The future of European programs: budgets and prospects for 2028-2034

Year-end: let’s try to take stock of the ongoing debate on the future Multi-Year Financial Framework 2028-2034

Multi-year financial framework 2028-2034: what has happened in recent months

As this year’s concluding article we offer a review of one of the “hottest” topics of the period, namely the future of European programs 2028-2034.

In July 2025, the European Commission’s first proposal for the new Multiannual Financial Framework was published-the first step in a consultation process that over the next two years will lead to final approval by the Council and European Parliament.

We talked in early August about the main changes. For an additional overview, we also recommend an excellent infographic produced by the European Parliament’s Think Thank.

The European Commission then published on Sept. 3 a number of new proposed regulations that supplement and complement the overall proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034 with new sectoral regulations:

• Single market and customs program
• Justice Program
• European Atomic Energy Community research and training program.
• Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Program in Lithuania and the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation and Decommissioning
• The association of overseas countries and local organisations to the European Union including Greenland
• Pericles V program in monetary matters

The proposal introduces significant changes, in terms of resources, governance, and the structure of funds and programs. For this reason, it is provoking heated debate both among member states and within the European Parliament and civil society.

The European Commission launched a public consultation in July to gather feedback on the proposed new MFF, on the Have your Say platform (which we had mentioned here). A large number of citizens, businesses, organizations, companies, local and regional authorities, universities and research centers, civil society organizations, trade unions and social partners participated in the consultation: all feedback is accessible online.

They were collected in 6 thematic consultations:

• National and Regional Partnership Plans
• European Competitiveness Fund and Horizon Europe
• Global Europe Program
• Erasmus+ and AgoraEU programs.
• Crisis preparedness and response
• Management and monitoring of the MFF

Building on the ongoing debate and the results of the consultation, let us look together at what are some of the main observations and proposals that have emerged in recent months.

The new structure of the 2028-2034 Multi-Year Financial Framework: toward more competition?

One of the main novelties is the simplified structure of the new MFF (see previous article): it includes a significant reduction in the number of programs, the amalgamation of previously independent programs (e.g., Creative Europe and CERV merged into AgoraEU), and the introduction of new instruments with a very broad scope, such as the European Competitiveness Fund and National and Regional Partnership Plans.

It aims to make the management and disbursement of funds simpler, promoting cost savings and administrative efficiency. It also attaches increasing centrality to co-investment mechanisms with private funding.

Feedback received highlights the possible negative effects of this structure. First, there is the risk of reduced accessibility of funds and less diversification of beneficiaries. Merging programs or creating larger programs may lead to greater competition between sectors and organizations, and result in less accessibility to funds by less structured organizations, or those dealing with sectors considered less of a priority. The increasing centrality of co-investment mechanisms could come at the expense of grants with which “classic” European projects, vital for civil society organizations in many sectors and local organisations, are supported.

To mitigate these risks, some proposals suggest establishing restricted funds and safeguard mechanisms dedicated to specific sectors (such as social economy, environment and biodiversity) and smaller organizations (with participatory and flexible funding mechanisms).

The new AgoraEU program

The result of the simplification process, AgoraEU is the European Commission’s proposal to merge the former Creative Europe and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programs into a single program. The new program is reorganized into three areas (Culture, MEDIA+ and Democracy, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values) and emphasizes the importance of creating cross-sectoral synergies between the cultural, media and civic spheres to maximize the program’s impact.

Some of the points of discussion on the AgoraEU program include:

• The accessibility of the program to small organizations: the further administrative relief in the management of funds, with the extension of measures such as lump sums, is seen as a positive point to allow even less structured organizations to access the program; financial support to third parties (re-granting, cascade funding), also allows funds to be distributed to smaller organizations, through intermediary organizations that have obtained EU funding. At the same time, the principle of co-financing, maintained in AgoraEU, is a prerequisite that can limit access to funds by smaller organizations and local media;
• The key role of Civil Society Organizations: in order to ensure the centrality of civil society in the program, the importance of fostering a more structured dialogue with CSOs in the governance of AgoraEU and in the operational framework of the program is emphasized as well. In this regard, the importance is stressed that the new MFF should also continue to support CSOs’ advocacy activities to strengthen civic participation and social resilience. A focus on supporting smaller organizations working at the local level in areas such as youth, citizenship, rights, equality and culture is also called for, while also introducing funding mechanisms that are more flexible and can also support the organizations’ operations.

The new Erasmus+ program

In a previous article we outlined the major new features for the new Erasmus+ program that include:

• An increase in available funds (to date +15% considering the amalgamation of multiple programs and inflation).
• The amalgamation of European Solidarity Corps and Erasmus+ into a single program.
• The reorganization of the program based on two pillars: Learning Opportunities for All and Support for Capacity Building.
• The opening to new accession countries (accession countries).

