The European coordination for civil society organisations

Parliament’s Position on the EU Long-Term Budget: A Step Forward, But Gaps Remain

Dylan PowerInstitutional report

Civil Society Europe’s Reaction to the BUDG Committee Vote on the MFF Interim Report

On the 15th April 2026, the Committee on Budgets (BUDG) of the European Parliament approved the MFF Interim Report, the Parliament’s general position on the Multiannual Financial Framework, the 7-year budget of the EU, covering the period 2028-2034. The draft report had received more than a thousand amendments and thirteen committee thematic opinions. We commend the work of the co-rapporteurs to seek compromise within the pro-EU political groups, which was reflected in the quality of the approved text.

We overall welcome the report, and in particular the positive inclusion of many requests by civil society, such as:

  • The increase in size of the MFF, by excluding the repayment of Next Generation EU from the budget (to be accounted for over and above the ceilings), which allows an increase in the size of most programmes;
  • The re-establishment of the European Social Fund+ as a standalone programme with 124,19 billion allocated in current prices;
  • The mandatory involvement of regional and local authorities, social and economic partners and civil society organisations in cohesion policy;
  • The further increase in the budget for several key programmes: AgoraEU (10,72 billion) Erasmus+ (47,39 billion, which however is still not to the level to meet the demands of beneficiaries, considering inflation and programme demand, which would have amounted to 60 billion), Horizon Europe (200,00 billion), Union Civil Protection Mechanism+ (12,42 billion) (all figures in current prices);
  • The recognition of civil society’s role in  providing advice, support and expertise in the development and implementation of EU legislation and policies, and the call for ensuring long-term, predictable and sufficient funding to civil society organisations;
  • The call for a stronger Global Europe Instrument, with a dedicated budget for humanitarian aid and renewed support for civil society and human rights defenders;
  • The support to simplification for final beneficiaries without undermining the involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of programmes under the partnership principle;
  • The support to a unified, coherent and comprehensive framework for the respect of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights across all EU funds, and calls for ensuring that legitimate final recipients and beneficiaries are not penalised because EU funds for their government have been suspended as a result of rule of law breaches.

We underline, however, some concerns that we expect to be addressed:

  • The draft report refers to the Guidance Note of the Commission on the prevention of  “reputational risk“ in the use of EU funds, recalling the 1st April 2025 statement of the Commission on LIFE programme. We underline how the Guidance Note has an uncertain legal legitimacy, that it is already being interpreted by different Commission services in inconsistent ways, and that the European Court of Auditors confirmed that no evidence of irregularities or misuse was found in how NGOs are selected or how EU grants are used. It is also inconsistent with the LIFE regulation which explicitly mentions advocacy. In addition, we believe that this paragraph (92) is at odds with the Civil Society Strategy, referred to in the interim report just above, underlying CSOs key role for  “advice, support and expertise in the development and implementation of EU legislation and policies”. We therefore call on MEPs to reject this paragraph in plenary.
  • The interim report strongly underlines the role of the regional and local authorities in the design, implementation and monitoring of the National and Regional Partnership Plans,“ based on previous understanding of shared management, multi-level governance and partnership principle”. We underline that the partnership principle implies the involvement of civil society organisations too. We expect this principle to be maintained and strengthened in the NRP regulation, for instance with proposals similar to those of the ECON draft opinion on the NRP regulation.
  • The report establishes a clear budget within the European Competitiveness Fund for priorities currently covered by the EU4Health programme (€10.05 billion in current prices) and the LIFE programme (€3.39 billion), to be complemented by funding under the EU Facility established under the NRP regulation to maintain current levels of financing. This sends a clear signal of support for the LIFE programme and its role in delivering results on the ground. The earmarking of funding for LIFE and EU4Health actions is welcome and needed, but falls short of civil society’s call to fully restore LIFE and EU4Health as standalone programmes. 
  • A standalone LIFE programme in the next MFF remains essential, as it is the only EU instrument fully dedicated to delivering on the Union’s environmental and biodiversity commitments; weakening or diluting it would undermine the achievement of EU environmental objectives. At a time of accelerating environmental crises, this also risks weakening Europe’s long-term resilience and strategic autonomy, which depend on healthy ecosystems and secure natural resources. Earmarked funding for biodiversity protection remains indispensable to halt ecosystem collapse and ensure long-term resilience across Europe. Regarding EU4Health, ensuring a dedicated and visible health budget—rather than merging it with agriculture, biotech, or the bioeconomy—is an important step. However, it is equally crucial to ensure that the absence of a successor programme does not weaken the EU’s public health priorities. Without a dedicated public health programme and a more holistic approach to health competitiveness, there is a real risk of undermining these priorities. Addressing these gaps should therefore be a key objective in the forthcoming discussions on the ECF. In this context, the ECF must adopt a broader understanding of “health competitiveness.” This should go beyond innovation alone and fully encompass prevention, equitable access to care, and health literacy—areas that remain insufficiently reflected in the European Commission’s current proposal. 
  • The proposed LIFE and EU4Health programmes must also include a clear, stable funding mechanism for respectively environmental and health civil society, including patient organisations, whose watchdog, public interest advocacy, implementation and community-mobilisation roles are indispensable for achieving EU environmental and public health objectives. Health civil society organisations, including patient organisations, are already dealing with the consequences of the withdrawal of operating grants in 2025, which affect their ability to represent public health’s interests and patients at EU level and contribute to policymaking, despite the commitments set out in the EU Strategy for Civil Society.
  • The proposal to allocate revenue  from digital fines to the AgoraEU programme was not retained in the final text, though it was proposed by the S&D, Greens/EFA and Renew groups. A similar proposal to connect the proposed online gambling levy to investments to education and social funding was also not retained. If these proposals are not put back in the text for the plenary, we expect these groups to support such an allocation during the yearly budget negotiations. 
  • The partnership principle is established for shared management programmes, but it is not clearly defined for those under direct and indirect management: we call for ensuring the application of the partnership principle to all EU programmes, mainstreaming it in the different programme regulations as well as in the performance framework.
  • The section on the Global Europe Instrument falls short on thematic priorities, as it does not explicitly call for thematic spending targets, including for civil society, women’s rights organisations and human rights defenders. It also does not provide clear guarantees for meaningful engagement in programming, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Both points must be included in the EP position on the Global Europe Instrument regulation.

Beyond the plenary vote of the interim report, much will still to be done before the overall Parliament position on the MFF package will be finalised: we expect that the sectoral programme regulations and the performance framework strengthen civil society involvement and funding, and that the Parliament’s position on the new own resources confirms a strong base of genuine own resources to back the necessary proposed increase of the MFF.