The EU’s long-term budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), will be determined over the next 18 months. Starting in early 2028, it will total almost EUR two trillion spending over seven years.
Since the European Commission unveiled its MFF proposal in July, a struggle has started playing out in the European Council, and various Committee hearings in Parliament and the Commission, over the details. A second draft of the budget is expected by the end of the year.
Behind the complex negotiations and the political maneuvering, choices will be made which will shape the future of independent media, civil society and tech in the EU for the next decade.
Defence, security and trade are now the EU’s foremost priorities, yet security is not just about drones and missiles. It also relies on having cohesive, open societies based on the rule of law – and the outcome of the MFF will show how far the EU is prepared to defend democracy at a time of unprecedented challenges.
The current proposal’s new flagship programme, AgoraEU, is particularly significant for civil society. It merges the current MFF’s Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme (CERV) and Creative Europe (which currently supports media organisations) into one larger integrated programme.
Over the past seven years the CERV programme has been a game changer for civil society: providing billions of euros of support to organisations at the coalface of protecting democracy. Many of them are now reeling from government cuts and the departure of large philanthropic organisations. Against this backdrop, any reduction in MFF funding would be especially detrimental.
Here three experts from the fields of civil society, tech, and media share their insights into the MFF negotiations and what’s at stake.
“The fact that they created a programme for democracy is significant: they’re saying they recognise democracy isn’t just strong institutions and electoral procedures. It’s civil society, the media, civic participation.” Giada Negri.
Giada Negri is Acting Co-Secretary General at the European Civic Forum (ECF), a network of more than 100 associations and NGOs across 28 European countries, from grassroots organisations up to civil society federations at national level. Giada leads ECF’s work on civic space.
“Europe faces numerous challenges — including global and structural threats such as climate change, internal threats such as growing precarity and inequality, and external threats such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the change in the US approach to global affairs.
At the same time, trust in democratic institutions is in decline across Europe, as showcased by the growing popularity of the far right in recent elections as well as the rapid emergence and disappearance of unconventional political movements. In this context, the role of civil society is crucial and must be supported at the national and EU level.
We were in the frontline in the previous MFF negotiations, together with some of our members [including one of Civitates’ founding members, the Stefan Batory Foundation from Poland]. It’s thanks to this collective mobilisation that we had the CERV, [the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme], which was established with a budget of EUR 1.55 billion.
Since then the situation has changed drastically.
A 2023 survey by the European Fundamental Rights Agency said that 75% of CSOs working on fundamental rights and democracy feared that funding shortages would threaten their work.
That’s why we’re active again as part of a coalition in this MFF coordinated at the European level by Civil Society Europe: to make sure that the reserve is increased, because the situation in Europe has changed, and the needs for democratic resilience are bigger than before and will increase further in the future.
Earlier this year, we sent a letter from over 330 European civil society organisations urging EU leaders to strengthen and protect democracy in the MFF, and stating that they should do so by increasing the CERV budget.
We’re quite happy with the Commission’s July proposal. We were concerned that the CERV’s funding priorities would be lost in the merger of programmes. Instead, the Commission’s proposal for the AgoraEU program preserves CERV. They also more than doubled the funding for the CERV.
The fact that they created a programme for democracy is significant: they’re saying they recognise democracy isn’t just strong institutions and electoral procedures. It’s civil society, the media, civic participation.
Right now we’re calling on the Parliament and the Council to support this proposal.
One of our fears is the budget is structured in a way that allows a lot of flexibility among programmes – so the danger is that in the future the AgoraEU programme could be affected if civic space is no longer a priority. So we’re working to ensure that specific programmes are protected through earmarking in the MFF.”
“Without an effective and well-resourced civil society, the EU can’t meet its long-term geopolitical obligations.” Mark Scott.
Mark Scott is senior resident fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab’s (DFRLab) Democracy + Tech Initiative within the Atlantic Council Technology Programs. He was previously the chief technology correspondent at Politico, following stints at the New York Times and Bloomberg Businessweek.