The main observations that emerged include:

• The total amount of funds available: as noted in the previous article, the budget allocated to the new program is considered by many to be insufficient to meet the challenges of Erasmus+ in key areas such as promoting active citizenship, intercultural understanding, solidarity, skills for life, and the development of future-oriented skills such as STEM disciplines, sustainability, and entrepreneurship.
• The amalgamation of Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps: if not accompanied by the establishment of clear budget quotas, the amalgamation risks diminishing the impact of the new program. Tied budget quotas could preserve the importance of youth-related activities within the new program, while also supporting volunteering and civic participation outside the youth sphere.
• The distribution of funds among program areas: the budget allocated to Erasmus+ is seen as unbalanced toward university higher education (70 percent). Areas such as active citizenship, informal education, youth participation, solidarity and volunteering see a minority share allocated, despite the fact that they are essential to ensure citizens’ accessibility to the program.

Cohesion Policy, Structural Funds and Common Agricultural Policy

The structural and rural funds, which amount to 44 percent of the total MFF, are the subject of major innovations in the new proposed regulation, particularly in terms of structure and governance. In fact, a single “European Fund for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture and Rural Development, Fisheries and Maritime Policy, Prosperity and Security” is established, bringing together structural funds (ERDF and ESF+), the Cohesion Fund, CAP and CFP instruments, the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, Border Management, and the Social Climate Fund. This translates into the reduction from more than 500 national and regional programs to 27 National-Regional Partnership Plans (NRPs), one for each member state.

This reorganization is eliciting a number of reactions, not least from the European Committee of the Regions (CoR ), which has produced an initial draft opinion, and mainly concerning:

• The ability to respond articulately to territorial and local needs: the bundling of programs, if not well calibrated, risks diluting local specificities within the broader National and Regional Partnership Plans, reducing the voice of regions and cities. This can weaken the EU’s presence at the local level, reducing trust, participation and thus the impact of structural funds and cohesion policy. One response to this risk could be the introduction of clear rules for the involvement of citizens and local authorities at all stages, from programming through to the monitoring of the funds, or/and keeping previous programs at least partially independent. The CoR proposed, for example, to divide the Fund into 3 separate instruments with clearly allocated budgets, one dedicated to economic and social cohesion that also includes Interreg and rural development, one for agriculture and fisheries, and one dedicated to security. The CoR stressed at a meeting in December (video here) the importance of an approach in which regions and municipalities are true partners in defining the next MFF. In addition, the timelines for Member States to develop MFFs by January 31, 2028, may not be sufficient to ensure real involvement of local actors and stakeholders in programming.
• The ability to give space to social and environmental priorities: regarding social priorities (as outlined in the European Pillar of Social Rights), in the new MFF the portion of resources allocated to the Structural Funds for social priorities, which included a minimum of 25 percent for social inclusion and 5 percent for children, has been replaced by an overall 14 percent for all social priorities, including, for example, social infrastructure (which would account for about 40 percent of it). This could weaken funding for inclusion, social rights and local activities, which may depend more on immediate priorities at the national level than on a common European vision. To mitigate this risk, it is proposed that the share devoted to social spending be increased, and that safeguard mechanisms be introduced that clearly tie funds to these priorities.

European territorial cooperation

European Territorial Cooperation programs are combined under the Commission’s proposal within a single “Interreg Plan” within the larger “European Fund for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture and Rural Development, Fisheries and Maritime Policy, Prosperity and Security.” The resources, 10, 26 billion euros, are up slightly from the 2021-2027 seven-year period.

The structure, while maintaining dedicated geographic chapters within it, would then be managed with a more centralized logic.

As with the amalgamation of the other structural funds, the debate is ongoing to ensure the balance between centralization and the role of regions and municipalities. A full role for regional authorities in the management of the funds is seen as crucial for a program that is effective and in line with Interreg’s cross-border cooperation vocation, and that is able to support joint strategies for challenges such as climate change, green and digital transitions, and crisis response and resilience.

The new Horizon Europe program and the European Competitiveness Fund.

In the European Commission’s proposal, Horizon Europe is maintained as an independent program with a budget almost doubled from the previous seven-year period. In terms of structure, the new proposal is mostly under the banner of continuity, but with some major changes:

• Reducing the length of the Work Programs (two-year work plans that contain the calls) with a less prescriptive approach, decreasing the number of topics (research topics that guide individual Horizon Europe calls), and more concise topics;
• The elimination of the distinction between “Research and Innovation Actions (RIA)” and “Innovation Actions (IA)” and their funding percentages:
• The more bottom-up, less prescriptive approach with open topics;
• The use of lump sums by default, unless otherwise specified, to facilitate program accessibility to new and smaller organizations;
• Reducing the maximum grant awarding time to 7 months to speed up the implementation time of funded projects.

