{"id":120978,"date":"2026-10-13T11:12:38","date_gmt":"2026-10-13T09:12:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/?p=120978"},"modified":"2026-10-13T11:20:41","modified_gmt":"2026-10-13T09:20:41","slug":"media-advisory-eu-long-term-budget-crunch-what-to-watch-for-at-the-eu-leaders-summit-on-15-16-october","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/media-advisory-eu-long-term-budget-crunch-what-to-watch-for-at-the-eu-leaders-summit-on-15-16-october\/","title":{"rendered":"EU long-term budget crunch: what to watch for at the EU leaders\u2019 summit on 15-16 October"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brussels, 13 October <\/em>– EU leaders will meet this week for a decisive round of talks on the bloc\u2019s next seven-year budget for 2028\u20132034. These negotiations will shape the EU\u2019s priorities and investment framework well beyond the next EU elections, so the decisions leaders reach now are especially consequential for Europe\u2019s direction over the next decade.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The October European Council is a key political moment. The budget negotiations have reached the crunch phase, with governments aiming to strike a political deal before the end of the year. Some of the most sensitive questions, including the overall size of the budget, are still open.<\/p>\n

Five of Europe\u2019s largest environmental organisations, BirdLife Europe, Climate Action Network Europe, European Environmental Bureau, Transport & Environment, and WWF EU, highlight five key issues for journalists to watch for.<\/p>\n

1. Will leaders protect the climate and environment spending target?<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n

The current negotiating text says at least 35% of the EU budget should support climate and environmental action<\/strong>. In practice, that means EU money going towards measures such as new renewable energy capacity, home renovations, industrial decarbonisation, public transport, climate resilience, and protecting and restoring nature.<\/p>\n

But the 35% is not yet guaranteed. Quantity is only part of the picture: the methodology used to decide what counts towards the target matters just as much. Defence and security spending is excluded from the calculation, and further exemptions would weaken the commitment. Greenwashing and exemptions also mean that the effective target is well below the headline 35%.<\/p>\n

According to our analysis<\/a>, around 8% of the MFF could be counted towards the target without making any real contribution to climate or environmental goals, which would leave an effective target of around 27%, almost a quarter below the headline figure. A study<\/a> by the German Environment Agency (UBA) makes slightly different assumptions but reaches a similar conclusion: 38% of the target could be met without a real contribution. The proposed cuts<\/a> to the Commission\u2019s budget proposal will reduce the funding available for the green transition even further.<\/p>\n

Olivier Vardakoulias, Senior Finance and Subsidies Policy Coordinator at Climate Action Network Europe<\/strong>, said:\u00a0\u201cThis is the point where leaders decide whether Europe\u2019s budget actually matches Europe\u2019s ambitions. You cannot promise energy security, industrial resilience, and climate preparedness while cutting the investment needed to deliver them. At the very least, leaders must protect the climate and environment spending target and make sure EU money no longer finances the degradation of nature and the fossil fuel dependency Europe is trying to overcome.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

2. Will EU money be allowed to fund environmental harm?<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n

The EU\u2019s \u201cDo No Significant Harm\u201d rule (DNSH)<\/strong> is supposed to ensure that projects receiving European money do not create serious damage to the climate or environment. Put simply, EU funding intended to strengthen Europe should not pay for projects that lock countries into fossil fuels or cause major damage to nature. That is not only a matter of environmental protection, but also of sound financial management.<\/p>\n

The rules have improved during negotiations, but exemptions already exist for areas including defence, migration, border management, and military mobility. In addition, the Commission\u2019s draft exclusion criteria contain numerous loopholes that could still allow environmentally harmful investments, including some fossil fuel projects, to qualify for EU support.<\/p>\n

Faustine Bas-Defossez, Policy Director at European Environmental Bureau<\/strong>, said: \u201cEurope\u2019s \u2018summer of truth\u2019 came with a staggering price tag. Extreme heat alone could cost the EU economy an estimated \u20ac180 billion in 2026. With nearly one million people signing the Hands Off Nature petition<\/a>, the public\u2019s message is clear: protect our environment, don\u2019t weaken it. It is time for EU leaders to start looking up and start acting. Sacrificing environmental ambition for short-term gains will only make the next crisis more costly. Europe\u2019s next long-term budget must be part of the solution, not another missed opportunity.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

