The Commission’s MFF proposal delivers on the call by civil society for an increase in funding of what is currently called the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) Programme, supporting democracy, civic engagement, values and equality programmes. The new programme AgoraEU will be doubling CERV's budget. But the proposal falls short in its support for civil society in Europe, as its structure and details reflect current trends of shrinking civic space and a changing landscape for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). If one places the new budget in the context of the challenges faced by civil society and looks at the language used throughout the proposal, a less positive picture emerges.
AgoraEU merges the independent programmes of CERV and Creative Europe into one programme for civil society (CERV+), culture (Creative Europe+) and media (MEDIA+). The Commission proposes EUR 8.6 billion for AgoraEU over seven years, with EUR 3.6 billion allocated to CERV+, doubling the current budget of EUR 1.55 billion (0.13% of total). This represents approximately 0.18% of the total MFF, a 0.07% proportional increase to the entire budget. CERV+ is the backbone of EU support for CSOs, but not the only source. Sectoral funding is currently also organised in programmes such as LIFE, Erasmus+ and thematic strands of external action funding. Most of these programmes undergo significant changes in the Commission's proposal. Whilst civil society is still mentioned in them, it is without detail or guaranteed earmarking.
The impact of the MFF proposal for civil society can only be understood when put in the context of a changing landscape for the CSOs. Civil society in Europe is facing mounting pressures. Smear campaigns, funding cuts and increasing administrative hurdles silence critical voices, narrowing space for democratic dialogue and civic engagement. These actions are aimed at delegitimising CSOs, contributing to further budget cuts by national governments and leading to the scrutiny of dedicated NGO funding within the EU's LIFE programme. CSO actors have flagged that a narrative is being developed which delegitimises EU funding supporting ‘advocacy efforts’ and ‘contributions to policy making’ by CSOs. Think tanks specifically have already become increasingly deprioritised within EU funding; the 2026-2028 CERV Operating Grant results show little support for think tanks.
These worrying developments are reflected in the language and structure of the proposal. A comparison between CERV and CERV+ reveals crucial differences. CERV+ articles lack the specific mentioning of 'levels' on which CSOs can be active, do not specify representative bodies for civic engagement; moreover, the wording of 'advocacy' and 'contributing to policy making' is absent here. These formulations could form the basis of restrictions on which activities and actors will be funded in this new programme. Furthermore, CERV's merger into AgoraEU risks diluting dedicated support with the other streams, as the option of horizontal calls in AgoraEU lacks earmarking for eligible actors. Without this earmarking, long-term funding will not be guaranteed and can be shifted between the programme lines depending on political priorities.
Beyond AgoraEU, there are other programmes potentially relevant for CSO funding, also lacking earmarking and specification. The National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPP) provide no structures or safeguards for participation. The new Global Europe programme offers support for enlargement countries but lacks earmarking for civil society and favours a geographical focus. Besides, ESF+ and LIFE will be partly integrated into other programmes such as the NRPP, making it difficult to estimate the impact. More access points to these funding programmes will be under national discretion, diluting civil society's influence and access to these funds. Put in the context of the mounting pressures and delegitimisation campaigns against CSOs, these funds are not guaranteed.
The proposal’s ambiguity regarding CSO support in candidate countries is particularly troubling. Civil society plays a crucial role in holding political elites accountable, monitoring democratic and rule of law reforms, informing citizens and generating policy legitimacy in the enlargement process. With democratic backsliding in certain candidate countries and the loss of programmes like USAID, existing EU instruments are insufficient. The proposal is unclear about whether CSOs can benefit from AgoraEU and direct access to Global Europe.
Whilst AgoraEU's consolidated budget appears generous at first sight, context matters. Budgetary pressures and a hostile environment towards civil society raise questions about whether this increase covers losses from sources like USAID and national development programmes. Given unprecedented attacks and an increasingly hostile environment for CSOs, AgoraEU funding is expected among the first to be cut in negotiations. The question is: who will champion CSOs – think tanks, critical voices and citizen movements? Which member states and institutions will protect liberal democracy and all its pillars?
This work originally appeared in the Trans-European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA)’s European Council Experts’ Debrief, Issue XVI, Towards the next MFF: Can the EU deliver?. Read more here.
Liza Saris is a Policy Analyst and Project Manager at the European Policy Centre.
The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
