The IA underpins the proposals establishing the AgoraEU, Erasmus+ and Justice programmes (2028 2034). It refers to Better Regulation Tool #9 which acknowledges that ‘the special case of preparing a new MFF is a unique process requiring a specific approach as regards scope and depth of analysis’. In addition, it explains that, as ‘the structure of the next MFF will significantly differ from the current one, budget assumptions for each programme are unreliable at this stage’, and the assessment is therefore only qualitative. Following the ‘evaluate first’ principle, the IA identifies the problems and their drivers, and provides some estimates of the scale of the problems. Furthermore, it analyses the problem drivers’ possible development, taking into account megatrends as well. The IA assesses the expected social, economic and environmental impacts of the policy options, and compares them against effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality. It explains the methods used, in particular the social multi criteria evaluation model and underlying methodology, and openly mentions the limitations in the analysis, such as the qualitative analysis of costs and benefits. The description of the options would have benefited from more detailed explanations, as it is not quite clear what kind of measures each option would comprise. A more comprehensive description would have made it easier to follow the impact analysis and comparison of options. Furthermore, the IA could have clarified how widely different stakeholder groups support the preferred option, as this does not clearly appear in the stakeholder consultation summary. As the initiative is relevant for SMEs, a dedicated analysis (SME test) was carried out. The IA also provides a competitiveness assessment. In line with the youth check approach, the IA discusses the initiative’s relevance to young people and their feedback in the consultation. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board decided to issue an opinion without qualification due to the lack of several key elements in the draft IA. The revised IA appears to have made an effort to improve the quality of the assessment; however, not all of the RSB’s points were addressed.
Source : © European Union, 2025 – EP