3. Will nature and LIFE funding be protected?<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n

The latest negotiating text gives more recognition to biodiversity, but there is still no guarantee that a specific share of the overall budget will go towards nature. The Commission\u2019s proposal merges climate and environment into a single combined target and drops the dedicated 10% biodiversity target in place under the current EU budget. Without a share specifically set aside for it, nature spending is certain to be deprioritised in the next budget.<\/p>\n

At the same time, LIFE, the EU\u2019s only programme dedicated specifically to nature, environment, and climate, is set to lose its standalone status under the Commission\u2019s proposal. Instead, its activities would be split across larger EU funds without dedicated funding.<\/p>\n

LIFE should be restored as a standalone programme with its own dedicated budget. That call already has significant political momentum: the European Parliament has backed dedicated and predictable LIFE funding, while environment ministers from a broad group of Member States have voiced support<\/a> for the programme.<\/p>\n

Anouk Puymartin, Head of Policy at BirdLife Europe<\/strong>, said: \u201cRight now, Europe pays twice for the ecological disasters we are increasingly facing. Activities that fuel climate change and ecosystem collapse continue to be subsidised, with intensive farming taking the biggest share, while governments cut back the natural infrastructure that protects us from floods, drought, and heatwaves, such as the LIFE programme. The proposed budget cut spares the harmful subsidies and leaves even less for climate and the environment, just when we need more. Every euro should be judged on whether it reduces tomorrow\u2019s climate and economic bill or adds to it – a point underscored by ministers\u2019 calls for dedicated funding for nature at the Environment Council.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Carl Richter, EU Budget and Public Finance Policy Officer at WWF EU<\/strong>, said: \u201cA headline target tells us how much the EU will spend on climate and environment combined but reveals nothing about how much of it will reach nature. Unless leaders ring-fence a share of the budget for biodiversity, the answer will be close to nothing. While investments in nature continue to be wrongly seen as ‘not profitable enough’, the climate and nature crisis escalates and demands urgent action. Healthy soils, wetlands and forests are our cheapest defence against droughts, floods and failing harvests. Parliament has understood this and is fighting to keep at least the ambition of today\u2019s budget for biodiversity. The Council should follow its lead, not quietly let nature fall off the table.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

4. Who will pay for Europe\u2019s priorities?<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n

The debate is not only about how much the EU spends, but also where the money comes from. New EU-wide sources of revenue can reduce pressure on national budgets.<\/p>\n

The Commission has already proposed some new EU revenue sources, but what is missing is a tax on the colossal profits of the fossil fuel industry. A permanent tax of this kind could raise significant revenue for the EU budget, helping families and companies through the transition away from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

5. Will leaders cut the overall budget further?<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n

Governments are still under pressure to reduce the size of the next EU budget. Further cuts to the proposal would leave less money available for priorities governments themselves have set, from energy security, industrial resilience, and sustainable agriculture to preparing Europe for worsening climate impacts and restoring nature.<\/p>\n

Major cuts to the budget would also put the 35% spending target itself at risk. Even if the percentage is kept, 35% of a smaller budget is a smaller amount. And with a smaller overall pot, Member States would receive less money from the EU budget and might be less inclined to contribute to that 35% goal.<\/p>\n

Till Eichler, Public Investment Policy Manager at T&E<\/strong>, said: “Ireland’s latest proposal for the MFF is bad for Europe. While it protects national envelopes for Member States, the cuts hit those areas of the budget that focus on strategic European priorities and shared public goods: from financing environmental protection, to strengthening cross-border energy and transport infrastructure and promoting innovation across Europe. Cutting the core of the modernisation agenda, the European Competitiveness Fund, by 13% weakens Europe’s ability to develop and scale future technologies at home for durable prosperity. The Irish proposal is symptomatic of the lack of a positive, joint vision for Europe among our leaders.”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

ENDS<\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Brussels, 13 October – EU leaders will meet this week for a decisive round of talks on the bloc\u2019s next seven-year budget for 2028\u20132034. These negotiations [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"featured_media":119568,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[537,1032],"class_list":["post-120978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-mff","tag-life"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Carrousel-Cover.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120978","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120978"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120978\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/119568"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}