“Tech is the front line of a lot of the geopolitical tensions we’re facing. Yet many EU digital-focused organisations, which span civil rights nonprofits to fact-checking groups to internet governance institutions, have been hit hard by the reduction in US government support.
Many are struggling to keep the lights on because of funding pullbacks, both from the public and philanthropic sectors. Without greater long-term support for civil society, the EU’s digital project will fail. The EU’s upcoming MFF is one of the only large pockets of cash still available coming down the pipe that can meet this need.
In July, the Commission claimed the MFF would streamline the funding application process for organisations. Yet merely doubling down on existing funding streams won’t achieve Brussels’ aim of promoting democratic values internally, reinvigorating the bloc’s economy, and exporting the EU’s ‘Third Way’ to like-minded countries.
New financing structures are needed to provide long-term, flexible funds that allow civil society groups to adapt quickly to meet evolving policy needs.
Funding should also be earmarked from the EU’s so-called European Competitiveness Fund, or a €410 billion behemoth that also includes Horizon Europe, aimed at promoting the bloc’s industrial policy. Doubling down on these digital-focused organisations can play a direct role in making the EU more competitive in the cut-throat global economy.
The EU wants to be more nimble and be seen as the bastion of democracy and the rule of law. Civil society is a fundamental component to that. Without an effective and well-resourced civil society, the EU can’t meet its long term geopolitical obligations.”
“Pluralistic independent journalism is crucially important for democracy. But this argument has already persuaded all the people it could. I think there are two other angles to explore.” Peter Erdelyi.
Peter Erdelyi is a media executive from Budapest. He’s the founding director of the Center for Sustainable Media and a former director of 444.hu. As a Fellow at the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford, he researched digital audience revenue strategies in countries where the media environment is under pressure.
“The institutional landscape for the next decade is probably at stake in MFF negotiations. Although these things aren’t static, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that the EU may become the largest funder of the pluralistic information ecosystem.
Pluralistic independent journalism is crucially important for democracy. But this argument – we should fund journalism because it’s important for democracy – has already persuaded all the people it could. I think there are two other angles to explore.
One is that journalism enables economic growth. The Forum on Information and Democracy just released a paper in which 11 very prominent economists, including two Nobel Prize winners, argued that journalism is an economic enabler. They give excellent examples: from how the publication of the Panama Papers enabled states to seize US $1.8 billion worth of hidden assets from people who were exploiting loopholes and weren’t paying taxes, to how the expansion of regional radio stations in India increased farmers’ crop yields by up to 15%.
The other frame is how journalism can help have a safe and secure Europe.
These are important arguments, which we need to make explicitly to convince European decision makers that it’s worth investing in this space.
I think it’s reasonable to expect that under the current proposal, journalism would get EUR 1.6 billion under the Agora program. This would mean more than doubling the current allocations from this programme alone. There are other programmes, like Global Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund, which could also contribute.
What’s proposed now is a very significant increase in funding, which is a good place to start. The problem is some countries are already saying that the overall top line budget number is too large, that there is too much spending earmarked.
On top of that, some countries are saying we need to reduce the overall budget and to increase allocations for our important priorities, such as defence and agriculture. Some countries just don’t care that much about media spending, and they will allow it to be traded away for their priorities. Some are actively against this type of support.
The initial draft is very generous toward the information ecosystem. But I think it’s very unlikely that will be the final outcome. The only question is: will we still end a little bit better than the status quo under the current MFF – which would already be a victory
I think the Commission wants increased media spending, but it never hurts to tell them. Philanthropists should be vocal about their desire to see public sector resources spent on journalism. They can do this in the context of the Commission and the Parliament.
Very importantly, philanthropies are embedded into the ecosystem of their own countries, and a lot of the negotiations will happen at the Council, which is representative of the member states. So I think if philanthropic organisations can engage stakeholders and their own Member States and tell them we like what is being proposed. It can also be beneficial for philanthropic organisations to signal their willingness to co-finance things with the EU.”
