Written by Peyman Pejman
Nongovernmental and civil society organizations across Europe, some coping with drastic cuts from assistance they used to receive from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) want the European Commission to show flexibility in the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) budget to save democratic values and deliver humanitarian needs.
Until last year, USAID was the largest global aid money distributor, spending nearly $50 billion each year, including on numerous organizations in Europe for projects either inside the continent or for their overseas projects.
The seven-year MFF is the commission’s main funding mechanisms for aid distribution and how the 27-member body spends its budget each year.
For the first time, the new MFF budget is creating a new project, AgoraEU, to support culture, media, and civil society in Europe. The project will combine two previous programs — Development, Education, Awareness Raising (DEAR) and Creative Europe and the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV). The budget is expected to be around 7 billion euros but is not expected to bring in new monies –at least not much—only to make re-programming easier.
Civil Society Europe, which brings together a network of 27 European civil society organizations (CSOs), has welcomed AgoraEU’s creation but is also negotiating for a larger direct CSO role in programming and receiving direct funds to counter projects targeting European democracy and values.
“Authoritarian actors have simultaneously increased investment in influence operations. Russia’s federal budget allocated approximately 120 billion RUB (around €1.4 billion at the time) to mass media in 2021, with subsequent budget laws indicating further increases in state-supported information activities,” the coalition said in a letter sent to the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
“In 2024, significant additional resources were directed to patriotic films, youth festivals and related cultural initiatives aimed at reinforcing official narratives. China has likewise expanded its footprint through strategic investments and influence operations,” it added, bringing to point for the need for more funds.
Maja Sever, President of the European Federation of Journalists, calls on the Commission to show direct support for journalism by earmarking more dedicated more money to journalism and media development.
“In the days when media pressure, especially on independent media, is higher and higher, there is no real no real answer how to finance journalism … European forums such as Agora are not just important but crucial from my point of view even for surviving independent professional journalism,” she says.
“It is important for Europe to recognize independent journalism in its own right and ensure financial availability. I think there is a threat against journalism in every country,” she adds.
While several media outlets across Europe had to close operations when USAID funds stopped, she said, AgoraEU is even more important to European journalism because USAID monies mainly supported capacity development. She wants the EU to finance daily operations to promote investigative and independent media.
Within the MFF, the Global Europe “heading” is the commission’s main vehicle for spending on humanitarian aid, development, rule of law, democracy projects, including media development projects. Under the current proposed draft, the amount is 170 billion euros.
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), CSOs, and activists say the analysis of the MFF proposal concerns them on three fronts, areas where it might lead to Europe failing to keep the mantle of humanitarian and democratic champion from the United States.
The first area relates to how the commission distributes and manages humanitarian funds.
Those interviewed complain that the commission distributes most of the money to institutions of Member States, as opposed to sending them directly to partners in countries where the aid is needed.
Concord, a coalition of some 40 NGOs in Europe, said its analysis of a main Commission program –Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI – Global Europe) – showed Member States being given overwhelming authority over how the money is spent.
“Key findings indicate that indirect management – now accounting for 62% of the reviewed budget – concentrates decision-making authority within pillar-assessed organisations, creating structural barriers to direct CSO participation. Explicit CSO allocations represent just 10% of reviewed funding, while 70% of the budget carries no traceable data on downstream recipients,” a Concord analysis showed.
The current MFF budget draft still does not propose a fixed amount for CSOs, which can receive money either as a receiving agency or to implement projects. Traditionally, their share has been around 5 percent of the aid budget.
In the current MFF draft, the indicative humanitarian aid has been penciled in as 25 billion euros. CSOs and NGOs can benefit from some of that money but they might also receive funding through civil protection programs and emergency funds.
The second objection is that the Commission is walking away from grants-only aid to grants-and-loans projects that also involve the private sector, what has been termed as blended financing and investment guarantees mechanisms.
“The proposed Global Europe Instrument (GEI) for the EU’s 2028–2034 budget signals a major shift in EU external action … [I]t risks deepening the move towards investment-driven approaches that prioritise private finance and EU economic interests,” says another Concord analysis.
NGOs and CSOs want the commission to guarantee a high percentage of aid is distributed through committed grants, not loans, and not subject to commercial interests of the private sector.
In an era when governments are struggling with economic growth and Europe wants to spend more money on defense to rely less on the United States, the idea might have strategic merit but analysts say the problem is that the recipient countries might not be equipped to comply. In the end, the people who are supposed to benefit might end up suffering more, most notably in Africa, which is still the core target of the global aid community.
“The focus on private sector could have a distributive impact if it follows the market model: if you open your resources much more to private sector through loans and guarantees, you are automatically targeting more middle income and stronger countries with more diversified economic structures, more developed, larger in size, says Philippe Van Damme, a former European Union Ambassador and Fellow at the European Centre for Policy Development Management (ECPDM).
“That would be to the detriment of the Least Developed Countries (LCDs) and countries in situations of fragility, where it is more difficult to attract investments,” he adds.
NGOs, CSOs, and development analysts reserve their biggest concern for the third point: The Commission is moving away from its mandate, even when it is trying to consolidate programs, create more efficiency, and find creative ways to generate money for programs.
“Thematically, we have observed a gradual shift in EU and Member States funding priorities away from long-term poverty and inequalities reduction and rights-based development towards geopolitical, security-driven objectives and migration management,” says Laia Aycart, a Policy and Advocacy Advisor at Concord.
Van Damme says it is not just the NGOs and CSOs who have concern about the commission’s direction, and where the grants-loans policy and private sector investment might backfire.
“We have been warning the commission that if you have geopolitical priorities including security, fight against terrorism, and irregular migration, those are hugely concentrated on fragile states and the Sahel, West and Central-Eastern parts (where governments don’t have infrastructures for private sector grants-loan mechanisms.”
If you missed it: The cost of Iran war for Europe
Not to mention, he adds, that poverty reduction is the primary development mandate according to the European Union’s Treaty.
Will the European Commission be able to adequately replace USAID cuts so CSOs and NGOs can respond to rising democratic and humanitarian needs?
“The blunt answer is no. There is no political interest among the member states to compensate for the US withdrawal from these sectors,” says Van Damme.
Write down your thoughts, and we’ll publish them! Write for us!
Disclaimer: the author(s) of the article(s) are solely responsible for any opinions expressed or offers made. These opinions do not necessarily reflect the official position of Daily News Hungary, and the editorial staff cannot be held responsible for their veracity.
