The European Commission is seeking to increase funding for the EU’s Global Europe program to €200.3 billion in the 2028-2034 budget. Meanwhile, the Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU has proposed cutting this amount by over 17%, while Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are pushing for €225 billion.
These competing proposals point to a growing disagreement over the bloc’s international development priorities as Official Development Assistance (ODA) declines globally. The outcome of the negotiations will determine not only how much the EU will spend on development, but also how it will allocate funding between long-term cooperation, humanitarian assistance and other priorities.
Global Europe, officially known as the Neighborhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI), is the EU’s main instrument for cooperation with countries outside the bloc. In the 2021-2027 budget, it received €79.5 billion, covering programs aimed at specific regions of the world, thematic programs focused on particular issues such as human rights or climate change, and emergency responses.
In its proposal for the 2028-2034 Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF), presented last year, the European Commission proposed increasing the Global Europe budget to €200.3 billion, while at the same time restructuring the program. This budget places greater emphasis on geographical priorities and less on the thematic areas, offers greater flexibility, and envisages a larger role for private sector partnerships through the Global Gateway program.
A €200.3 billion headline allocation may look like a major increase, but inflation and the consolidation of existing funding instruments make the real increase less straightforward.
However, the headline figures are not directly comparable. As the Center for Global Development has pointed out, the amount proposed by the Commission will total less in real terms than it appears on paper. This is due to the fact that the NDICI is going to be combined with the enlargement (IPA III) and humanitarian aid (HUMA) funds, while inflation will also affect the real value of the proposed increase.
Nevertheless, disagreement over the size of the budget has become a central issue in the negotiations.
On October 10, the Irish government, which holds the Council’s rotating presidency, released its “negotiation box”. This is a new draft of the MFF, proposing a 17.4% decrease in the Commission’s proposed Global Europe allocation.
This has drawn considerable criticism from both Commissioners and MEPs, who argue that the reduction would undermine the EU’s values and the strategic interests at a time when other global donors and governments are cutting development assistance.
A more tangible response came on 19 October. In a session of the Foreign Affairs and Development Committee, MEPs voted to increase the proposed €200.3 billion to €225 billion, explaining that the additional funding would “uphold and promote the EU’s values, principles, and strategic and geopolitical interests, and in the long term contribute to the eradication of poverty”.
The disagreement is no longer just about how much Europe should spend abroad, but about the role it wants to play as a global development donor.
The dispute also raises questions about the EU’s role as a development donor. The acting chief of the World Food Programme has highlighted that the EU “has remained a predictable donor when others have cut, [gaining it] a lot of trust, a lot of capital, a lot of leverage in the international system.”
Laia Aycart Piquer, Policy and Advocacy Adviser at CONCORD, the European Confederation of NGOs working on sustainable development and international cooperation, argues that cutting development spending also goes against Europe’s own interests.
Europe’s safety, prosperity, and resilience cannot be separated from the world around it. Conflict, poverty and climate shocks beyond our borders hit our trade routes, energy supplies and food security. Cutting now saves little and costs Europe trust, influence and the alliances it needs, she contended.
Any cuts would not only impact the EU’s standing in the world. Organizations working with EU ODA have focused greatly on Global Europe in recent years, and any reduction of the original €200.3 billion in the future would impact their work on the ground.
CONCORD has urged humanitarian member organizations to defend the Commission’s proposed €200.3 billion and ensure Global Europe accounts for at least 10% of the MFF. “Development organizations are well placed to explain what these cuts would mean in practice for people and communities, humanitarian responses, long-term development, civil society and peacebuilding,” Laia Aycart Piquer told DevelopmentAid.
For organizations relying on EU funding, the negotiations will determine not only how much money is available, but also whether long-term development, humanitarian action and local civil society retain their place in Europe’s priorities.
“If cuts cannot be avoided, it becomes even more important to protect long-term development, humanitarian action and civil society. We call for at least 80% of funding to be programmable and at least 15% of geographic funding to go to civil society, with direct access for local organizations.”
The negotiations on the next MFF are expected to continue until the end of the year at least, and in all likelihood longer. And while it remains uncertain what the EU’s balance between its external commitments and competing domestic priorities will look like, it seems that ODA is still at the forefront of the minds of most EU officials. In a world where development assistance funds have been dwindling, this is a positive sign.