take the opportunity to underline our concern with the proposal at hand, as we are sceptical of the nature of the proposal, especially as it seems to seek out very specific fields of study, while excluding others, deepening existing inequalities.

The proposal in its current form lacks clarity regarding the selection criteria for the fields of study involved, the criteria for allocating the scholarships and overall the amount of funds that will be allocated and the period of funding for students.

In light of the proposal’s current financial limitations, which cast doubt on its ability to meet its objectives, ESU deems it crucial to carefully evaluate the potential consequences of introducing these scholarships for the programme’s overall effectiveness and its impact on the broader population of students.

Additionally, many questions remain unanswered, and we would like to stress the necessity for transparency and clear messaging on which fields and on what basis would be considered strategic under this initiative, as well as its end goal and sthe cope of potential beneficiaries of these scholarships. As ESU, we cannot help but wonder if this scholarship initiative might end up deepening the exclusion already felt by some fields of study when it comes to financing and institutional support, while increasing support to areas of study that already benefit from more support and more financing. 

ESU firmly believes that answers to questions raised and ultimately future decisions regarding this initiative should be developed through a broad stakeholder consultation, with student organisations having a central role in the discussion and in the decision-making process.

Finally, ESU wants to reaffirm the fact that Erasmus was designed to promote exchange between institutions, encourage cross-border cooperation and support student and staff mobility in and outside of Europe, and we believe that Erasmus+ funds should remain in line with those objectives. 

As a way forward, ESU sees adding this line to the competitiveness fund as more fit for purpose.

Partial association with the programme and enlargement

ESU welcomes the introduction of partial association as a useful mechanism to gradually open Erasmus+ to EU candidate countries, but insists that it must serve strictly as a transitional step toward full association, not a long-term alternative for countries that meet the necessary criteria. For non-EU countries in the the wider wider neighbourhood, ESU views partial association as a potential tool to support more balanced mobility – both outgoing and incoming; however, these should not come at the expense of fulfilling the objectives of the Erasmus+ programme by creating additional financial strain. Moreover, ESU stresses that mobility cannot be meaningfully expanded unless persistent visa and administrative barriers are addressed and procedures for students are substantially facilitated. At the same time, the partial association provision should not be misinterpreted as applying to the UK or Switzerland, whose situations require separate political solutions and for whom full reassociation should remain the ultimate objective.

The European University alliances

European University Alliances (EUAs) have been affirming themselves as a key initiative from the European Commission in the field of higher education.  Since the start of the initiative, ESU has launched several initiatives to promote and constructively represent student voices, most notably through the creation of the Conference of Student Bodies of the Alliances.  

ESU stresses that the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework must clearly reflect the essential role of democratically elected student bodies in EUAs’ governance and ensure that this role is embedded in funding criteria. For students to fully experience the results of this initiative and cross-border institutional collaboration, it is necessary to switch the understanding and concept not just as project-based initiative, too deepening institutional mindset. The European Education Area (EEA) can play a major role in further implementing the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) policies and in allowing policy experimentation while retaining the EHEA as the main policy-setting forum for HE in Europe. With that in mind, ensuring democratic student representation in governance structures of these alliances is nonnegotiable to ensure compliance with the EHEA fundamental values and to uphold the democratic and European values which alliances themselves claim to advance. 

ESU also underlines the urgent need for greater transparency and monitoring of the alliances, including improved public access to information on their governance structures, decision-making processes, activities, and outputs. Given that alliances are funded by public European resources, robust mechanisms for democratic scrutiny by students and the wider academic community must be guaranteed and reflected in criteria for funding.

To ensure that alliances contribute to a more equitable higher education landscape, ESU calls for the establishment of a binding inclusivity and accessibility framework. This framework should prevent alliances from reinforcing and deepening already existing inequalities between students, institutions, or regions, and should ensure that no student is excluded due to socioeconomic background, disability, migration status, or other structural barriers, especially when it comes to participating in joint degrees and mobilities.

Student mobility within alliances must be central, as to align with the core purpose of Erasmus+ funding, the funding source of EUAs. Alliance-based mobility should prioritise learning quality, accessibility, and genuine intercultural exchange, the basis of the Erasmus+ program.  

Regarding the research and competitiveness components increasingly associated with the alliances, ESU highlights the limitations of Erasmus+ as a funding tool, as well as its actual purpose. Given the already limited resources of Erasmus+, it is essential that the funding available is actually invested in initiatives that directly impact students and promote and fund mobilities, rather than diverted to non-educational or research-exclusive objectives that should be supported through other EU funding instruments. 

Other programs

Agora EU

ESU welcomes the establishment of the AgoraEU programme and recognises its strengthened commitment to democracy, fundamental rights, media pluralism and cultural diversity. We support the substantial budget increase, particularly within the CERV+ strand, the preservation of clear thematic strands, and the recognition of civil society as a key actor for democratic resilience. We also value AgoraEU’s focus on equality, active citizenship and non-discrimination, which are essential for a democratic European Higher Education Area.

However, ESU expresses significant concerns regarding the current proposal. The removal of structured civil dialogue mechanisms weakens meaningful stakeholder involvement and risks reducing the programme’s overall effectiveness. The merger of Creative Europe and CERV may dilute the visibility and impact of actions dedicated specifically to democracy, rights and civic participation. In addition, AgoraEU lacks clarity on the design and funding of cross-sectoral actions, creating uncertainty for organisations working at the intersection of education, media literacy and civic engagement. ESU also stresses the need to safeguard the full scope of democratic participation and citizenship activities currently supported under the citizens’ engagement and participation strand.

Furthermore, ESU highlights the absence of explicit links between AgoraEU and citizenship education initiatives within Erasmus+, including those that promote academic freedom, democratic participation within higher education institutions and the protection of student rights. Empowering students as active citizens requires support for these elements across all relevant EU programmes.

ESU therefore urges the European institutions to address these shortcomings in order to ensure that AgoraEU can fully deliver on its mission to strengthen democracy, rights and civic participation across Europe.

The competitiveness fund 

The Competitiveness Fund is another novelty of the new Multiannual Financial Framework, which ESU views with caution, primarily due to the lack of clarity surrounding its synergies with Erasmus+ and how beneficiaries could access the proposed financial top-ups. For ESU, any new funding instrument must enhance – rather than complicate access, transparency and predictability for programme beneficiaries. ESU is also concerned by the limited involvement of civil society, including student and youth organisations, in the design and planned governance of the Fund. Restricting participation to individual experts is insufficient, and meaningful organisational presentation is necessary to ensure democratic oversight, safeguard public interest and prevent decisions from being driven solely by industrial or economic priorities. ESU therefore calls for structured, formal involvement of civil society organisations in the Stakeholder Board and related Committees, and for clearer, accessible pathways enabling Erasmus+ beneficiaries to understand and benefit from any complementary funding that the Competitiveness Fund may offer.