EU's Multiannual Financial Framework
A quick guide to understand the MFF and support CSO engagement in this process.
What is the Multiannual Financial Framework?
The European Union's Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is the EU’s long-term budgetary plan, spanning seven years and determining funding priorities across key sectors such as agriculture, research and innovation, education, technology, culture, humanitarian aid and international cooperation. It ensures that EU spending remains predictable and within agreed limits, facilitating effective financial planning and the implementation of EU policies.
Why it matters?
The MFF is more than a budget, it reflects the political priorities of the EU for the next seven years.
As set in Article 312 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
The EU budget must be stable, predictable, and limited
It must cover a long-term period (at least 5 years, although in practice it's usually 7 years)
It sets strict spending ceilings that annual budgets cannot exceed
It requires full agreement from Member States and approval by the European Parliament
It ensures continuity of funding, even if a new budget is delayed
In practice, this means the MFF is legally binding and shapes what the EU can and cannot fund.
Decisions on the MFF have concrete implications: choices made by policymakers in the EU influence how funding is allocated across sectors and regions (internal and external to the EU). This includes, for example, decisions on how predictable, accessible and prioritised is funding for independent media, journalist safety and information integrity.
How is it decided?
Understanding the “Brussels maze” can be complex. If you don’t know the roles that the different institutions play in a legislative process, we encourage you to familiarise yourself with this guide from EDRi before going any further.
EDRi's ACTIVIST GUIDE TO THE BRUSSELS MAZE 3.0
Although we are refering to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) as a single regulation, in reality, it is a package of different regulations that set the overall limits and structure of the budget as well as different funding instruments (which are adopted through separate regulations, each one with its own negotiating process.)
1. Consultations and Commission's Proposal
The process starts with the European Commission drafting a proposal for the MFF and its instruments. These drafts, are usually based on political priorities, economic forecasts and consultations with different stakeholders.
These consultations usually take place through the "Have your say" portal, both before and after the proposal is published by the European Commission.
You can check GFMD's and the EU Media Advocacy WG submissions to the consultation here, as well as our feedback after the Commission published it's proposal for AgoraEU and the Global Europe Instrument., for the 2028-2034 MFF proposal.
2. Review by the Council and the European Parliament
These proposals, presented as regulatory texts, will follow the usual path of review and negotiation by the European Parliament and the Council, to finalise the structure, funding lines, and allocation mechanisms. As we said before, the MFF plays a critical role in setting political priorities, as the allocation of funding reflects broader policy goals and trade-offs.
This means that for each proposal, different working groups will be addressing it at the Council level, while, in the meantime, different Committees at the European Parliament will assign Rapporteurs and Shadow Rapporteurs to find a common position for the European Parliament. In practice, this means suggesting amendments to the initial text.
The joint position and its 24 priority amendments, developed by GFMD members and partners from the EU Media Advocacy Group outline our suggestions on how the proposed Global Europe Regulation should be improved to ensure support to independent, public interest media and journalism, and promote resilient information ecosystems worldwide.
3. Trilogues: the reconciliation between Council and EP's positions
Once the European Parliament and the Council have each adopted their position on a specific proposal, trilogue negotiations can start for that particular file (this means that different timelines apply for each legal text: for example, a position on external funding might be reached before the internal funding instrument for media and culture.)
A trilogue is the negotiation between the Council and the European Parliament, facilitated by the European Commission. In these negotiations the three institutions work to reconcile the differences between their initial positions.
Because each file has its own process, agreements on some instruments might be reached earlier than others, depending on political priorities and how quickly consensus is reached.
Why does advocacy matter?
Political trends are leading to reduced funding for sectors like human rights, freedom of information, and civil society. Midterm reallocations of the current MFF have already shifted priorities toward trade and migration containment, deprioritising human rights as a standalone focus.
For that reason, advocacy is essential even before the European Commission finalises its proposal. Civil Society, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders should present unified sectoral priorities and emphasise the importance of preserving funding envelopes to ensure the fulfilment and respect of human rights both in and outside the EU.
Additionally, EU officials responsible for internal budget negotiations require compelling evidence, such as success stories and tangible impact assessments, to defend their funding allocations. Coordinated advocacy efforts will be crucial to ensuring that the next MFF supports the EU’s commitment to human rights, development, and democratic governance.
Last updated
Was this helpful?