On 16 July 2025, the European Commission presented its first proposal for the EU's next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2028-2034. The overall proposal amounts to €1.98 trillion, which is equivalent to 1.26% of the EU's average gross national income for that period.
The process of drafting, negotiating and approving the MFF, in which the European Parliament and the Council are involved, is a lengthy one that will continue until the end of 2027. It is therefore possible that the proposal presented by the Commission will undergo cuts over the course of these two years and end up being a very different financial framework from the one presented now, as has happened in previous financial frameworks, especially with regard to external action. Thus, in the current MFF, the external action budget was reduced by 10% from the initial proposal to its adoption, and in previous MFFs the reductions were even more significant.
Changes to the budget may also occur during the seven-year duration of the MFF, as each year an annual budget must be drawn up and approved, with the agreement of the Parliament and the Member States, which determines the actual level of expenditure for that year and the breakdown between the different budget lines within each heading.
In line with the Commission's goal of simplification, the proposal reduces the number of headings, the broadest category of funding programmes, from seven in the current MFF to four:
Global Europe is not only one of the four headings that make up the MFF, but also an instrument that integrates several instruments from the current MFF, including the EU Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI), the humanitarian aid budget and pre-accession funds.
As noted, €200 billion is allocated to the Global Europe instrument, representing a 75% increase in the amount allocated to external action in the current MFF, which can be understood as a sign of the importance the Commission attaches to external action. However, as some civil society organisations point out, the proportion of external action within the overall MFF remains unchanged at 10% and the percentage of the budget considered ODA has been slightly reduced, from 93% in the current MFF to 90%.
As regards the distribution of funds, five geographical pillars and one global pillar are established, each with a non-binding budget proposal, which could therefore be increased or reduced during the negotiation process.
This new instrument is fundamentally different from its predecessor. Unlike the NDICI, which was clearly focused on development cooperation, the Global Europe instrument brings together a wide range of objectives – competitiveness, security, crisis response – in a single set of financial instruments, thereby running the risk of diluting resources across multiple, poorly defined priorities and reducing their impact.
Civil society is therefore concerned that commitments such as poverty eradication and human development are barely mentioned, overshadowed by references to migration, competitiveness, security, investment and Ukraine.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposal removes spending targets: in particular, the thresholds of 30% for climate, 85% for gender equality, 10% for migration and 20% of ODA for human development, which means that there is a real danger that these objectives will be relegated to the background.
It will be important to ensure that these funds reach the people and places that need them most, including Sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the highest proportion of people living in extreme poverty, and the most impoverished countries and fragile contexts.
With regard to humanitarian action, it is very positive that it proposes to allocate €25 billion (more than double the €11 billion in the previous MFF), as in the current context of cuts, this aid will be vital in responding to the humanitarian needs of millions of people.
It should be noted that this is an indicative, non-binding amount, which would allow funds to be transferred from one region to another without any transparency on how the decision will be made or how the funds will be monitored to ensure that the Commission is accountable.
Finally, the Emergency Aid Reserve (in the current MFF) will cease to exist and be replaced by the Emergency Reserve, with a broader mandate to respond to ‘emerging crises and unforeseen needs’, which could include non-humanitarian situations such as migration issues.