Horizon Europe is part of a broader rubric that is another of the big new features of future programming: the European Competitiveness Fund, which brings together actions currently funded by 14 different funding instruments including Digital Europe, the Innovation Fund, EU4Health, the SME scope of the Single Market Program, and LIFE. The Fund is structured in 4 policy windows that bring together different areas (from artificial and digital intelligence to health and biotech, from decarbonization and clean technologies to space defense sectors).

With respect to this proposal, some of the discussion points that have emerged focus on:

• The importance of maintaining a focus on strategic priorities not only for competitiveness, but also in the green and social spheres: innovation and experimentation in the service of social transformation are likely to be less central in the new arrangement. They are essential ingredients of competitiveness and need long-term, cross-cutting approaches;
• Strengthening territorial ecosystems and accessibility: the need to act more decisively on strengthening territorial research and innovation ecosystems, enabling more cross-border connections, scalability, and collaboration between ecosystems (more and less innovative) to address fragmentation and graft different capacities between innovation ecosystems at the territorial level is reported. The importance of Horizon Europe being more accessible to smaller actors, such as SMEs and start-ups, is also emphasized;
• The role of culture, creativity and social for competitiveness: these are areas considered marginal in the new Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund, but they are important drivers of competitiveness, interdisciplinarity and response to societal challenges. Some proposals therefore suggest introducing a cluster or cross-cutting area dedicated to them;
• Coherence and synergy between Horizon Europe, the European Competitiveness Fund, and National and Regional Partnership Plans: Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund are in part complementary in supporting research and innovation and in bringing research results to market, developing new solutions, and promoting their wider adoption. However, this connection is not yet defined in detail in the Commission’s proposal, nor is the way to create synergy and ensure coherence with National and Regional Partnership Plans.

The future of the LIFE program

Another point of debate is the fate of LIFE, Europe’s main biodiversity protection program. The current proposal is not to maintain LIFE as an independent program, but to distribute the funds previously allocated to the program, mainly within the National and Regional Partnership Plans and the European Competitiveness Fund.

Organizations and bodies active in the climate field see the risk that this shift will lead to a subordination of environmental and climate goals to competitiveness. In addition to having potential negative consequences from the standpoint of EU leadership in environmental policies, this could result in a reduced ability to counter biodiversity loss, as well as repercussions from an economic standpoint. In fact, according to the EU Nature Restoration Regulation itself, the socioeconomic value of the benefits from nature restoration are far greater (by 8-10 times) than the initial investments.

To avoid this risk, many organizations are calling for the LIFE program to be retained, or replaced by funds clearly earmarked for LIFE’s specific priorities.

Global Europe

The proposal for the new Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034 includes a heading dedicated to the Global Europe program, the main instrument for external cooperation and development cooperation with candidate, third and neighboring countries.

Again, the new Global Europe instrument amalgamates previous instruments, such as NDICI Global Europe, IPA III Pre-Accession Assistance, and Humanitarian Aid, for an investment more than doubled compared to the previous seven-year period, with an organization by geographic rather than thematic areas.

Some of the comments that emerged emphasize the importance of Global Europe investing in more inclusive, effective and locally oriented international cooperation, putting local actors on an equal footing in the development of development cooperation, humanitarian and peacebuilding programs. This means a more direct distribution of funds based on joint accountability, involving local authorities, community leaders and civil society. The involvement of member states in setting priorities for EU external action should also take into account not only the political level, but also the role of civil society and local actors.

Looking to the Future: next steps for the EU budget 2028-2034

The Commission’s proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034 has opened an intense and multifaceted debate in which the goal of simplification, greater efficiency, and increased competitiveness is measured against the need to ensure accessibility, territorial specificity, and the right emphasis on social, environmental, and civic priorities. All the actors involved, from civil society to the Committee of the Regions, from businesses to local authorities, are fueling a debate that will last for a long time to come before final approval.

The decisions made during this period will define not only resources, but the very strategic direction of the Union for the next seven years. We will continue to closely follow this process, which is crucial for the future of European programming and its impact on local organisations and communities.

We leave you, in the next paragraph, with a summary outline of the proposed MFF 2028-2034, taken from data from the European Parliament’s research service.

Follow us in the New Year to make sure you don’t miss any upcoming updates: in the meantime, a Happy New Year from the Guide, from EUknow.co.uk, to all of you

The 2028-2034 MFF: an overview